Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 30 (26th Legislature, 2nd Session)

26-2-30

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly Of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable A. W. Harrison Volume IV No. 30 February 29, 1960 2nd Session, 26th Legislature . Printed by R. S. Evans. Queen�s Printer for the Province of Manitoba, Winnipeg

"DAIL Y'INDEX Monday, Febmary.29, 1960, 2:30P.M. Introd\lction_of-Bills: Nos. -98, 102 ............. ·-·-· .•.. ·-·-·· . ·-·-· ...... .... ... · ·--· ·-·-·- ----·-·-· Stateme!iire--T.'It., M •. Can:oll .••..•. _. _ ...• .• •.•.. _ ..• ·-··· ···-· •.••• _. ···-··-·-·- · · •• .• ..•.• •• .• . Bi1162 ie Metro (M. Rob_bn): M. Wri,ght ................ ....... ...................... . -- M. Prefontame .... .• .. .•.. _ ........ _ ._ .... •....... •.. .. .. _ ... •.• . .. _. ·- · ..•• ... _. Mr. _Qrlikow , M. Gray .. .•..• ................ •.. ... .•..•.. .. ... .•. ·-·-···-·-·-· ·-·· M. Froese, M.

Froese ••. ........ ..... ••.. ..... _ ., ._ •... ;_ .... .••. ... ..• •.• .. M. Roblin . ........ . ... ........ _ ....... . . ....... _. _._ .... _ .. •. .... ·-·-· . . ....... _. Division •.. ............................ _._ ......... .. ••. ..... ••. .... .. •... Bill 48 re Dis_crimiii.ation.(M. Lyon) ...... .......... .. ........... .. .. .. .. ... .. . ........... . ------M •. Gray .••..•. ....... ••..•... .. .. .• ..... .•• •.. ...... .• _ •• _. ·-· ·-· •. .•..... .. .. _. M. Qrlikow . ...... ...... _ •.•. .•. _. _ .......... .. .•.•. _ .... _ .. ..•... _._ •.•..• .• ..... . M.

Hawryluk, M .• ·Froese ...... . .. .. ....... _ .... _ ..... _ .. _ . . ·-·-· .... •.. •.. •.• ·-·-·- M. _Ly on ...... •.. .....• ..• .......... .••. .•.... ...• •..... _ ...... .. ... .. .• .• Committee of Supgly _ Health ;;md Public Welfare: He_illth.Serv:ices ... •.. .......... •... .•.. ... ••. ... .1025 ..1025' .1027 J:029 1036 . .1038 .1039 .lCM7 .1047 �Hl48 .1049 .10 5.0 :1.051 .1052

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o'clock, Monday, February 29th, 1960 Opening prayer by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions Reading and Receiving Petitions. Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees Notice of Motion Introduction of Bills. The Honourable Member for Os borne. MR. 0. BAIZLEY (Osborne) introduced Bill No. 98,

An Act to Provide for Certain Exceptions to the Lord's Day Act (Canada). HON. STEWART E. McLEAN (Minister of Education) (Dauphin) introduced Bill No. 102,

An Act to Amend The Public Libraries Act (2). MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. HON. MAURICE E. RIDLEY (Minister of Municipal Affairs ) (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day I would like to table the first Annual Report of the Municipal Board for the period for the year ending December 31st, 1959. MR. M .. E. McKELLAR (Souris-Lansdowne): Mr.

Speaker, before the Orders of the Day I would like to inform this House 'that Saturday and Sunday the Legion curling play-downs for Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario were played in the Town of Souris with President Jim Nicholson and members of the Souris Branch #60 acting as hosts. Eight rinks represent ing their eight command zones played off for the Marsh Peters Trophy, and the Gordon Taylor rink from the Rivers Branch winning out. They will be the. representatives from this command at the Dominion Legion curling finals at Summerside, P. E. I.

I would like at this time to congratulate the winning rink and wish them continued success in their games at Sui:nmerside. Saturday evening I had the pleasure of attending a wonderful banquet in the Oddfellows Hall in Souris in honour of their guests, which is served by the Ladies Branch of the Souris Legion. HON. GEORGE HUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) (Rockwood-Iberville): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day I would like to table a motion to an address to the House of February 22nd, on a motion by the Honourable Member for St. George. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. HON. J. B.

CARROLL (Minister of Public Utilities & Labour) (The Pas ): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day I would like to lay on the table of the House the Annual Report of the Municipal and Public Utility Board for the year ending December 31st, 1959, and the report of the Workmen's Compensation Board for the year ending 1959. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to comment very briefly on a newspaper report appear ing in the Winnipeg Free Press Saturday, February 17th, dealing with TV. MTS blamed for delay in north network. I bring this

article to. the attention of the House and wish to suggest that it's unfortunate that it has been published in view of the fact that it contains a great many inaccuracies that I feel should be cleared up at this time. MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of t.'le Opposition) (Lakeside): ........... on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We're quite aware I'm sure, according to the Rules of the House, that a statement by the Minister concerning government policy or something of that sort is quite in order but I would submit toyou,Mr.

Speaker, that if the Honourable the Minister is making a statement dealing with a newspaper report, if you allow him to make that statement that it would be only proper to allow us on this side of the House to also speak on the matter, because I'm quite sure it does not come under the heading of statements which can be brought up by the Minister before Orders of the Day. HON. STE RLING R.

LYON (Attorney-General) (Fort Garry): ........... on a point of order, of course, the Minister or anyone else may at any time on a question of privilege rise and speak to the House in connection with certain material which may have appeared in a news paper and the contents of which he wishes to correct. Particularly is that so in the case of a Minister of the Crown. I think perhaps that is what my honourable. colleague is attempting to do. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, if it is then I would submit to you that there is not a question of privilege involved. HON. DUFF ROBLIN . (Premier) (Wolseley): Mr.

Speaker, if the House will hear the February 29th, 1960 Page 1025

( Mr. Roblin, cont• d) .. .•.• statements I think the Minister will conclude his comment cin tbis by making a statement as to government policy with respect to this matter so that it would come under the rule in that case. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I submit on a point of order that it would not come under the rule in that case. I further submit that if the Honourable Minister is going to make a statement arising out of a newspaper report then that we have the right to debate it too. MR. ROBLIN: It's not a question of debate, Mr. Speaker.

It's a question of setting the facts right and stating what government policy is in this matter. I think that it is in order on _) those grounds . MR. CA MPBELL: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I'm sure that you are more familiar with this than the rest of us but the question of a statement of government policy which can be made before the Orders of the Day is a statement of government policy that has appeared for the first time and is not in connection With a newspaper report that has alleged some fads regarding a policy. MR.

RU SSELL PA ULLEY (Leader of the CCF) (Radisson): May I suggest to the pciint of order, Mr. Speaker, that where the Minister rising on a point of privilege of an incorrect statement attributed by the Press to him then it becomes a point of privilege, but I must agree with the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition that in this case it would not be a point of privilege, and I also agree, however, that if the Minister wanted to give a statement of policy which may be in direct opposition to the

article that appeared in the paper then it would be but on the point of privilege I think is incorrectly taken, arising out of a newspaper report of February 17th, and again I suggest that the point of privilege would be, had the paper misquoted the Minister. MR. ROBLIN: Well in that case, Mr. Speaker, there's nothing to prevent the lVIinister from making his statement of policy which he could do. MR. CAMPBELL: .........• ••.. agree with that so long as he does not include the newspaper article. MR. CARROLL: Mr.

Speaker, I believe that the statement of policy would have very little meaning in this House if it did not refer to certain mis-statements which have appeared in the Press and I feel that this is certainly as much a part of my statement as the statement itself. Now appearing in this newspaper

article it said that the .. ...• MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I raise the point of order if my honourable friend is going to continue with the newspaper report. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member confine his remarks to policy and if the policy ...... . MR. CARROLL: I'd be very glad to confine my remarks, Mr. Speaker, to the statement of government policy with respect to television. Mr.

Speaker, I believe it was announced first in this House about a year ago that the _ government were pursuing a policy of expansion of television service and we would make avail"' able for that purpose the services of the Manitoba Telephone System on a long-term contract basis. And this would include the write-off of that equipment over a substantial period of time.

The period of time which is considered normal by the Trans Canada Telephone System and other communication systems is a period of 15 years and this is the policy which the MTS are using in any rates which they may be quoting for the extension of television service. In connection with the extension of this service, the CBC will undertake to provide net work services, providing it meets their policy and their policy at the particular time appears to be in the order of eight to nine dollars per television home.

And this is the extent to which they are prepared to participate at this time and insofar as our system will meet these require-" ments then we will co-operate with-the CBC in the extension of this service. Now recently it was announced that the CBC were applying for a television outlet in the City of Edmonton. We of the government have taken action on this particular announcement and have protested the extension of this service, as long as there are areas in our province which do not have the television network service. Our negotiations with the CBC have continued for the past year quite actively.

We have just recently been in touch with the CBC - - in fact this morning we were discussing their policy of extension in our province and we are arranging to meet with them at an early date and we expect that within the next two or three weeks to be Page 1v26 February 29th, 1960

(Mr.Carroll, cont'd) ...... meeting, possibly in Ottawa, to discuss our further ·actions with respect to television. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. Orders for Return. The Honourable Leader of the CCF Party. MR. PAULL EY: Mr. Speaker, I formally moved this motion the other day and at the request of the Minister of Provincial Secretary it stood pending the return of the Honourable the Minister of Public Utilities. Do you wish me to formally make it again or .... MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreeable that the order stands? MR.

PAULLEY: But it did stand pending the return of the Honourable the Minister but I can formally present it again, Mr. Speaker, if you so desire. I just don't know how this stands. MR. SPEAKER: ...... .. ...•. necessary to stand it again. HON. GURNEY EV ANS (Provincial Secretary) (Fort Rouge): I wonder if you would consider, Sir, that the motion is properly on the Order Paper following the last session of the House and that it might be in order for me to say that I have consulted my colleague, the Minister. of Public Utilities; he has no objection to the return and we're glad to accept it. MR.

PAULLEY: Then I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it just pass. MR. SPEAKER: .... .••.. have to put the motion again. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Fisher than an order of the House do issue for a Return showing: 1. Copies of all correspond ence directed from the Public Utility Board and/ or The Province of Manitoba to the National Energy Board in respect of the export of natural gas. 2. Copy of all briefs presented by the Utility Board and/or The Province of Manitoba in respect of the above to the National Energy Board. 3.

Answers to the question, 'Was there any representation made to the National Energy Board regarding the export of natural gas by the Utility Board, or the Province? If not, why not?' Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the motion of the Honourable the First Minister. The Honourable Member for Seven Oaks. MR. ARTHUR E. WRIGHT (Seven Oaks): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few observations on the second reading of this Bill No. 62, especially since having heard the other night from the Honourable Member for St. Boniface.

And I can well appreciate his feelings because of the constituency that he represents, but I would like to talk about my constituency L'l relation to this proposed bill. When we were asked to submit a brief to the investigating commission we said at the beg;..nning that we did it with mixed emotion because in our community of Seven Oaks we had very rapid expansion from 1946 to 56. A period in which we asked our taxpayers to provide for schools over short term; the paving of streets, sewer and water mains and the like, which placed a very severe load on them.

We would appreciate and congratulate the government for their initiative in sponsoring this bill but we have certain reservations about it and this is what I really wanted to talk about. For instance, we notice at the beginning that while the government is taking the initiative it is not contributing in setting up this Metro Government, nor will it continue to contribute after it has been set up. The matter of voting too, is of some concern. I feel like the Honourable Member for St. Boniface that the multiple vote system would not. be agreed to by our people -- they would prefer the sing le vote I'm sure.

I think the matter of boundaries is of utmost importance and we await with interest to see just how these will be made up because I think that much of the success of the Metropolitan plan, especially in the immediate future, will be the wisdom with which these boundaries are arrived at. Another mat ter of concern to us will be the matter of the fiscal year because it says that the Metro authority can assess any municipality at the beginning of the year regardless or not whether they have collected the taxes and have imposed a penalty of 1% per month against this corporation that fails to contribute.

And we would, I'm sure, suggest that the fiscal year be changed say to April, instead of the first of the year, because very few municipal corpora tions ever have their tax notices out before April -or May. So that would be something else that we would certainly want to look at. In regard to the Honourable Member for St. Boniface and the attitude that he took February 29th, 1960 Page 1027

(Mr. Wright, cont'd) .•... towards this Bill, I would say this.

There's going to have to be a lot of give and take in this matter and I can think of no better thing-to quote than a quotation we made in presenting our brief from West Kildonan to the investigating commission, and it was, as I said before, it was with some reluctance that we were even interested in considering submitting a brief at the beginning because we had gone through such a period of building and heavy taxation that -- I might say at one time we had considered when we had practically noth ing, it would have been a wonderful thing for the City of Winnipeg to simply have annexed West Kildonan, but having provided n:ew schools, roads, lanes, and having a community which is fully improved today, it is with a lot of hesitation that we view this business of metro.

Now we know that we should have a metropolitan authority when it comes to parks because we all share them. The same applies to bridges --we are going to use them; we wouldn't expect that East Kildonan should be the only contributor to a bridge which we are eventually going to use so we go along with that and our brief says that accordingly.

Now we did use a case at the beginning of our brief which was taken -- this case in point was an applica tion by the City of Brantford for the annexation of 7900 acres of land from Brantford Township and the Board approved the application over the strong protests of the township. '!A Municipal Corporation does not exist for its own sake", and I'm quoting, "it is created primarily to pro vide and maintain essential local services required by the area which, for the "time being, is included in its boundaries. It has no claim to the lands in that area which is comparable to the interests of the owner.

If conditions in that area change to the extent that the municipal services required can be more effectively or economically provided by an adjoining municipal ity, nothing is lost or gained except the duty and responsibility of providing the necessary services. If the cost of supplying these services is less than the tax revenue derived there may be_a loss in one sense, but is it a loss which gives the remaining municipality any just cause for complaint?

In the present case the vital question is not whether one municipality or the other has a greater need for the area in question; it is much more a question of whether the area needs one of the municipalities more than the other." That was a quote from the ver dict of the courts in regard to the annexation of that property. And we said in our brief that we were impressed with the wisdom of that decision and in looking at this question of metro - as I said before, after having gone through this trial period of heavy costs we're trying to see its wisdom. Now another thing I would like to mention, Mr.

Speaker, is that in the suburbs we have had some very very dedicated and devoted public servants. I don't think we could have made the progress from 1946 to 56, those tremendous ten years, had it not been for dedicated people. And having talked to them about metro they go along with the idea very well because they real ize it is an unselfish principle that eventually we're going to have to have metro as long as the cost isn't too great for the next few years.

But they are very concerned as to what• s going to happen to them personally -- people we have -- our Fire Chief, Police Chiefs and our assess ors and that -- they're very anxious to know and I would submit that we should do everything possible to let these people know just where they are going to fit into the picture.

Now I know that• s difficult but I think we should make every effort to do that because it would seem a tragedy to me too ,after having had the pleasure of working with these devoted people who as I said before are really responsible for the great growth around Greater Winnipeg, that we should .let them know where they will fit into the picture. Now the Honourable Member for St. Boniface said that he didn't think there was any room for co-operation between the municipalities and metro and he stressed the fact that we should have the inter-municipal committee.

Well, we've had that for the years that I was in public life. In 1946 we had seen the wisdom of putting in the water lines from Shoal Lake -- 100 miles on an inter-municipal basis -- and I think it's wise that we should include this into the beginning of metro because we have things like the Sanitary District, the Mosquito Abatement, Civil Defence and the like now, which is practically on a Metro basis. But I don't go along with him that we should still continue this on an inter-municipal basis because after all we are growing up now and I might submit to the Honourable Member for St.

Boniface that while I can appreci ate.his feelings in regard to his city, which he has every right to be proud of, I would like to s27 this very definitely, that in my opinion, had we had a Metro authority when the North Star Oil Refinery was contemplated for that area, it simply wouldn't be where it is today. Because Page 1028 February 29th, 1960

(Mr. Wright, cont'd) •.•••. I told my good friend the late Ed Hansford on a-trip to the Mayor's Federation in Windsor, I said, "Ed, you know, you have done irreparable damage to the City of Winnipeg in the Elmwood district by placing that oil refinery there. And while you consider it to be on the outskirts of st. Boniface, had we metropolitan authority for planning in Greater Winnipeg, that would not have been possible." And these mistakes will happen if we do not have an overall metro government.

On my visit to Toronto to study metropolitan government three or four years ago I went to Scarborough and looked at some of the problems they had there. Well we haven't arrived at the point here where we have acquired all these problems, but we will, and we should learn from the experience of others . For instance, in going there I was soon to find out that Scarborough enjoys a lakefront and the water rights , so that, I believe it was York, is it -- North York, when they wanted water they could only get it at the pleasure of Scarbor ough.

And, on the other hand, when Scarborough wanted garbage disposal sites they had to go to North York and ask them for disposal sites. So there was a continual bickering and fighting, one t:cying to take full advantage of what they had, until the metro authority came in and like a mother with a bunch of quarrelling children, decided what was right, and I submit to the Honourable Member from St. Boniface again, what was right for the whole area not for one or the other, but what was right for the whole area.

Well we're growing up here now, and when we see our improvement in roads ai'ld by passes and the like in the greater metropolitan area, it seems only sensible that we are going to. eventually have to have some metropolitan control. I appreciate the start that the govern ment has made on it.

I would have reservations about taking in police and fire at the present time, not because we don't think it would be the right thing to do, but because we think that by taking in police and fire immediately we would place greater financial strain upon our taxpayers who have been so wonderful in accepting these burdens of taxation knowing full well that for education and such like that we had to have these things.

But we must remember too that in developing our community over the 10 or 12 years that I was there that we, in many cas_es, had people who had pioneered the district, had raised their families and put up with lack of sewer, facilities, roads, and then when they were on old age pension they foimd the community around them improving to the extent when the cost practically drove them from the community which they loved so well. I would say that having now paid for all these things and making a cc.nmun ity of which they· are proud, we should be a little reasonable.

I don't think that we, at the present time, require the elaborate police requirements of the City of Winnipeg. I know we need a metropolitan detective force because we have set it out in our brief. We cannot expect local police forces to investigate such things as bank robberies or criminal cases and this could well be turned over to a metropolitan detective force. But for the ordinary by-laws of a community which is predominantly residential, I think that the present efficient forces that we have now will do until we get our bearings.

Eventually I think yes, we have to have metropolit!!ll; services, police and fire, but I do think the government have, in their wisdom, not included these. Now having said that, Mr. Speaker, I don't think I can add any more to what-- to once again appeal, especially to the Honourable Member for st. Boniface, that I can understand how he feels now but I think if he VD uld look ahead 10 or·12 years from now that he would real ize that what is best for the whole area is what we should be doing. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. E. PREFONTAINE (Carillon): Mr. Speaker, I rise to take

part in this debate and I would like the honourable the members to believe that I am doing so with the full know ledge that it is a very important subject. I would like to approach it with the point of view as recommended by the First Minister that we should take a large and constructive look at this proposal that the government has before us. And it is even more so because of the fact that I happen to represent in this House a rural constituency where the matter is of relatively small , importance. I realize, on the other hand, that as an elected MLA I have a duty to perform.

This is; to my mind, the most important legislation that has been brought before this House for a long, long time. It involves the way of life of more than half the people of this province. We have before us a bill that proposes-to impose on the people of Winnipeg a form of government that is new, that is untried as far as we are c<Jncerned, that is costly and that eventually will lead, to my mind, to complete amalgamation. And I for one do not believe in February 29th, 1960 Page 1029

(Mr. Prefontaine, cont'd) ....... complete amalgamation. I have studied the reports of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the report of the Ontario Municipal Board when they established that system for Toronto. I have studied the report of our own Royal Commission. I have studied the brief presented by all the municipalities in this area to the Royal Commiss· ion on Education.

I know that in curtain jurisdictions commissions have recommended amal gamation, with respect to Calgary, with respect to Edmonton, with respect to Brantford, but; to my mind, I think that amalgamation for our situation is not good and I wholly agree with the statement made by the First Minister the other day, and I would like to quote it because I believe it is very important: "I must say that there is room for argument with those who believe that centralization in itself is a good thing, that centralization in itself is the virtue that is to be sought.

Well, I can say that one must admit there is an argument for economy in complete centralization. Let's say there is an argument for economy. It doesn't· necessarily follow that it will be realized and there is also an argument that a certain degree of technical efficiency will flow from 100 percent metropolitan government. But I think one has to consid er very carefully whether or not that arrangement is worth the sacrifice that would be entailed in respect of the local authorities that we have now, because these local authorities are not just creations of the Legislature.

In the course of time they have come to have almost a corporeal body and soul, that they have a distinct personality of their own and that they have a life and a history and a tradition which has become part of the life and history and tradition of the people that live in these particular areas. And there is a virtue in local effort and in local enthusiasm and in local sentiment which are very important human values which one does not want lightly to do away with in legislation of this sort .11 This is page 667. And this, Sir, I agree wholly with. It's much better stated that I could state it myself.

I would like to quote from the Ontario Municipal Board with respect to the Toronto situation. They decided against total amalgamation in the Toronto area and here is a quotation from them: "On the whole the Board must agree with the main contention of the respondants" that' s the 13 municipalities - "that although the type of government proposed by the city " : that•.s am.algamation - "might be strong, efficient and well organized, it would not be a local government ." Before this the Mtmicipal Board had praised the municipal men from the · surrounding municipalities who had made presentations.

I might quote one sentence, "Nor can the Board in any way agree with the somewhat cynical view that the appointed and elected officials of the local municipalities were, after all, mer.ely protecting their own positions." The Board heard the evidence and observed the demeanour of a succession of apparently compet ent and intelligent local municipal leaders a.nd officials and it is convinced on the whole evidence that they were all genuinely alarmed at the prospect of the complete dissolution of a form of government which whatever deficiencies with respect to the need of the larger area, was in 1heir view, serving an important and useful purpose in providing the kind of local government needed and desired by the local commun ities.

And I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that we must preserve local autonomy to the greatest possible degree in this metropolitan area and that we should not take at this time, a step that would lead us directly to total amalgamation and I do believe that the step we are taking now, if this bill is passed and approved, we are taking a step that will lead us directly towards total amalgamation. And this is an opinion that seems to be shared by those who have studied the bill closely. Of course if we did go into - if this means total amalgamation we can say that we were warned by the experience of Toronto.

Metropolitan Toronto is oound to disappear, seems to be the opinion of many observers. When they went to the system of metropolitan government in Toronto they had nothing compared to what we have now in Manitoba. They had no single inter-municipal body to take ca.+e of water and sewage and transportation. They had nothing at all. And the brief of the City of Winnipeg pre-sented to the Royal Commission on metropolitan government states exactly so, that Toronto was not in the situation at all that we are in over here.

In no city of any size like the City of Winnipeg and its suburbs has there been closer co-operation. There are ......... services that are rendered on an inter-municipal basis in this city. And what's happening in Toronto? The first year after the plan was adopted in 1954 amendments were made by the Legislature to include more services. The second year three very important services were added· arid put under the powers and responsibilities of a metro government. And may I quote from the Winnipeg brief and the title is "Toronto Experience . Page 1030 February 29th, 1960

(Mr. Prefontaine, cont'd) ..•.• With Metropolitan Federation." "Discussions with officials both elected and appointed in the Toronto area are very enlightening. The opinion seems to be almost unanimous that while the 1054 scheme aff ected improvement over the previous unco ordinated structure, nevertheless in less than three years of operation several important weaknesses have become apparent. Many officials both elected and appointed have expressed the opinion that it will be only a few years until Toronto abamons the two-level system and sets up a single administration for the whole area.

It is clear that opinion in Toronto is con cerned mainly with discussion of the desirability of moving from their present structure into a complete amalgamation and that a considerable body of opinion holds views favourable to amalgamation." That's the situation down there. What prevents total amalgamation is the type of government set up under Metro Toronto because all municipal councils are represented on the administration of the set-up down there. It has a tendency to keep the thinking along local municipal lines and this is not proposed at all in our Bill.

The man in charge of the metro system in this area will be elected at large with no contact, no connection at all with local councils. That means that the people of Winnipeg will be led to believe that to think in terms of the whole Greater Winnipeg area, it will slowly but surely pave the way towards total amalgamation. I would like to quote from a member of the Conservative party, the man who moved the address in reply to· the Speech from the Throne . I suppose he was just fresh. from caucus meeting; he had something to say with respect to metro government.

And I quote from page 8 of Hansard, "T he government has had the courage to provide the leadership necessary to start this project, new to Western Canada, and so essential in my opinion to the long-range well being of the people of Greater Winnipeg. The government's plan for providing Metropolitan Government to the Greater Winnipeg area is in my opinion a good one and I think one which all members of this House will approve." There was an interjection; a member said ''What is it?' "Mr. Groves: That we will be letting you know later on." That we will be letting you know later on. I insist on the "we".

"Improvements I am sure will come from our dealing with the details in Committee. Newspaper reports tell us that all services will not be brought under metro, that some will be left out." He knew that from newspaper reports, apparently, o;:o he didn't want to tell us if he knew it otherwise. To carry on my quotation, "Let us how ever keep this in mind.

If we leave out political considerations and inter-municipal jealousies and rivalries, surely we must all agree, looking at this problem from the common sense point of view, that Greater Winnipeg is not too large to be governed eventually, and I emphasize eventually, by one authority." There's one sentence that I might read but it doesn' t concern the context very much.

"Not amalgamation or absorption of the suburbs by the City of Winnipeg but a 50-50 parmership of both for the ultimate benefit of all." But here is the most important sentence: "I sincerely believe that, with the proposed legislation as a start," - a stage he might have said -''the benefits of one administration in time,w:ill be apparent to all the councils con cerned, and I predict their co-operation in establishing ii1. this Greater Winnipeg area a model of municipal government that will be copied many times by others in the years ahead." This is an indication to me that at the caucuses at that party, it was evident that this would lead to total amalgamation.

And I would like to qtiote from the Winnipeg Free Press of Thursday, February the 18th, 1960; a two-column editorial with the title, "One City''. And this is after the First Minister read his announcement in the House.

"The Roblin Government has taken the long step toward creating a single government for the Greater Winnipeg area." And at the last paragraph is this one: "Other metropolitan plans on this continent makes little or no provision for ultimate single city government, yet this is the logical goal and the path toward it is one which every last Canadian and American city must eventually follow if they are to be efficiently governed. Mr. Roblin and his colleagues have evidently recognized that fact and for this they deserve full marks." What fact? That all cities should lead towards this goal of one govern ment.

I might quote also from the Winnipeg Tribune; our good friend Mr. McGillivray has something that is quite illuminating in this regard. "By giving the Winnipeg Metro Council direct election for a four year. term, the Roblin pl-an should make Winnipeg Metro a constant reminder that all the municipalities are part of one community." To me this is the ilpportant thing. We have a system proposed to us of administration where the municipalities themselves February 29th, 1960 Page 1031

(Mr. Prefontai ne, cont'd) ... ..•. do not come in at all. Absolutely independent and divo rced from the local municipaliti es . And this will make the people think in terms of a big city . This is paving the for a big city . I agree with the Free Press; I agree with the previous sp eak- j• · ers, the Leader of the CCF Party, that this is really paving the way .

No other city has done the same and it will not be long, to my way of thinldng, that we will have total amlilgamation, but to my mind this will have cost the Greater Winni peg taxpay ers a lot of money because we are entering into a system which will be very costly. Within a year Metro Council will have to rent a huge building , a big build ing, or construct one to house all the assessment evaluators and their planners and their engine ers. There might be some duplica tion , there is some dup lication in Toronto.

And this Council to be composed of some 10 members elected at large is given the widest power that I know of. The City of Winnipeg was not given those powers by this Legislature at any ti me . They'll be just elected, on what program I don't know, but they'll be given a blank cheque, they will be given the power to ask every local municipality to collect taxes for them. I supp ose they will be subject to a certain app roval by the Municipal Board but they won't have to go to taxpa yers, to the ratepayers at all. And this power has not been given in the Province of Manitoba to anyone that I know of.

This will be the first time . . Absolute powers by 10 men. These men will be elected without consideration to local municipal boundaries at all, elected at large. And I say that this is altogether too much of a power to give to these people and it's contrary to our established system of government in this provin ce . And I say the term of four years, it's altogether too long. We have a term of four or five years in this Legisla ture but we are opera ting under the party system which is altogether differ ent.

The Cabinet Ministers have to have their estimates app roved by this House, and this is a check and this keeps the Ministers on their toes. But under the other system there is no such check; it's only the electors� We have a system now in the city, the election every two years, so that the electors can at least check the actions of their representativ es. But to sugg est a four year term for these represen tatives, represe nting 45, 000 people . I say it's wrong. And I say that there 'll be no continuation. Suppose the 10 are just defeated at the same time, what would we have?

Just officials operating the Metro system? This super-governm ent in our Greater Winnip eg area, I do not think that it is right . There are other objections that I would possibly like to bring. The power with respect to this area of 5 miles surrounding Winni peg, with respect to the use of the land.

It seems to me that it's illogical that Metro should be given the power to tell the farmer that he cannot build this or that building on his farm, that he cannot sell this land or at least the purchaser will have to before buying the land, go to Metro and find out whether he can build something, a motel or something on that land. Is not a man the master on his own land, in his own home any �ore in this province? This seems to me a very arbitrary power that is given to this · Metro. The Metro, it is made clear in the Bill, that it will be sup er other municip alities with respect to finan ce .

Financ ially independent of local-authority, but local authorities will not be fina ncially indep endent, because they won't be able to borrow money without going to the municipal board and at that time Metro will be there and raise objections . Suppose they wanted something which to them is just reasonable but it mi ght ap pea r to be unreasonable to Metro. They will have , in a sense, in a way, the power of veto. With respect to schools, the school board will not be able to build a school where it wants to at all. It will have to get the app roval of Metro.

And it will not have the power to build the type of school they would like . Of course they have to submit their approval to the Minister of Education if they want to get grants, but now with respect to money, they will have to go to Metro and Metro might say well, this school would cost too much; our ratepaye rs, because they are ratepayers of Metro, are at the same time the ratep ayers of the school boards and the municip alities. Metro will have priority over every municipality in this Greater Winni peg area with respect to fi nance.

And it will have that power without going to ratepayers at any ti me, according to the Bill; can do it on their own. And I think this is going too far, Mr. Speaker. I do not ap prove of that . With respect to assessment. That might entail the curtailing of the powers of the mun icipality , the assessment and the powers these parties have now to relief from taxati on, certain bui ldings at their pleasure. Now they will be deprived of that authority. Metro alone will be able to do that. Mr. Speaker, thi s Bill goes much further than many people in this province thi nk, m any reople in this area.

And I say that we should not pass it ligh tly:-! say that it Pa ge 1032 February 29th, 1960

(Mr. Prefontaine, cont'd) ••••.. should not be compulsory on the people oithis area. Now, it might be that the representatives of Greater Winnipeg might have something to say or might be called to order or their conduct on this vote now might be challenged by their electors when the time comes. But what about the rural MLAs taking U:pon themselves the responsibility of saying to 450,000 people in this area, that's what will take place -a second level of govern ment and aren •t we governed already enough in this country of ours?

Federal government, provincial, municipal government, school boards and how many others? Oh I know, there's an answer to that but I say that there is a cure to the certain difficulties which are not so great and this cure has been recommended by the 10 municipalities in their brief to the Royal Commission on Metro. And I will discuss this solution in a few moments. And there is anoth er way out to my mind, and I am speaking, truly recognizing my position in this House. I'm not tied up with respect to my constituents, with anything they might say to me.

I am facing the problem as I see it and I say that we should not approve of this bill, at least in third read ing, before we provide a chance to the people of this Metro area to express an opinion because this is grave responsibilities, it leads directly to total amalgamation and that will come about before very long. I said I was against total amalgamation. I'm against taking a train that leads me directly to some spot if I don't want to go there, because after we have passed this legislation and started the Metro system it will not be possible after four years to retract and go in another direction.

We'll be in it for good. And I am sure every member of this House knows it, that we won't be able to retrace our steps. And I say that the 10 municipalities who presented a brief, and a good brief, to the Royal Commission, recommended a plan. You will see it on pages 43 to 50. A proposal for metropolitan administration of certain services. First paragraph, first chapter, "Services which should be administered by metropolitan auth ority. That would mean that these municipalities would delegate their powers.

Subscribing municipal corporations "-- I am quoting-- "are prepared to agree to delegating the administra tion and control of the following services to such an independent metropolitan body. "They had recommended a metropolitan body to replace the present commissions in those administering on a metropolitan basis certain services. It's no use to recall all these services. The members lmow what these services are.

Chapter 3- proposal for the structure of a metropolitan auth orit-y. Now this is a proposal that does not deserve the status quo. It is something new, some thing better than it is at the present time, something that I recommend to all the members of this House to read and study before they vote on this bill, if there is a chance to do it . It's a f.illy digested and considered suggestion for the administration of these services, and I say that this is what I would prefer if I were a taxpayer in this metropolitan area.

Common services to be administered by common municipalities with common assent of the people in the area. And I think that would be the solution that would solve the problem the best as far as I am con cerned. And I think the people of this area should have a chance; there should be a referendum in this whole area; three questions should be asked. Are you in favour of amalgamation now the City of Winnipeg plan ? Are you in favour of amalg��mation eventually1 the Roblin plan ? Are you in favour of common. services by common consent and common administration, the plan of the ten municipalities ?

I say this is not the status quo • It is something better and something that we should give the people a chance to decide for themselves especially us members who come from rural Manitoba. Now I said that this should go to the people, after we have tried to improve the Bill, because lam concerned, four year term for these ten people I am dead against. I say it's totally wrong; bureaucratic, dictatol'ial. · Our leader and my leader has suggested that we should try and improve the bill. And then he suggested there should be a referendum. I agree with him fully.

And I would like to quote from a presentation made to the royal commission by the rural municipality of Assiniboia: "The report states that its recommendations should be carried out without a referendum." And in support of this it says that "a referendum is merely the means of passL,g the buck on the part of those elected to office." Referendum is defined in the Oxford dictionary as the referring of certain political questions or of such questions under certain circumstances to the electorate for direct decision by a general vote on a single qt1estion - on a single question.

What more imPortant political question could there be than the type of local government that should be established in a metropolitailc or amalgamated area of Greater Winnipeg? Tbis method of a February 29th, 1960 Page 1033

(Mr. Prefontaine, cont'd) ...•. referendum in determining political questions of such magnit ude is a common practice and is well known in Canada, and particularly in this province.

It is by way of referendum that the people who have a stake in a particular question are informed and it Is in this way that elected officials who proposed the referendum are required to provide the information to the electorate in order that. an informed vote can be made. · "I do not tPJnk --" and this was the reeve speaking, "I do not think I would be in error to state that 99% of the people in the Greater Winnipeg area do not know what is contained in this report" -- by the way, he was addressing himself in that report.

The same thing would be true if it was addressed to the bill before us and more so --"and have no realization as to what the result would be if the recommendations of the report were to be put into effect. The municipality of Assiniboia therefore emphatically states that no changes should be made as contemplated by the report." I would repeat, if he were speaking today he would say- ''the Bill, without a referendum being held.

In this way members of the various municipal councils would be required to inform the residents of their respective municipalities as to what is contained in the report and how it would affect them .11 I would say the municipality of West Kildonan took the same stand, suggesting a referendum too. And I would say that it is most important that matters of such magnitude should go to the people. And I would like to bring the House back to you the year 1951 when there was a big question before the people of the City of Winnipeg, the question of Plan C.

The older members will remember that at that time the Government of the Province of Manitoba was dealing with the City of Winnipeg, after it had received a recommendation from Dr. Hogg, famous Plan C - the City of Winnipeg was ready to go ahead without a referendum. (In terjection). Yes, let's see what happened then. A great paper, the stand a great paper took at that time, a great paper that today says that there should be no referendum on this more important problem, I should say.

The Free Press paper of 1951 -" Unworthy Excuses" is the title, and editorial: "Before discussing the various excuses being made for not submitting the proposed purchase of power facilities, transportation and garage utilities to the electors of this city either by way of a by-law or a referendum, a plain statement is in order. The public should be under no misapprehension as to what is involved.

These dodges for ,going over the heads of the elect ors are evidence that there is an understanding between the Provincial Government and a group of members of the City Council to set aside the provisions of the city charter, put there to prevent this very kind of thing from happening and to shove through the largest and costliest deal in the history of this city. This is indeed important business. If ever the electors of Winnipeg should insist upon exercising their sovereign rights under the charter of Winnipeg to pass upon such expenditures, the time is now.

SurelY'', continues the article, ''no _sensible person on or off the city council would suggest seriously that a delay of thirty days in the present power proposals will make any appreciable difference." The same thing applies here. My suggestion to this that we might need a referendum will not delay anything.. "Mayor Coulter takes a somewhat different position. He declares that the power proposals are so complex that it would take a very long ti me to educate the public for a referendum. The average citizen, he says, has little understanding of what is involved. This is indeed a surprising statement, and if Mr.

Coulter were not well and favourably kno.wn, it might be regarded as an affront to. public intelligence. But, surely again, Mayor Coulter is not speaking seriously. If he is, then there wo.uld rest upon himself and his colleagues the heavy burden of responsibility. Upon his own testimo.ny of Tuesday they have been dealing with this matter for a long time. Why in all this time," says the Free Press, "have responsible members of council been going about with adhesive tape fastening their lips? Why was council engaged to create their decision on the power deal as late as last Friday?

What sort of government are we getting in this community? Is it responsible government or is it a form of dictatorship? Who is the boss, the electorate or a junta of know-it-alls at City Hall? (Interjection -" or the Free Press?'? "A referendum by a by-law or a by-law on the power proposal is essential", says the Free Press. MR. SPEAKER: Order. Is the honourable member expressing his own opinions, or the Press' opinions? MR. PREFONTAINE: I am corroborating my opinions by .......•• I think I have a right Page 1034 February 29th, 1960

.. ··-- -- " (Mr. Prefontaine, cont'd) •••••• to do that. And two days after, lo and behold, City Council changes it's mind. It agrees with the Free Press and by a majority of 10 to 5 decides to call a referendum on the matter.

I will quote shortly, but this is to corroborate my opinion: "For reasons which will enlist the firm support of a great majority of the electors of this city, the power issue proper must stand aside until the City Council's recommendation for a referendum to the ratepayers has been confirmed. · Until this point is reached the question in this issue is not-power but rather a respect for the rights of the people . The 10 to 5 majority for a refer endum in the City Council at the emergency on Thursday was by no means a vote on the power bill .

Some of the members who comprised a majority declare they are in favour of the policy of the Provincial Government, and other considerations apart, would gladly see it adopted fortbwith. Their vote for a referendum was a recognition by them that under the charter of the .City, and in keeping with sound principles of government, it would have been an indefens ible ahuse.of power to pass over the ratepayers .

Thus the vote in City Council was really a vote for good government and in this regard it should be said that never since the inception of Winnipeg has the City Council done a better day's work than it did on Thursday. "So much for the 10 members of council who carried the referendum . What of the others?

The 5 members of council whO voted to commit the citizens without their approval to an outlay of fro:m $25 to $30 millions" -- this is small potatoes with respect to the amount of money that Metro would spend in four years - "i n addition, would have delivered the consumers of electricity into the hands of a complete and irresponsible provincial power monopoly, were - those who were responsible -- were either CCF'r s or communists . The communists, of course, are invariably on the alert to cause as much trouble and dissatisfac tion as possible . Their votes are quite in character.

But the CCF might have been expected to have more appreciation of the rights of the citizens and of the fundamentals of good govern ment. These CCF votes go to show how devoid of common sense socialists are whenever their particular bee starts buzzing in their bounets. These are times of war and near-war when people tend to become tired and apathetic. These also are time s when principles of good govern ment are under constant attack all too often by our all responsible public lead ers. Therefore all the greater responsibility rests upon elected persons to apply and to defend sound principles . of government.

The consequences of failure are certain. Our institutions and our way of life increasingly will beco:me undermined. The majority of the City Council earned the respect and gratitude of all for their decision on Thursday." There is another step that I would like to tell you about what happened. The Chamber of Commerce of Winnipeg passed a resol ution at that time· recommending to City Council that they should ignore the rate payers and just go ahead with Plan C, and the paper says May 12, i9 51, "This is an astonishing position for the council of·the Chamber of Commerce to take." J.\offi. SPEAKER: Order.

You are going pretty far with The Free Press . You're going quite a long way with the Free Press articles . Yes, but you should debate your own opinion of this, not the Free Press' opinion. MR. PREFONTAINE: Will the House give me the privilege of just one more quotation? (Interjections) "T here can be but one reason for this resoluti on. The council of the Chamber of Commerce is of the opinion that the electors of Winnipeg are unfit to govern themselv es, too stupid to understand the issues involved in this power problem . The.

Chamber council· lacks faith in the intelligence of the capacity of the people of this city to rule themselves in the trad itional democratic way. The council in this resolution urges the City Council to violate the very provisions of the Winnipeg charter which were placed there for no other reason than to protect the people in just such matters as this power deal ." Thank you, lV"IT. Chairman, for allowing me to 8peak, or tO read this • . Mr. Speaker, and members of this Legislature , this is a very important issue.

As far as I am concerned, I do not know whether by voting for second reading I woilld vote for the approval of this bill without a referendum because I would note "no"; If this is a major or essential feature of the bill - - and I would like the First Minister to tell me so before I have a chance to vote on this bill because as far as I am personally concerned I'm speaking for myself alone -I say that if the "no" referendum, the compulsory feature of this bill is essential to this bill, the -First Minister told us the two essentials , the central planning authority and the central control of certain services - they are "musts" and will not be considered law amendments -- February 29th, 1960 Page 1035

(Mr. Prefont.aine, cont'd .) .• .•.• but if this angle, the vote of the people , or doing away with the vote of the people is also an integral part of the Bill, I say that I will vote "no" when the time comes. Otherwise, I would be willing to let it go to the Committee, let us improve the Bill as much as possible and then let us give a chance to the electors. And I feel they are not informed at the present time about this Bill. They have a general opinion. They read the newspapers, both newspapers of favouring this Bill.

They don't want the status quo and I am not supporting the status quo, I'm supporting the recommendation of the 10 municipalities ... But these people of this Greater Winnipeg should.have a chance and must have •a chance to ex..: press an opinion. I don't see it in my heart to just ram this thing down their throats because they are the people who will have to pay, and net myself. Thank you Mr. Speaker . MR. DAVID ORLIKOW (St. John's) : Mr.

Speaker , this isavery important Bill, important to the people of Greater Winnipeg area, important to the members of various councils who represent them , importantto the members of this Legislature from the Greater Winnipeg area, andindeed, importantto the people of thewholeprovince. I think there isnobody in the GreaterW innipega reawho has thought about the problems of growth, who has not realized that we cannot any longer continue with the divided jurisdiction which we have had up till now.

There are to day as there never has been over the years , serious division of opinion as to whether we ought to move now into total amalgamation with one government or whether we ought to move into some form of metropolitan government. These differ- . ences have existed. They still exist and I suggest to this House , Mr .Speaker , that they will continue to exist. I think that this Bill which is proposed by the government is afirst attempt tomeet the problems which have arisen andwbi chm ustbe met.

I think to suggest that none of the answers are given as the member who has just sp:>ken seems to suggest, is nonsense . I think that there will be many people who will disagree with some or many of the provision of this Act. I for one have an um ber of questions which I will want to have answered. I have a number of suggestions which need to be made. I am certain, Mr. Speaker , that the municipalities will not be quiet.

I am certain that when this Bill comes to the Law Amendments Committee that far from being quiet, we will find it difficult to give them the time to make their respresentations which they will want to make. I want to suggest to the Honom:able Member who has just finished that they will be there and that they will tell us what they thin..k, so that I am not worried that this thing will be rushed through without the knowledge of the people. I want today , Mr.

Speaker, just to deal with one question which the honourable member who had just finished spoke, and that is the belief on his part that a referendum is a "must". And I want to go back to the matter which the honourable' member raised the illustration he used, and I do it because I was a member of city council at that time. I was one of the five members who had the courage not to be stampeded by the Winnipeg Free Pr ess, and I want to say, Mr.

Speaker that I have never regretted the position which I took because the arrangement which had been made at that time, the tentative arrangement which had been made between the government in which before , -- the member who just spoke before was then a Cabinet Minister; and the committee representing the city council of Winnipeg, was an arrangement which have brought benefits to the people of Winnipeg and to the people of the whole province.

And because the city council of Winnipeg lost its courage in the face of a few editorials by the Winnipeg Free Press we are suffering today and have suffered · every day since we had the stupidity to permit a referendum on this question. Now I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I do not believe in referendums. I never have and I don't today and this is why I voted then against a referendum and this is why I rej ect the suggestion made by the member from the Liberal group. Surely, Mr .

Speaker, the whole essence of parliamentary democracy as we know it in the western world and in this country is that the people elect government, they elect representatives to represent them , to decide issues, and the whole purpose of elections at intervals of one, two or four years is that if the govern ment of the opposition members make mistakes, and undoubtedly they will make mista.�es , that the people can register their disapproval by eliminating those people who have made mistakes and electing new members . Mr . Speaker, we have a Federal Government, we've had Federal Governments which took us into war.

I suggest to the honourable member that the question of war or peace is far more important than the question of metro government for the Greater Winnipeg area. Is there anybody here who would suggest that every time we get into difficulties on the federal field -- we got into two world wars in this part of the century--is the honourable member suggesting every time we get into a possible war that the government should call for Page 1036 February 29th, 1960

(Mr. Orlikow, cont'd. ) ••••• a vote or a referendum of the people? MR. PREFONTAINE: May I ask the member a question? Does the honourable mem ber not know the difference between the party system which applies to ·a sovereign government and the municipal system of administration? MR. ORLIKOW� Mr. Speaker, I would suggest firs t of all there is no basic difference in the principle and secondly! suggest to the honourable member, Mr . Speaker, that I reject completely his suggestion that municipal government necessarily must be non-partisan.

Now I think that in this country we could well follow the example of the British where on the munici pal field just as on the national field, the parties nominate and elect canditates . Iw anttogetback though, Mr . Speaker, tothis question of the referendum. The Federal Gove�ent spends billions of dollars, I forget justexactlywha.tthebudget this year is , and nobody suggests that there be referendums before the Federal Government spends moneyfor currentor capital expenditures. We here in this province are going to spend something over $100 , 000, 000.

The government is proposing this Legislature will approve or reject it 1 and at sometime in the future there will be in the normal course of events there will be an election and the people ofthis province will decide whether they are satisfied with the government factionsor not. And! suggest that a very similar case can be made in reference to this particular matter. This government is proposing a Metro Bill. The· members of this House on that side and on this side will be called upon to .vote on it. I'm a m em ber from a Winnipeg constituency, Mr.

Speaker, Ip resumethatifl run again, one of the questions on which I will be called, on which I will have the work which I have done evaluated will be this ques tion. If there are people who feel that my vote hurt them my vote apropos metro, they have the option when I run again to elect another member. And it's part of my record and part of the record of every member in this House. There are members in the municipal council who will be making respres entations to the Law Amendments Committee if this Bill goes to the House.

They will be speaking for this Bill or they will be suggesting what we need a total amalgamation, or they will be suggesting that we continue with the status quo as it has been up to now. They won't have to wait till three years from now. This fall, this fall, Mr. Speaker, some of them, if not all.of them.··will be up for election again, and people who disagree with the stand they have taken will be able to nominate other candidates and to elect other candidates. And I want to say, Mr.

Speaker , that I for one say that it is the duty, the responsibility of an elected representative whether he sits in Ottawa or whether he sits in the Legislature here or whether he sits in one of the muniGipal coun= cils to face up to his responsibilities, to vote the way he believes, ·&'ld to go to the elec"toi's and justify it. And ! for one do not intend to shirk my responsibility, to be afraid tliat 1 may not be re-elected or that I may be defeated by asking the electors to instruct me . I will vote on this matter or on any other matter, Mr.

Speaker , as I believe it is right and proper, and the consequences will follow naturally. And I suggest to the members on that side, Mr. Speaker that they follow a similar course. · MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR. MORRIS A. GRAY (lnkster): My leader and the othel' members of our group have made our position very clear and I have very little to add with one exception. I feel that this metro -- at least I feel and hope -- will succeed. And I would not want my grandchildren to ask me later if it is a success, or a failure, where were you at the time this matter was discussed?

Now, it is the duty of a government -- and we cannot quarrel with them -- to submit any kind of legislation which in their opinion they feel is essential and for the welfare of the people of the province . So after study they have reco=ended this famous Metro Bill. They were perfectly right to do it. And it's worthwhile trying. If it succeeds, it will be history .making for at least half of the population of the province, and the half of the population in the industrial area and half of the population where they have so many sections of government and industry and con densed population.

In other words I think that the government has a full right to do it, and as outlined by my leader, I'm going to support it. And if it fails, it is not the Law of Moses, even the Law of Moses has been changed from time to time , and I think it is worthwhile giving it a trial, vrorthwhile to experiment. And I thin."k it will be a change; in my opinion, to the good. My only hope is thai; this will not now, and in the future eliminate to some degree the election- the opportunity of giving the people to elect and be -elected, because as after all as my colleague from St.

John's has said a minute ago, it's the people that are judging their respresentatives, and the representatives of course , are here for the purpose o:f Ul!ling their good judgment in February 29th, 1960 Page 1037

(Mr. Gray, cont'd.) • , ••. everything that in their opinion is good. And I hope that this will go to the committee and I also have marked down a numberof questions as to each section, or to some of the sections. But impressible, I'm going to support this to go to second reading; MR. E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhead): Mr . Speaker, I don't rise to take

part in the de bate . I merely wish to ask the First Minister when he thinks this Bill will reach committee as it's rather important that if I could find this out. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker , I will answer my honourable friend in reply to the debate that has taken place in the House . MR. SPEAKER: •.•.. closing the debate? MR. SCHREYER: Mr . Speaker, I might say this then that I understand that the First Minister would like this Bill to get to committee by Wednesday.

I hope this isn't the case -- be cause two municipal councils have asked me to plead with the First Minister if necessary, to try to postpone this until at least Friday or Monday of next week. MR. ROBLIN: Mr . Speaker, perhaps I could •... yes. MR . JOHN P. TANCHAK (Emerso n): I was going to adjourn it unless---the Leader of the House doesn't permit that so I'll be very brief. I want to express my opinion of this. I wish to congratulate the Honourable the First Minister for providing leadership in this House.

He took a definite stand in this matter as Leader of the Government and Leader of the Party and I think it's his duty to provide leadership and it is the duty of most government men and even the legislative members to provide leadership to a certain extent but sometimes this leadership may lead the people astray; I do not say that the leadership of the Honourable Minister -- I'm not referring to him but we know that in the past we have had leaders in different places, different states, some of them were good, some led their people to prosperity and freedom ; others led their people to oblivion and into slavery; but I'm sure however that the honourable the First Minister is very sincera in what he -- in his leadership and I wish to congratulate him on that again.

But there are 57 of us members here in this House and we are being asked to impose a new. plan of government on the people of the Metro area of Greater Winnipeg. Now out of these 57 members as was stated before by the Honourable Member for Carillon there are only some 20 odd that are directly - I'll use the word 'directly'-responsible to the people. of the are a concerned but we are all asked to decide on that and to provide leadership in the House .

If the electors feel that members of this House did something that they did not agree with then they have the privilege at the next election to show their displeasure with actions of the MLA's but I am in full agre ement with the Honourable Member from, my colleague from Carillon, that they are not, they cannot show the same displeasure as regards rural members are concerned because on an election count they can't as easily get at them as that.

Now for this reason, this is one reason that I feel that although we are asked to provide leadership , I feel that we are not directly res ponsible to these people and I feel that we should -- tha t the people should be given a chance of a referendum a vote on this . Tha t's one reason and another reason which I think was also men tioned by our leader, the official leader of the Opposition is that we are taking away from the people of this area the privilege which they have had in years , the privilege on voting on a money referendum, money by-law referendum. We are taking it away from them almost forever.

It has almost become a tradition with these people , the people of Manitoba and I wouldn't speak for the rest of Canada, so for these two reasons unless there's a change made in committee, for these two reasons, I feel that I'll have to oppose this bill unless these changes are provided for. I thank you. MR. J. M. FROESE (Rhine land): Mr. Speaker , I would like to support what the Honourable Member for Brokenhead says that this matter of closing debate on this Bill be de layed.

I, too, would like to discussthe Bill with some people yet and I haven't had a chance to do that, therefore I would like to see that this adjournment be delayed yet • • • • • , ••• , • continued on next page . Page 1038 February 29th, 1960.

MR. ROBIJN: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate, I should like to first ·of all to answer the questions that have been put to me about timing, and say that officially we are hoping to send the Bill to Law Amendments Committee for Thursday because I believe that there may be some people who will be prepared to make representations in the committee on Thursday and it is our aim to give the longest possible pe:tlod of time in com mittee to make sure that all who have an in terest in this to have a chance to say what they think.

Now because it goes to the committee on Thursday doesn't mean it will be disposed of on that day. Far from it. It is my vi�w that it will probably remain in committee for a number of days. Who can say? Offhand, possible a week or ten days. I fully expect that it might well prove to be the case.

Certainly I can give an undertaking that it will not come from the committee, provided that the committee agrees with this view- -that it will not come from the committee this week, so that anyone who has re presentations, we'd like those who are ready to speak on Thursday, but we will hold it in the committee over the weekend at least to make sure that people do have time to prepare what they have to say.

And my guess is that if we have the number of representations which I am led to expect we will have, that it may be in the commitee for some time so I trust that meets the point of view that was raised by my two honourable fri ends across the way.

Now Sir, I would ordinarily have adjourned this debate in order to perhaps reflect a little longer on some of the comments that have been made but as I will not be able to attend the House on Wednesday this looks like--seemed to me that it's desirable that I might perhaps proceed right away, although we' ve had s0me very weighty and interesting arguments adduced in connection with the matters in the Bill. And perhaps it would suit my purpose here if I were to start with some of the com ments that were made by the Honourable Member for Carillon.

Now let me say that for the edi fication of members that have not his experience, that there were two rules of the House which I think he breached and I thought it was not advisable to interrupt him at the time because it might be thought that I didn't want those points discussed, which of course that is not the case, but I think that he breached the rules in referring to a debate on the subject already concluded in this House previously, namely the speech by the Honourable Member for St.

Vital. · I also think he breached the rules in quoting an editorial, a recent editorial reflecting upon the debate now in process in the House . The old editorials Ithinkwere quite allright to read butid o notthink it was right and in accorda.D.ce with the rules that he should have read that one because we are not allowed to read newspaper comments reflecting on debates in progress m· the House. So while those points are really not terribly important I think that for the sake of the record that it's just as well that we try to ob serve thos e two rules in the future.

Now I think the Honourable Member for Carillon's contri bution to the debate is valuable because he has, I think by what he says, forced us to go back to the very beginnings of the development of the policy that we have before us now, because he ha's challenged the very basic assumptions on which this legislation is proposed and I can't see how he can possibly bring hims elf to vote for it no matter what promises I might give him. I think we may confidently expect that he will oppose it and in view of the statements that he has made, I certainly think he would be right to do so.

But he goes back to the first principles of this piece Df legislation and as I stated on introduction, those first principles are that there should be a centralized planning authority for this area and that there should be a centralization of certain services which were themselves essential for the carrying out of that planning author ity in the correct way. Now that's the first decis ion you have to make when you approach this legislation. Do you believe that the situation has reached the point where those two principles apply to the prob lem that we have in hand? I don't think my honourable friend· does .

But, all the best advice we could obtain points in the other direction. We've had a Royal Commissi on that sat for three and a half years; we had a Royal Commission which heard the most voluminous comment from all who were interested particularly the municipal governments concerned. We had a conference of municipalities . One that they convened themselves; one that was convened by the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Prior to that we had a provincial-municipal committee set up by the previous administration which suggested something like this should be done and foll0wing directly on that there was the Metropolitan Investigation Committee composed of the very muni ci pal bodies who are concerned in this Bill themselves. And that is somethirig we must not lose sight of, that the initiating force that started this whole proposition going was the municipalities , of Greater Winnipeg themselves. They are the people who said some changes are necessary. February 29th, 1960 Page 1039

(Mr. Roblin, < cont'd. ) . . They are the people who tried to ,solve the problem themselves and failed. They. are the people who said there should be a Royal Commis sion. --(interjection)- They have a plan, too, and I'll come to the plan before l!m through, but we must admit Sir, that no one disagrees, as far as I can see , no one, except my honourable friend, disagrees with the two principles of this Bill that there should be a centralized planning and that there should be a centralized control of services . Now I see he shakes his head.

Well I'm going to ask him about that, or perhaps I can deal with his possible objection that I can see forming in his mind before I'm through. But I want to say that we accept that principle. That's the first thing we do. Now when we've done that we have to decide whether this principle shall be mandatory or whether it should be voluntary and that's the second great principle that you must face up to when you deal with this problem. And again we have to consult the nature of the problem, the recomm endati ons of the Royal Commissi on and everything that's concerned in it.

And we find out that had it been possible to make a voluntary arrangement why would we have had all this trouble ? These problems aren't for you. Why would we have the Royal Commissi on? Why wouldn't the muni cipalities have settled it among themselves? Heaven knows they had the opportunity to do so. The years rolled by and on each one of those occasions they had the opportunity to introduce the voluntary principle into these particular things . And they came to us and they said in effect, we agree on the principles but we can't agree on how to implement them.

We can't agree on a vol untary basis as to what should be done. We can't solve that problem and I think that fact in it self makes it evident that if the legislation is to be worth the paper that it's written on, if it really is to be a contribution to the problem that faces us , we have to decide right at the begin ning whether it's voluntary or mandatory.

And I think that when we consider the experience of the last few years, the difficulties of the municipalities, the fact that they themselves have asked us for the solution to this problem , being unable to find it themselves, I think we have es tablished a pretty fair case that the thing won't be worth the paper that it's written on unless it is a mandatory plan rather than a voluntary one.

So that's the second decision you have to make, and that's the second principle that's in this Bill, and I say to the honourable gentleman opposite that if there are any there who believe that the voluntary principle should rule, vote against this Bill because the voluntary principle is not in it. It is mandatory insofar as these certain services are concerned. And we might as well face right up to that. All right, Mr. Speaker, if you followed my logic so far you a;rrive at the next big questi on you have to settle. What machinery will you use to give effect to this mandatory plan.

Well Sir, if you reflect upon that for a minute or two I think you will see that every democratic prin ciple there is tells you that it should not be the commissi on form that my honourable friend sug gests opposite.

Now I want to say, and I say to him frankly that I appreciate his point of view because I'm opposing it does not mean that I do not recognize the sincerity of what he has to say and the consideration he has given to this problem and I want to tell him frankly that we had the same debates ourselves as to whether we could possibly arrange it by a commiss ion rather than in the elected form that we have decided upon. But we didn't see how that could be possible be cause how can you give to a commi ssion who is not responsible to the electorate the wide powers that this Bill contains ?

How, for example, could you entrust them with the expenditure of pub lic funds whether it's by borrowing of money or in any other way unless it was by the elected form of government? There had to be some way that the people of this comm unity if they did not like what was being done could make their will effective insofar as this municipal organizati on is concerned. And it seems to us that we had to insure that the membership to that body that was in charge of this matter should be an elected one, and that is why we've had it in this way in the Bill. MR. L. DESJARDINS (St.

Boniface) : Would you, the Honourable Minister permit a question please? What would be wrong with an inter-municipal comm ittee composed of alder men elected in different municipalities. Those people to be elected Mr. -- ? MR. ROBLIN: Well, Mr. Chairman, haven't we got something much the same in many of our boards and commis sions today? I think we have, and if my honourable friend will turn to the Royal Commiss ion investigation they will find a very thorough consideration of whether or not we should continue with fuat form of administration.

A very thorough consideration and it seems to me Sir, that if that plan that my honourable friend speaks of was working, why on earth did the municipalities come and bother us at all? Why di� they come to us in the first Page 1040 February 29th, 1960

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd. ) .. place to say that something better had to be devised. It seems to me that that question must be faced. Why did these people com€l when they had in effect what my honourable friends are asking for in certain important services ? They came because it didn •t work to their satisfaction. That's why they came, and that's why we've had to develop som ething else. My honourable friend says "no" but there they are and the Royal Commission goes into this in a very thorough fashion indeed.

Now Sir, I think I dealt with the main points that my honourable friend asks us to con sider and I think they are extremely important points and that anyone who wants to understand the. Bill and the policy has got to face up to them and decide how he stands on them. The first is that the principles on which the Bill rests, the principles which I have stated are the ones which guide us. There is no quarrel--! can find very few--p erhaps my honourable friend who don't believe in that. The second thing is should it be mandatory or voluntary? I've given the arguments as to why we have said it must be mandatory.

And the next thing I would. like to say, once having decided that, what type of machine would you use, the commission system or the direct election? And I've given you the reasons why we think the direct election system is one that must govern in this case. Now my honourable friend also raised a number of other important points and I may not cover them all but I would like to just refer to a few that I noted as he spoke. First of all he speaks of the enormous powers entrusted to this board.

Well I think members should recognize this, that what has actually happened in this , that the powers of the City of Winnipeg for example or of other communities like that, had been split in two generally speaking--had been split in two, one layer has been peeled off and given to the metropolitan body; one layer remains and is the responsibility of the present municipal structure, so that in our view that we have not devis ed a whole set of new powers and authorities which we of the Legislature are delegating or giv ing to this metropolitan body, nothing of the sort at all.

What we have done, and I think I can say as a general statement this is correct, what we have done is split the powers in two and one set we have transferred to the Metro, the balance we have left with the present municipal author ities. And in these questions we have in that way I think one can say that generally speaking the powers that are conferred on the metropolitan area as a whole are much the same as the powers they presently have and are presently available to them.

I don't make that as a sweep ing generalization applicable in all cases , but I do say that it does have merit and should be con sidered when discussing the question of the powers that have been devised for this metropolitan body. Now, there are a number of other points that my honourable friend raises but I won't cover them because they're really--if one deals with the main principles that he was attacking, one covers the other powers that are in there as well.

But I suppose I should say a thing or two about the point that was raised by the Honourable the Leader. of the Opposition and the Hon ourable Member for Carillon and others on the question of the referendum. Now again, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it. This is a very difficult question to decide and to be sure of what the right answer is . A very difficult question indeed, and this is one to which we, too, have given the most careful consideration as to what course that we should follow should be the best one.

And we have decided and I must say that I've heard no arguments to convince me that we are wrong so far though there may be arguments that I have not heard, we have heard noth.!. ing so far that convinces me that we should abandon our present plan and that we should include a provision for a referendum in the present legislation. Reference has been made to Plan C.

Well you may have your view about Plan C, but I can say this thl!t as far as my memory goes Plan C resulted from a Royal Commission that was developed by a technical study of certain matters and that technical study was evolved within the bosom of the Royal Commiss ion more or less and became their recommendation to the government of the day. MR. PREFONTAINE: Question. What about the referendum with respect to the estab lishment of school divisions in the Province of Manitoba? MR. ROBLIN: That's a very good point, and I'll come to those types of referendum in a minute.

Under this Royal Commission there was however a most thorough examination of a public kind where we had an opportunity to fully inform ourselves on those particular matters and it seems to me that there .was a full enquiry nnt merely from the technical point of view as to whether amalgamation or any form of central management was a good thing economically or from any point of view like that, but a thorough development of all the powers that were involved February 29th, 1960 Page _l041

(Mr. Roblin, · cont'd. ) .. of all the matters the 'public wanted to speak about and the honourable members will know of the very elaborate briefs that were presented representing all points of view on this particular matter. Now it seems to me that if we have followed the line of logic I'm trying to lay down about the principles on which the bill is based and the question of manda tory versus voluntary and on the question of elected versus commiss ion form of government, that you should then follow on to make the next decision.

And that is that we should do what is normal and usual in a legislative assembly of this kind and that is take the responsibility for the measure that we produce and for the measure that is put before the public. And I'm certain that if they don't like it they'll have an opportunity to make their voices heard, firstly when they elect the body that is going to run this thing and secondly, when the provincial election comes along. And it seems to me that most of the points made by the Honourable Member for St.

John's in connection with the theory and practice of responsible government which my honourable friend the member for Carillon is well versed, indicate that we should accept our responsibil ity in this matter, place it before the public , and give them that considered opinion of this House in respect of these important matters. And I do not think that this is something that we should place before them by form of a referendum.

Now there may be other arguments which I have not heard in respect of this matter and perhaps reasons can be adduced that have not been presented to us so far, but at the present time I think we should adhere to our usual responsibility in putting this forward as a responsi bility of the Legislature. My honourable friend said something about the school question, and it's perfectly true that we had a vote but I think there are some issued on which one has to decide that a vote has to be taken.

Schools are one, liquor is another, because of their particular impact on the char acter of the com munity and matters of that sort and it seems to me that the same kind of reason ing does not apply to the type of legislation that we have before us at the present time. Now Sir, I'm going to�see if there is --oh, yes, you can't get at the rural members, says my honourable friend from Emerson. Well on that line of argument, what do we do?

Every time we have a good piece of legislation that affects one part of the commu nity only, do we re fuse to deal with it or say it's your responsibility, or have a referendum? We pass measures affecting agriculture here , the city members haven't the slightest objection so far in voting in respect of that matter. We have matters affecting northern development, we don't say that we should have a referendum or only the people in the north should vote, because you can't build a province that way. You can't build the community of Manitoba that way.

You can't build the com munity unless we sit in here not only as rural and city members, not only as the represent atives of our own com munities, but the representatives of a whole province and I would say that any member should think carefully when exercising his ballot as a member of the whole province as the counsel of the Province of Manitoba rather than primarily the member or re presentative of his own area.

Now there are pressures of that sort and I would be the last one to deny them because I feel them as much as anyone else, but I think Sir, that we should do our best to deal with these matters as the representatives of the Legisla tive Asse mbly of the Prov ince of Manitoba, and that it would be wrong to follow the theory that my honourable friend is advancing to the effect that just because some of this legislation only affects part of the province, that we should have a referendum on it.

Now Sir, I want to deal with a speech which did not appeal to me nearly so much as the one made by my honourable friend from Carillon. I really wonder whether most of it was nec essary and I'm referring to the statements put before us recently by the Honourable Member for St. Boniface.

I want particularly to say that his reference to me, not to play God as the creator of municipalities and things of that sort was not only offensive but I would say tactless and rude and I'm very sorry Sir, that a member representing such a distinguished constituency as his should have found it desirable to use language of that sort. No one, I trust, will impute to me the thought that I am the creator of the municipalities. How absurd ! How silly ! If murticipalities are created and created they are, it is by this Legislature, of course, and we delegate part of our responsibilities to the municipalities.

And because of that does that mean that I am the creator or attempt to stand up as the deus ex machina for the com munity of St. Boniface, representing as it does the cultural cradle of French-speaking Manitobans, and I'll go farther, French-speaking people in western Canada� What a presumption, and one which I Page 1042 February 29th, 1960

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd. } .. Sir, would never, never take upon myself. The Honourable Member for Carillon at least did me the courtesy of reading my speech which dealt on that particular point. My honourable friend from St. Boniface listened to what I had to say but it was obvious that he didn't understand it. I'm sure that I couldn't say the same thing of lilY honourable friend from Carillon. MR.

DESJARDINS: Sir, on a point of order, I think I made it very clear, I even said that I was sure the First Minister did not mean it like that, and I said my first impression, my first thought was to say a word of advice please don't play God, but I did say that I was sure he didn't mean it like that and you can read Hansard if you wish. I tried to make that very clear. I just said that that was the first thing that came to my mind.

"Please don't play God", and I said that that was the word, understand it wasn't created--using that word like that--but I, as soon as I heard "creator" that's the first thought I had in mind. I made that very clear. I wasn't trying to insult anybody. MR. ROBLIN: I accept my honourable friend's apology. It's a little- MR. DESJARDINS: It's not an apology, it's a correction. MR. ROBLIN: At the time that my honourable friend was speaking, Sir, I took the op portunity to interject that he had misinterpreted me and he did not at that time acknowledge that he had misinterpreted me in any way. He-- MR.

DESJARDINS: He said I certainly did not want to. I said I remember of one word that was definitely said because I wrote it down and it was the word "creator" and I just expres sed my feelings and I think I'm entitled to that. I tried to make it clear that I wasn't trying to offend anybody. MR. ROBLIN: Why did my honourable friend not pay attention to the rest of the words of my speech in that case? He finds it very convenient to pick one out but he should look at the rest and they were read and I don't intend to-- MR.

DESJARDINS: I did, but I didn't have a copy and there's no Hansard on television and I didn't have a recording machine either. I tried to remember as much as I could. I re member the words that affected me, that made me think of something. MR. ROBLIN: Well Mr. Speaker , I'm not referring to my speech on television, Pm referring to the speech in this House when I referred, and which was read to us this afternoon by the Honourable Member for Carillon when he referred to the matter of creation, but I'm not going to allow my friend to interrupt me anymore. I'm getting on with my speech. MR.

DESJARDINS: All right, but I mentioned television and I also mentioned the date of that television. MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order! MR. DE SJARDINS: It's a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order! MR. DESJARDINS: I referred to a TV speech, nothing else. MR. SPEAKER: Order! You must accept the honourable member's explanation. MR.

ROBLIN: I would like to say Sir, that I made specific reference when I spoke in this .House giving a statement of the government's policy in respect of the municipalities, I made specific reference to the fact that while they were the creation of this Legislature and certainly they are . They also are com munities with character and a sentiment and a personality of their o\'m. My honourable friend, the member for Carillon did me the credit to read that. I wish my honourable fr:end for St.

Boniface who spoke after I did had given me the credit not only to hear what I had to say and he was here, but also to give me some credit for meaning what I had to say in respect to that particular matter. I do not believe Sir, that this Bill is go ing to destroy the character of the French-speaking com munity of St. Boniface and Manitoba. I have seen the vigour and the character is the Gelf-confidence with which that group properly conducts themselves and their affairs and I think that they will be able to deal with whatever meets them in this particular way.

I would like--(interjection}--we will come to total amalga mation if my honourable friend will just restrain himself for a while. I wonder why, if he was trying to represent fairly, the people of his com munity, why he did not deal with the powers that were being transferred in the first instance. �y he did not explain to us why the trans ferring of powers with respect to waterworks and that for headquarters only; or powers in res pect of sewage and that for headquarters only; or powers in respect of parks or of civil defense, February 29th, 1960 Page 1043

(Mr. Roblin,' cont'd. ) .. or of floods , or of mosquito control, .or of assessme nt, or of planning. How those were going to destroy the character of the French-speaking com munity of St. Boni face. I said before and I say it again that I do not think those things will follow. "Ah, " but he says to me, "this is just the opening wedge". He says to me, "this is just the beginning, wait and see what will happen". Well, Sir, I want to tell you what the poli cy of the government is in respect of that matter.

I can only speak for myself and for the government which I have the hon our to lead, but I think that I can very well repeat what is the policy of the government because I gave it to this House in my opening remarks and I regard it rather as a pity that some members . didn't pay more attention to it.

When my honourable friend the Member for Carillon was speaking, he stopped just be ::: ore he cam e to the statement of government policy, which I'll repeat, and starting where he left off I added these words : "We have taken the view that unless we were thoroughly satisfied that it was essential in the common interest that a particular service should come under central control then we should leave it where it is now. If we were satisfied that it should come under central control then we have placed it within the ambit of the legislation".

That gives the state ment of the government's policy in this respect. --(interjection)--Now just a minute, you can ask me questions when I'm through. Now I want to go on and say something about what happens after this. Where do we go from here? Well, Sir, as I explained in the House on opening day, that is provided for in the Bill, and that is, if municipalities wish to centralize. their services to a greater degree than provided for in this legislation it can be done by voluntary method--by voluntary method.

We have laid down, we have stopped at the limit of what we think to be man datory and included that in the Bill; but if next year some municipality wants to amalgamate its police services or its fire services it can be done by voluntary method; but we are not making that compulsory.

I want to say that I have every confidence that the French-speaking com mun ity of this province will continue for many years--for many years to be a cultural force as they ought to be in the life of this province, and perhaps even long after they have sent a more per spicacious member to the House than the present one which claims to represent them--(inter jection)--I would say well that would help. I would say--(interjection)--I doubt it. My honour able friend is very fond of words like "rubber stamp"; he's very fond of words like "dictator ship"; he's very fond of matters of that sort.

That's because he simply seems to lack the un derstanding, Sir, of how representative parliamentary institutions work, but if he wants to lis ten; if he wants to find out how it should be done; if he wants to find out the theory and practice on which parliamentary government operates instead of us ing his emotions when he could very well use his brain, because I know he has one ; he could consult with his leader who can give him as well as anybody in this House, I think, an authoritative statement as to how parliament ary government works .

And I say that I am convinced without ever having any conversations with my Honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition about it, that he will give him a fair and accurate statment of the facts . I'm convinced of that and my honourable friend will find out that these charges of dictatorship and all that sort of thing have no place, no place in the House, . and no place in fact when referring to the processes of parliamentary government.

And if he had the honour to be a member of this caucus, which he has not, he would have an opportunity to learn that that is not the case and that members on this side have minds of their own and haven't the slightest hes itation in informing all and sundry how they think on the various mat ters that are before them. Now, Sir, I'm going to leave my honourable friend from St. Boniface because I really don't think he 's worth all the time I've taken on him, but there are one or two other things- MR. DESJARDINS: We'll check on that. Maybe he should know an election runs too in St. Boniface.

They elected the man they wanted not yours. MR. ROBLIN: He seems to forget that-- MR. DESJARDINS: ...... you give him all the credit in the world. MR. ROBLIN: ...... St. Boniface, Mr. Speaker, he chose two other gentlemen rather than himself. I think that the Honourable Leader of the CCF Party can claim to ·speak for part of St. Boniface and the ·Honourable Member for St. Vital has a claim to speak for part of it. MR. DESJARDINS: ...... and for the caucus too. MR. ROBLIN: All right.

Well my honourable friend is entitled to say whatever he likes, but I think, Sir, that he would serve his interests of his people better if he would serve them Page 1044 February 29th, 1960

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd. ) . . perhaps in the way that the Honouraqle Member for Carillon has done over many years. He would serve them better if he applied the forces of reason and the forces of calm reflection to these problems rather than the type of address which he has been giving to this House on the occasion which he sppke a few days ago. Now, Sir, I'm going ·definitely to leave him this time--P m going to pass on--and I'm going to try and see if I can find what some other honourable gentlemen had to say in connection with this piece of legislation. :MR.

PREFON TAINE : Will the Honourable First Minister permit a question now ? MR. ROBllN: No, wait until my speech is over and then I'll try my best to deal with your question. I want to deal with the question raised by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition when he spoke of the necessi ty for continuity in municipal·government. His suggestion was that we should elect some every year. Well now, I'm not going to make any categorical expressions of opinion as to the wisdom or unwisdom of that statement. There may be some merit in it and we' ll have a chance to talk that over.

At the present time I'm inclined to think, at least for the beginning of this operation, that it would be better to proceed with a lengthier term of office be cause the men concerned are not going to bring about these changes overnight.

In fact I think it's going to take them all of their first four-year term to get the feel of things and to put these matters into their own hand, and if we have a changing membership with elections at short in tervals we may find that there's a lack of continuity in policy in respect of these matters which, while not dangerous perhaps, nevertheless might not really yield much good to the public inter est. So while there may be an argument for having this staggered election perhaps sometime in the future, I'm really not convinced that a pressing case has been made out for it at the present ti me.

Now some honourable gentleman said, "yes, and another thing you ought to do is to turn over these wards, these municipal boundaries to the Electoral Boundaries Commiss ion. We did that in the province and we should do it in this case as we ll" .. Well again I admit there is a superficial logic in the argument that's presented, but I'm really not entirely convinced that the logic is as sound as it might be.

The reason why we use the Electoral Boundaries Commis sion is because to do otherwise would place. the government of the day in charge of a matter in which they are politically and in a party sense directly concerned, namely the election of mem bers to this House. For that reason, and I think it's a rather good reason and I must again com pliment the man who. made it possible, I think that for those reasons that it was wise to have the Electoral Boundaries Commission. But we are dealing here with a level of government in which , we have no political interest of that nature.

We are dealing here with another level of govern ment altogether and one which in due course may very well set its own boundaries, so that if we work on the right principles, and I think the right principles are represention by population; the right principles are a balance between urban and suburban members in this House; the right principles call for a cros s-s ection of membership across municipal boundary lines; if we stick to those principles it really becomes a rather mechanical thing to do.

And those are the prin ciples which the administration proposes to follow when setting out these municipal boundaries. It's difficult.to see, if we accept them and stick to them as closely as we can, how we-can get into trouble or why it would not be .satisfactory to leave the delineation of those boundaries as they are in the Bill. Now there's room for argument but I say that on the face of it I rather think that there is not the weight in the objection that one might susp ect at first glance.

Now there were points raised about the excessive powers entrusted to the Lieutenant Gov ernor-in-Council, and there may be some room for change there, but if you analyze the kinds of powers which are in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council I think perhaps they sort of provide their own justification. I mustn•t refer to sections but in connection with the question of electoral divisions--we've covered that. There are 11 sections I might say, 11 different ways in which the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Cou ncil can interefere with the goings on in the Metro council.

Six of them, Sir, have to do with procedural matters like organizing the first elections and detailing the procedure in which they're to follow; guarantee of metro de bentures; and all that kind of thing which are perhaps normal in the hands of a Lieutenant-Gov ernor-in-Council. There's some ones that might be objected to, the change in municipal elec tion dates, but I think the answer to that is obvious. It's merely to meet the convenience of municipalities. The equalization of commercial revenue--well, that's going to be a pretty big February 29th, 1960 Page 1045

(Mr. Roblin, · cont'd. ) ·. • change and I think probably the power of the government that sets up this mechanism should take some responsibility for seei ng that it is done correctly, on sound principles in the first instanc e. You1 might make an argument for retaining those for the Lieu tenant-Governor-in-Council; you might send it to the municipal board. On the other hand, the municipal board is an elected body and the people can get at us every four years. We are more directly responsible, but there's an argum ent there.

On the question of bringing the various sect ions of the Bill into effect and that kind of thing, I think that those, in view of the nature of the case, that those should be left to the Lieu tenant-Governor-in-Council to satisfy themselves that all is well before those powers are ex .�.!:f�ised. So that while I'm not going to say that there isn't some room for adjustment here, I think that prima facie there is a case for the type of power that is left in the hands of the Lieu tenant-Governor-in-Council. Now on the question of appeal to courts.

Members will notice that there is an appeal to the Municipal Board and Utility Bo ard in many instances . There may be the odd place where an appeal is not provided where it ought to be. We'll look into those when we come to the secti on.

The main place where there's no appeal to the Municipal Board that members might object to is in connection with the planning powers, but after. all I think you can make an argument that when you have replaced the present planning board in the City of Winnipeg, which is not really responsible in the sense that the council is and which are the last court of appeal except in mat ters of law at the present time, if you do away with that and say well we take it one step beyond that and go to Metro Council, who are elected, who have to face the displeasure of the elector ate, and there' ll be displeasure when you bring in a planning measure of this sort, perhaps it ju st as well to give them the responsibility for the appeal and deciding on these ma tters .

I don't say that my argument is conclusive. I merely say that at first glanc e there's a strong point for it and that we'd want to take a very close look at it before we made any changes. · Now the Honourable Leader of the CCF Party made a point about the valuation of proper ty in respect of non-taxable areas and I think there's no difference of opinion between us. Per haps the Bill is not correctly worded. And we can certainly correct that because we agree with him on the principle. Tl;le question of personnel and security of tenure is an important one .

We believe we have covered it in the Bill, however, in comm ittee if members can show where we can strengh l en it or improve it in any way, naturally we'll be very happy to see that consideration is given to_ those matte rs . Well I know, Mr. Speaker, that I have not covered all the points that have been raised.

I have however given priority of place on this occasion to the speech made by the Honourable Member for Carillon because I think it was in his speech that we had the most considered and reasoned opposition to the ess entials and fundamentals of this Bill, and it seemed to me that while the other matters perhaps could be left to committee , that I would be unfair to the House if I did not do my best on hearing his speech to give him the reasoning and the logic that lay be-, hind the course that we have charted and the plan that this Bill provides for.

In my own mind I believe that the case we have made, while not perfect and open to improvement , demonstrates that the general line of policy employed in this Bill is one that the House ought to vote for. I do not think that my honourable friend has made his case that we should ju nk the structure of the Bill, which is really what he's asking us to do, and go back to some other form of govern ment or import into the Bill principles which are not there at the present time. So with all those things considered, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Legislature will in its wisdom allow this Bill to go to commit tee.

I hope that it will be on the agenda Thursday morning and we'll have a little time to decide how best to deal with it in com mittee in order to ensure that there is the widest possible representation of those municipal men and members of the public who want to have their views put forward, because I'm certain that regardless of anything else, we all agree on the need and the necessity of having that thorough and careful hearing in the Law Amendments Comm ittee. I'm convinced, Sir, that this piece· of legislation is , in the main, sound and worthy of the approval of the Hous e. MR.

PREFONTAINE: May I now ask a question of the First Minister ? He told me he would answer the question after. MR. ROBLIN: I'll listen. I hope I can answer it. I'm not sure. Page 1046 February 29th, 1960

MR. PREFONTAINE: Well I would like to know whether, when the First. Minister stated that I had stopped in my quotation of his speech, whether he was insinuating that I had purposely stopped at that particular place in order to misinterpret or give a wrong opinion of what he had said. MR. ROBLIN: No. I would make no such imputation because my knowledge of my hon ourable friend leads me to think that he is punctilious in trying to give the fair representation of the matter and that he would not lend himself to any such manoeuvre of that sort.

All I wanted to say is that in my opinion it would have set forward the whole of our position if he had contin ued the statement a little further, but I impute no ulterior motive whatsoever to him. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Honourable the First Min ister? I wonder if he recognizes that some objections might be valid for St. Boniface only. I never said that I was against the principles of this thing. MR.cROBLIN: Well that brings up an interesting point.

In answer to that question I think my honourable friend has got a point there and I hope that we don't overlook that, that the City of St� Boniface has a special character in the Province of Manitoba which must be fully re cognized in this House, and I for one trust that it has been recognized also in the legislation be cause I want to assure my honourable friend that when this Bill was drafted the situation in res pect of the City of St.

Boniface was foremost among the considerations which prompted my col leagues and myself when we drafted this Bill./1lad it not been for that situation perhaps we would have brought forward different recommendations, but I want to assure him that this has been done in good faith and in the agreement that the values represented by that community are values which are important in this community and which we wish to retain, and which we have no desire whatsoever to circumscribe in such a way as to make it intolerable for those who are concerned in this particular problem.

And that's the point where I feel my honourable friend has done me less than justice in his speech. Had he listened carefully to my remarks on that point perhaps he would not have said some of the things he did say. MR. DESJARDINS: Could I ask this other question then? Is it possible, before voting I'd like to know, that this is second reading, that this could be just mandatory except for St. Boniface. That St. Boniface could be ...... It's a question I'm entitled to. MR. ROBLIN: .I made a full statement on this matter, Sir.

I've said that the govern ment had said that the powers that are in this Bill are those which they deem must be mandatory, but when one talks about extending the Bill, then we say the voluntary principle is one which is brought into play specifically in the structure of this Bill. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. ROBLIN: Yeas and nays , Mr. Speaker. :MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. The question before the House is second reading of Bill No. 62,

an Act to establish The Corporation of Metropolitan Winnipeg and to provide for 1he Exercise by the Corporation of Certain Powers and Authority. A standing vote was .taken, the result being: YEAS: Messrs. Alexander, Baizley, Bjornson, Campbell, Carron, Christianson, Cor bett, Cowan, Evans; Mrs. Forbes; Messrs.

Gray, Guttormson, Hamilton, Harris, Hawryluk, Hutton, Ingebrigtson, Johnson (Assiniboia), Johnson (Gimli), Klym, Lissaman, Lyon, McKellar, McLean, Martin, Molgat, Orlikow, Paulley, Peters, Reid, Ridley, Roblin, Roberts, Schreyer, Seaborn, Shewman, Shoemaker, Smellie, Stanes, Strickland, Thompson, Wagner, Watt, Weir, Witney, Wright. NAYS: Desjardins, Froese, Prefontaine, Tanchak. MR. CLERK: Yeas, 46; Nays , 4. MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried. Second reading of Bill No. 48. The Honourable the Attorney-General. Hon. Sterling R. Lyon (Attorney-General)(Fort Garry) presented Bill No. 48,

an Act to prevent Discrimination against any person with respect to the Provision of Accommodation, by reason of Race, Religion, Religious Creed, Colour, Ancestry, Ethnic or National Origin, for second reading. · Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on one of those happy occasions when I can February 29th, 1960

(Mr. Lyon, cont•d. ) .. present to the House a Bill which I would hope would receive the unani mous consent and approval of this House, for it is a Bill the fundamental principle of which is to enshrine and to protect the right of all citizens in a democracy, namely equality of treatment in respect of public accommod ation and admission to places to which the public generally have access . Race and religion, religious creed, colour, ancestry, ethnic or national origin are not factors which should or ordinarily do affect this right among citizens or visitors to this prov ince.

Nonetheless, there are those rare instances where bigotry and racial or religious pre judice are manifested, and it is against such instances that this Bill is primarily directed. We are very fortunate in this province, Sir, to have a heritage of freedom which has come to us over centuries of development under the British system and under the rule of law. We are particularly fortunate to have among our present citizenry that diversification of racial and religious background which can be claimed as one of the real strengths of our provincial society.

While not so cosmo politan as other large areas or centres on this continent, Manit oba, and indeed the City of Winnipeg, have become the home of persons from practically every coun try of the world holding religious convictions which embrace the whole spectrum known to man. It is, therefore, only fitting and proper that we should, by this Act and others of its kind, ack nowL :dge and take a firm stand against discrimination toward our fellow men--that is discrimin ation which has no foundation or justification when examined by any impartial mind.

Further more, we are living today in a shrinking world, a world in which the national capitals of Europe and indeed the national capitals of the east are only a few hours removed by modern transporta tion. I would venture to say as well that we are living in a world and in times when discrimina tion of the type which this Bill attacks is an unwarranted luxury which cannot be tolerated. Now having outlined all of these facts which I consider, Sir, to be rather axiomatic, I must say as :well that discrimination and other similar aberrations of the mind are not subjects which legislation alone can cure.

We all wish for example that men and natimi.s might be law abiding, but no matter how much we legislate, man and nations will continue to do illegal acts. But this hard fact does not prevent us and should not deter us from taking those steps, however inconsequential they may appear against the world background, to create by law that atmosphere in which mutual acceptance and understanding among men of varied racial and religious back ground can be expected to improve. With the passage of this Bill, Sir, Manitoba will become the fifth province in Canada to enact legislation of this kind.

In drafting our Bill we have drawn heavily upon the contents of the Bills which are presently extant in our sister provinces. Some say that this Bill does not go far enough; others may say that the Bill goes too far. Actually, Sir, it is a distillation of the thoughts and of the legislation which has appeared in other prov inces and which certainly has commended itself to this government and I hope to all members of the House. With these few words , Sir, I do comm end this piece of legislation, this Bill and its principle, to this House. MR. GRAY: Mr.

Speaker, first let me congratulate the Attorney-General for bringing in this resolution although, in my opinion, it is not complete. I also wish to call the attention of the House that I had the honour on behalf of our group to introduce a Bill of Rights about eight or nine times which included identical--similar resolutions, and it couldn't even pass second reading. But since then, since we have introduced a Bill of Rights here, this province has on its Statute Books three of the main sections of that Bill.

At all times I have asked and begged this House, not necessarily this government, to let this Bill go for second reading, and then in committee some of the sections which perhaps cannot be passed could be eliminated, but as I say, that was a voice in the wilderness. But finally .to our surprise, years after ask ing, it had very important resolutions placed in the Statute Books which

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-2-30
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 2nd hansardpdf 30.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	156dac41c864010e6570e244054801d294af4877

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