Manitoba Hansard — 20 July 1971 (Sitting 126, 29th Legislature, 3rd Session)

29-3-126

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8:00 p. m., Tuesday, July 20, 1971 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. 2921 MR . SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees; Ministerial Statements; Tabling of Reports; Notices of Motion; Introduction of Bills. INTROD UCTION OF GUESTS MR . SPEAKER: Before we proceed, I should like to direct the attention of the honourable members to the gallery where we have 25 students of the University of Manitoba engaged in an Immersion Course of French and English. They are under the direction of Mr. Labross and Miss C.

Jensen. On behalf of all the honourable members I welcome you here today. Oral questions; Orders of the Day. ORDERS OF THE DAY - GOVERNMENT BILLS MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. HON. SIDNEY GREEN, Q. C. (Minister of Mines, Resources and Environmental Manage ment)(Inkster): Could you call Bill No. 99, Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: The proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Highways. The Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell. MR . HARRY E. GRAHAM (Birtle-Russell): Mr. Speaker, in dealing with Bill 99, really a person hardly knows exactly where to start.

A bill of this size with the number of amendments that it contains has enough information or enough amendments which have far-reaching implica tions on the lives of the everyday motoring public in the province, that there are at least half a dozen areas in which a person could, I believe, make a 40-minute speech. It's impossible to cover everything in the Act. I don't intend to attempt to do that nor do I intend to make a 40-minute speech, Mr. Speaker.

However, at this time I think it's only fair to try and attempt to lay out some general areas; these are areas of concern that I have and I'm sure there are many other members in the House have the similar concern. One of the first concerns I have, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill can only be considered to be a further limitation on the rights of individuals. Throughout the bill in various sections we find restrictions and prohibitions are constantly appearing in the various sections of the bill. Limitations and

definitions of what a person can do and what a person cannot do are apparent in numerous sections. Any legislation, Mr. Speaker, of this nature can only lead to the increased power which goes to the law enforcement people and brings us one step closer to the guardian angel type of legislat ion this government seems to prefer, and it's inherent police state enforcement practices. Mr. Speaker, these are fairly strong words, but I believe that if you study the bill, you look at the various ,3ections, you'll find that what I am saying is correct. Just to give an example, Mr.

Speaker, suddenly we find not only speedometers but also odometers are appear ing in the bill and the prohibitions that go with the tampering of odometers are quite apparent in the Act. This is just one small insignificant thing but we find throughout the act, on many many occasions, we find that there are restrictions on what a person can do and what a person cannot do and the rights of the State to enforce further restrictions on the rights of the individual. Mr.

Speaker, the second point that I find in here that is quite similar in fact to what I have already stated is the one dealing with penalty, penalty, fines and fees. Before I proceed in that, I want to at the outset congratulate the Minister where I find in two instances in the Act he has actually reduced the penalty section, he has taken out the jail sentence for failure to pay a fine and has imposed another form of penalty, where, in essence, he has said that a person's driver's license will be suspended for one day for every dollar of fine that has been assessed against him. I have no quarrel with that, Mr.

Speaker; I think the Minister is probably on the right track in this direction. I have never been one who believed in the debtor's jail and here we find the Minister is removing the jail sentence as an alternative to a fine and I commend him for it. But at the same time when you look through the Act and you find the various schedules and fees and fines being inserted in the various sections and you compare them to the

schedule of fees and fines that ex isted in the Act previously, you come up with a startling similarity that exists throughout, that we have increased fees, increased fines and

2922 July 20, 1971 (MR. GRAHAM cont'd.) .... . increased penalties; and it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it's the intention of the government to use any legal means possible to extract from the motoring public as much money as it possibly can. Now, Mr. Speaker, I've heard the Minister of Finance speaking on other occasions where he has said that he does not approve of the regre ssive fixed fee form of taxation and yet we find that we are seeing indications here in this Act of fixed fees, fines and what not in an effort to exert from the public another dollar in any way that they possibly can. Mr.

Speaker, another factor that becomes apparent when you're studying this bill seems to be the eagerness on the part of the Minister of Transportation to take on some of the respons ibilities of other departments of government. We saw previously, Mr. Speaker, where the Minister had made his contributions in the field of censorship, and now we find the Minister is trying to erode some of the authority from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. MR. GRAHAM: In numerous sections, Mr.

Speaker, in numerous sections throughout the Act we find that the Minister has introduced legislation which in my opinion, Sir, should probably more correctly be dealt with in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and come under the Consumer Protection Act. -- (Interjection) -- I refer specifically, Mr. Speaker, then, if the First Minister wants examples, where we find in the Act coming under the

section of requiring odometers in every motor vehicle and the tampering with the odometers, that I believe that this could quite properly be in the field of Consumer Protection because the reason that the Minister has this in here is not for the use of the odometer but for the recording of the exact mileage for resale purposes. There are other places, Mr.

Speaker, dealing with the Consumer Protection Act that appear in here, and they do, I think, constitute an infringement on the part of the Minister into the field of Consumer Protection which I think justly should be in the hands of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I refer here, Mr. Speaker, to the field where the Minister is requ iring a qualified mechanic to attest to the road worthiness and what not of a vehicle. I would like at this time, Mr. Speaker, to refer the House to an

article that appeared several years ago in the Reader's Digest -- unfortunately I haven't got it before me but I'm sure that many of the members remember reading it -- where a news reporter travelled across the United States and before he entered a town he would stop and make some minor adjustment to his car and then drive into a garage and ask the mechanic to fix the vehicle; and the reporting that was done on that left a person in utter amazement at the variety of excuses that a mechanic found to install anything from spark plugs to carburetors, to starters to what not, and all because the person had deliberately made one small change in the operation of his motor vehicle before he entered the town then asked the garage to fix it.

And here we find, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister is asking us to accept the word of a qualified mechanic; and I ask the Minister what he means by a qualified mechanic. I would refer him to The Public Schools Act where the Public Schools Act in their compulsory inspection of school vehicles do not require the services of a qualified mechanic, they specify a "certified" mechanic.

I don't know what the difference is between a certified mechanic and a qualified mechanic, but I can see great difficulty arising when a person takes his car which he has just purchased from say, Dominion Motors, and he goes down the street to a qualified mechanic who has just been fired from Dominion Motors and I can imagine the type of report that that mechanic could possibly present to the motorist on what was wrong with his car. Mr.

Speaker, I don't believe that this properly falls under the juri sdiction of the Highway Traffic Act, I believe that it probably should be in the field of the Consumer and Protection Act; and this ls my reason for raising it at this time. I think that it would probably be more appropriate if the Minister would leave the field of Consumer Protection to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and be a little more concerned with the activities of his own department. Mr. Speaker, there's one particular subject . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. JAMES H.

BILTON (Swan River): With all due respect to my colleague, I believe he deserves a little better consideration than he's been getting for the last ten minutes over there. If the honourable gentlemen are not interested in what he's saying, get out of the Chamber. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would suggest that the honourable member is being impertinent when he suggests members should get out of the Chamber. I think he should with draw that. Secondly, before he does that, I would suggest that all members have been

July 20, 1971 2923 (MR. SPEAKER cont'd.) .... . interjecting and having their little caucus, that they should all participate in the decorum of the House. The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. BILTON: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that little outburst but I was really concerned. I think the honourable gentlemen know better. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Birtle-Russeli. MR. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. There's one more section, Mr.

Speaker, in the Act that concerns me somewhat where I think that probably the governmen t is placing a little more than what ls required in the field of the reporting by a medical officer on the health condition of one of his patients. Mr.

Speaker, I have always been under the impres sion that when a patient went to see a doctor that his medical condition became a confidential report whlch was strictly between the doctor and the patient, and here we find the Minister of Transportation is asking the doctor to betray that confidentiality and report to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles any occasion on which the doctor, in his opinion, feels that the drl ving ability of his patient may be endangered. Here again, Mr.

Speaker, we find that in other jurisdictions, and I refer to the Federal Government, when we're dealing with the licensing of pilots, we find that the Federal Govern ment in the licensing of a pilot does not ask the person applying for a license to go to his family physician. They tell him specifically which doctor to go to, and that report then becomes the property of the Federal Government, and they keep very close check on the physical ability of a person who ls registered as a pilot. The qualificati ons are different, depending on the class of pilot's license.

I believe a private pilot has to take .an annual medical check-up, a commer cial pilot every six months, and I believe Air Canada requires one every three months. And, this, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, ls vastly different than what the Minister here is proposing and it causes some undue alarm to me, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure it does to many other people, that the Minister should be asking a doctor to betray the confidentiality that has been entrusted to him by his patient when he goes to him for medical advice. And, if the Minister persists in this, Mr.

Speaker, I can see a possible effect on the health of the people of this province because I know that I as an individual, would be a little bit hesitant to go to my family doctor if I felt I had some trouble which the doctor might divulge and I woul d lose my driver's license, and I might not receive the physical attention, or the medical attention that I probably require. This, to me, Mr. Speaker, I think leads to the possibility of a degeneration in the medical health of the people of this province. The danger is there. I don't say that it wlll occur but there is that possibility, Mr.

Speaker, and I would ask the Minister to consider seriously the question of taking out the amendment which removes the word "may" and inserts the word "shall". I !mow that the Minister has given the doctor protection under the Act which will, in effect, prevent any prosecution by the individual of the doctor for giving that medical evidence, but also, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if this would not constitute a confrontation with the code of ethics of the medical profession. The medical profession, Mr.

Speaker, have always had a very high code of ethics in the practice of their profession which has been admired by many people, and I would sincerely hope that that continues to be the case and we're not attempting to bring in legislation which wlll turn a highly professional person into an informer for government. Mr. Speaker, there are too many general areas in this Bill for one person to cover at one particular time. The implications of the insurance portion in the Act - the various sections that refer to insurance - and the effect of the Unsatisfied Judgrnent Fund changes leave many questions to be asked.

I'm sure that there are other members in the Chamber who will pursue those avenues in some detail. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I only want to express my concern about some of the implications that appear in this Blll, and I have by no means covered them all - I've just mentioned one or two. Thank you very much. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Charleswood, MR. ARTHUR MOUG (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make one or two remarks on the Bill 99. I think basically it is a Bill that creates more prohibition for the people in our province. It increases police powers.

It makes the people within the province worry about how far the powers of the government are going to be, to what extent they're going to go. It makes the Registrar of Motor Vehicles the power with nobody save the Minister of Highways above him. It puts the man - the Registrar of Motor Vehicles - the one man, that has the powers to set the Motor Vehicles Branch and govern the Highway Traffic Act to no end.

2924 July 20, 1971 (MR. MOUG cont'd.) . . . . . There's areas in this Bill that make reference to qualified mechanics. There's one that I picked out. This mechanic decides - or at least this mechanic is qualified, he's the man that decides what motor vehicle is permissible to be sold and which isn't.

This mechanic could have worked for a company and, through some, possibly an area where he wasn't fulfilling his job, could have been dismissed or he could have quit owing to the fact that he didn't like the work he was at; he could hold a grudge over the company that's selling cars; next door to the place that he worked at, he could be employed. He could be a qualified mechanic in that area. Some body comes in there with a car and says they don't like the car they bought.

He's the judge; he's the jury; he's the end word on whether that car was a good deal or not, regardless of what price he paid for it at the time of purchase. There's nothing in the Act that says who comes out against him as a mechanic and questions his ability. He says that car's no good. This could be something, maybe, that helps the small man - I question if it is.

I say that it doesn't help the small man, because if the small man goes in and buys a car for $3 00 or $400 from Dominion Motors, for instance, and the mechanic qualified in the next door neighbour's spot after the customer that bought the automobile knew this mechanic because he previously worked at said Dominion Motors, he goes over there to him at another - Consoli dated Motors - and he says, "How's this car?" That mechanic can tell him that car's no good and sign a paper to say it isn't, and this car - he goes back to Dominion Motors with it and the only way he can prove his point is to take it to the County Court.

All you're doing there to the small man is increasing the price of the used car. It's a widespread cover for the purchaser. I think that it's protection, but it's something that should be set out in the Consumer Protection Act and certainly not in the Department of Highways. I think that that will increase the cost of used cars to anybody who happens to be fortunate enough to have the money to purchase a second car or unfortunate enough to have to buy one of those $300 or $400 cars as a first car.

It mentions in another part of the Act, Sir, that the Registrar shall not issue a driver's license of any class to a person who is mentally disordered or one who is suffering from alcoholism and that condition is not under control. I have to question if the Registrar would be in the position he is today and be in the job he is today if he were smart enough and intelli gent enough to question and know and suspect and detect somebody that has a mental disorder.

And further to that, would he be in the position to say who was an alcoholic and who wasn't, and if they were in a condition that they couldn't better themselves. I think that there's an area in that very

section of the Act that was overlooked, and it's drugs. I think drugs today is far more of a problem in the Province of Manitoba than that of mental health or alcoholism. I think that the Minister, when he hit that portion of the Bill, or his Department did, I think they missed completely what they were aiming at. There's a portion of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, that aims at tires and the condition of them, the safety on the highway and of our streets. There's ways to check and measure the life expectancy of these tires.

They look at bringing out a gauge that measures how much longer you can expect these tires to be safe while using them, and there's mention in the Bill some thing about taking three measures throughout the area of the tire and they should all come up with something in the area of one-sixteenth or three-sixteenths, I think it is, of an inch on three measures. Well, I have to suggest to you that one of the greatest tire users in the Prov ince of Manitoba, particularly right in our urban build-up of Metro Winnipeg, is the Metro Transit and they specifically order their tires recapped without a tread on them.

They come in with a smooth, slick recap and they do this for reasons of tractiori on icy streets as well as on pavement, and the more economical way to do it. So I think the Department and the Minister has to give some consideration to Metro Transit and make some provision to let them off the hook. Another

section of the Act mentions the odometer and it says that, the restrictions in there, that nobody, be it the owner of the car or the mechanic, or the seller of the car, the agency that sold the car, in no way can remove or tamper with the odometer. I think that this is the

section of the Act that has to be looked at. I don't think it belongs in the Highway Traffic Act. I believe it belongs in the Consumer Protection. In regard to bumpers and energy absorption bumpers, it will be compulsory by 1973. I think this is something that we've got to realize that the Province of Manitoba with a million people versus the North America Continent with some 200 million, we've got to take into con sideration that we can't call the shot telling people how to produce automobiles. I think that

July 20, 1971 2925 (MR. MOUG cont'd.) . we've got to take into consideration that we're a small portion of the market for the American-produced automobile. The 'Big Three', Chrysler, Ford and G.M., they've agreed to have a bumper produced and available to us by 1973.

But I'm con cerned about the other manufacturers of the smaller cars - the cars that are imported, if we want to take into consideration that we respect the trade agreements that we have with Japan and with European countries that bring cars in here, and I'm sure that we let them in here simply because we agree with the other elements of the trade that we go along with. I think that it's something that we should take into consideration and not just say that the Big Three will be the suppliers of our cars. I think that the Minister, particularly of this Department, goes along with it.

It's not too long ago that he said that it's impossible to deal with the Big Three because they go on strike. You don't buy cars from the Big Three because they go on strike. Now I have to say to him, being a Minister on the Treasury Bench of a Labour government, I can't understand why he would suggest that you don't buy cars from the Big Three because they go on strike. And I suggest that today the Manitoba Telephone, several other departments of the province, are buying small cars.

They seem to think they're a more reasonable thing to have; they're something that we should do rather than deal - buy a Toyoto, you know, anything except buy from the Big Three that are North American produced cars. So I suggest to him possibly another trip to Japan, along with some of his colleagues, and go over there and see if they can get a bumper that will absorb energy up to, I think, something in the nature, it was men tioned, of five miles per hour or something in that area. Back, Mr. Speaker, to the Registrar and his powers.

As I went through this Bill, there's mention made of a driver's license and its two parts. (I'll have to turn to the

section of the Bill here - I've lost it.) The driver of a car will have a two-part license in the future. One portion of this license will have a picture of the driver of the automobile in the one section, and it seems to me that it says in the following section, fixed regulations of purposes of that particular

section I was referring to, "a person holding a driver's license is requested to produce his driver's license by a peace officer, the registrar, a justice, or other person". The reason that I bring that to your attention, not so much that the Act is wrong, I realize that we go on two pages later, on Page 13, and suggest - I'm not quoting sections, I'm just quoting out of sections - and they go on to say that the driver shall carry his license in the other

section - this is while he's driving an automobile - but it would make you think in the first instance that he could be stopped on the street, while he's walking down the street, and asked to produce his driver's license. And not only by a policeman, not only by the registrar, not only by a justice, but also by "or other person." So I question if that means that I could stop the man on the street and ask him if I can see his driver's license and his picture to identify him with. I would question whether it means that this is for the protection of the police.

I would also question if this is for the benefit of the Highways Minister. Maybe this means that the Highways Minister can stop and ask him about his license, whether he's driving or not. The reason I bring this up is because if we need it on Page 11 and Page 13 as well, and one says - Page 13 might say that he's driving an automobile when he's stopped in an automobile. Page 11 doesn't. It just says that the registrar, magistrate, police, everybody can stop him, or another person can stop him right on the street and ask him for this two-part driver's license which one has a picture on it.

And I say for that reason I think that it's a bill that's got a mile wide of latitude. I doubt very much that we 're dealing this at the proper time. I look at the

section in the Act, Sir, that says that if you want to repaint your car and take it to a body shop, or if you have a farm truck or a construction truck, I know that a good many times in a slack season in the construction business that I'm in, be it winter, summer, a rainy day, we take a truck into the shop in the construction business and we'll paint it. We might decide to change colours. In the Act it says as soon as we do this, unless it's just the box on it, but if it's the body - which sounds interesting - if you 're painting the body, you report it, If you're just painting the box, you don't.

I would like sometime if one of our members could speak on that, the difference between painting the body and painting the box. Our Member from Lakeside could probably come out with something on that because he has trucks on the farm and knows more about that. Generally when we paint a truck in the con struction business we paint it from one end to the other. But I would have to say, Mr. Speaker, that reporting colours becomes pretty dictatorial in our Province of Manitoba; just changing the colour of your automobile or of truck. I think it goes back again to the Minister

2926 July 20, 1971 (MR. MOUG cont'd.) .... . that's in charge of the Department of Highways, I think this is something he's brought in on his own. I say this for one reason. I have a letter here which I intend to read, Sir. It's dated April 19, it's addressed to one Henry Schindel, 522 Green Brier Street, he's a constituent of mine; last Friday night he brought it over to my house. He asked me to bring this into the House. This is on Minister of Highways and Public Works stationery, it says: "Dear Mr.

Schindel: While travelling with my wife to Carman last Saturday, April 10, 1971, your car passed us doing well over the legal speed limit. "Since you have a clear record I thought you would appreciate a friendly reminder, that is, that consistent speed attaches demerit points to your driver's license on which surcharges will be made to the driver." Signed by the Minister of Highways, Joseph P. Borowski. A MEMBER: That's just a form letter. MR. MOUG: No, this is not a form letter. This man, Mr. Schindel, answered the letter three days later and that took him to the area somewhere around the 23rd.

So from April 23rd when he answered it and expected an answer back, on July 13th he got a letter from the Depart ment of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Branch, 1075 Portage Avenue addressed Mr. Henry Schindel, 522 -- I haven't, Mr. Speaker, got an answer that the man sent to the Highways Minister because he didn't keep a carbon copy. At any rate he did not get a letter back from the Highways Minister but he got a letter back from 1075 Portage Avenue. "Dear Mr. Schindel. The Minister has referred to me your letter to him under date April 21st.

I've endeavoured on a number of occasions to contact you by telephone but was unsuccessful in doing so. Your letter unfortunately became buried in an avalanche of other paper on my desk" - and believe me there must be an avalanche of paper on that desk if the Minister sends a letter to everybody that passes him on the highway. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR.

MOUG: . . . colored or uncolored, I would think that there would have to be a pile of papers on the Registrar of Motor Vehicles desk if the Minister of Highways is good enough to stop every car that passes him; because I've got a family of five and believe me I could give them all the computers and everything there is known for good office keeping and my five children, there's no way they could keep track of the cars that pass me. He goes on to say, "Your letter unfortunately was buried in an avalanche of paper on my desk and my intention to write you shortly after receipt of your letter was frustrated." MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please. MR. MOUG: "Your letter unfortunately became buried in an avalanche of other paper on my desk and my intention to write you shortly after receipt of your letter was frustrated" - as is the Minister. It goes on in the second paragraph to say, "The Minister recorded the license number of the vehicle which overtook him at a speed in excess of the legal limit" -- and I don't know, Mr.

Speaker, whether the Minister's speedometer or odometer was correctly and truly recording the speed or the miles that his vehicle was doing because according to this bill it says, maybe not - check, you've got to check through, you've got to look through there and you find out that there's areas where your speedometer may not be classed as right, you would have to carry a certificate to say one way or the other.

He neglected to record the color of the vehicle and that's why I bring this up, Sir, I wonder if because from time to time that the Minister of Highways can make mistakes on copying the small numbers, because has the great buffalo and the 100,000 lakes and then the tail - is there a tailend on the buffalo? A MEMBER: No, no tail end. MR. MOUG: Oh yeah, he's the Minister of Highways.

But the head and the 100, OOO lakes and then there's the small, you know, AG or BT -- let's use BT because that means Borowski Transport, and then the 100 and 101, this takes all the Treasury Bench in front there, you know -- but the Borowski Transport .. . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I have listened diligently to the Honourable Member but I'm sort of failing to see where he is attacking the bill or presenting his argument for Bill 99. I wish he would get with the topic instead of commenting on the Minister.

I realize the Minister of Transportation is proposing the bill but the question before us is the bill and not the Minister. The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR. MOUG: I mentioned this, Sir, because I was looking at - would you ask my coach to go back to the front seat - I was mentioning this because -- I was making mention, Sir, as it says here because of the rapidity of which the passing manoeuvre was done it is entirely possible the Minister may have incorrectly interpreted. Now there's no way that that Minister

July 20, 1971 2927 (MR. MOUG cont'd.) ••... could incorrectly interpret anything. In my short time in this House for two years I've never seen him incorrectly interpret anything. Everything he's done right is right. -- (Interjection) -- He's been misquoted. Even on TV he's been misquoted, but everything so far really and truly as far as I'm concerned he's never been incorrect, It says, "incorrectly interpreted the licence plate number appearing on the offended vehicle.

Since you say that you were not operating a vehicle on the day in question it would seem that my Minister" - God help that poor Registrar to say 'my Minister' -"must have incorrectly recorded the license number of the vehicle. It is regretted if the Minister's letter to you caused any concern. As to your assertion that the Minister is, as you put it, 'venturing out of his territory' by writing you a letter intended to be a reminder only, surely since the Minister has the final responsibility for the administration of the provisions of the Highway Traffic Act • . . " MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

The Honourable Minister of Transportation on a point of order. HON. JOSEPH P. BOROWSKI (Minister of Public Works and Highways) (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with Bill 99. I really have no objection to the member reading letters, I could send a whole stack of the letters that I write to various people, but I really do think he should confine himself to the bill and if he can't perhaps he could yield the floor and I'll answer some of his silly questions. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. HARRY J.

ENNS (Lakeside): Speaking to the point of order, I take exception, Sir, to the high regard I have for you, Sir, as Steward of this House to have somebody other than yourself getting up to suggest when somebody's in order or out of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Before we get into a hassle over who can and who can't raise a point of order, all members are responsible for the decorum and for the procedure in this House. The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR.

MOUG: I hate to interrupt �he line of thought, Sir, ofthe Minister of Highways because it's pretty hard when you stare at a vacant desk to come up with much more than what he come up with right now; but I certainly do agree that this is one of his better times in the past two years since I've been in this House, he really come up with something. His language was good, he wasn't swearing, he wasn't mad at anybody .. . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

I would suggest to the honourable member that we are not addressing ourselves to what the Honourable Minister was saying on a point of order but we are addressing ourselves to a bill before us. I've asked him once before, this is the second time. I don't think I'll -- Do you wish to argue with me? I don't think I want to rise again on the same subject. The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR. MOUG: With reference, Sir, to a

section of the Act that mentions about the period, in the two

part license, and it says in the Act in the following section, I won't quote you the numbers of the

section because I know that is against House rules but it mentions, I'll read one or two lines.

"A person holding a driver's license is requested to produce his driver's licence by a peace officer, the registrar, a justice or other person entitled to its production under this Act." I'm trying to find out who is entitled to ask you to produce your license, because I think this is a part of a person's right, I think it's a part of my right, I think it's a part of your rights, I think it's a part of the Minister's rights, I think that if I have to drive down any highway, Sir, in this province and be stopped by any Minister of Highways that has a problem doing his job in this House, I say to him, he's wrong, and if you sit me down for saying it, I say you're wrong; but that's the only way I would say you were wrong.

I have to say that th�,t Minister while he's lax in doing what he should be doing in his department, steps out all over, all and sundry he goes down into Toronto and says Spadina Expressway is not right. He'll tell you everything, he'll tell you that you're speeding and this man, this one Henry Schindel, this one Henry Schindel was at home cutting his grass on a Saturday morning and the Highways Minister said he was speeding going to Carman. Is this Highways Minister still in love? He was with his wife, he stated that in his letter, he was with his wife, I'll read it off the letter.

"While travelling with my wife." Is this man in love? He can't keep track of his speedometer or the new licence plate he put out. For that reason I say that he's over -- they've taken Transportation where he's looking after everything in the prov ince. They took the Air away from him, Air Transport went, he couldn't handle that; railroad went, he couldn't handle that. And I question, Mr. Speaker, if he can handle highways. I

2928 July 20, 1971 (MR. MOUG cont'd.) •••.. question if he can handle highways. I'll go back to 99 immediately because it's

an Act of the Highways Minister, and it says on front "An Act to amend The Highway Traffic Act" and this is the Minister of Highways that I'm speaking to. And I'll finish reading this letter, Sir, because it came from one of his departments. I'll start again. "As your assertion that the Minister is as you put it venturing out of his territory by writing you a letter intended to be a reminder only, surely, since the Minister has the final responsibility of the administration of provisions of the Highway Traffic Act, he is not encroaching on somebody else's domain.

I am sure that if it had been your vehicle, you would infinitely prefer to receive a friendly warning letter rather than an official summons from a police constable. " I say, Mr. Speaker, this man would have been only too pleased if he had received a summons. That wouldn't have infringed on his rights to his home and his children. When his children knew that they were in the yard with him weeding the garden and transplanting the lettuce, that's one thing.

But when this man is there with his children and he has to show them, he's got a 15-year-old boy who happens to be in the same grade as one of my children and he has to show him this letter and say, "look at that, son, there's what happens to you as a freedom, the freedom of your rights to be taken away from you as a Canadian" -- a Manitoban, a Charleswoodite which is even worse, a Charleswoodite, and they say to him, "No you weren't in your garden, you were speeding down No. 3 highway in Carman." I say that the Minister if he'd get and bear himself on rebuilding that road to Carman instead of checking how fast people are going and that is building highways, Sir. -- (Interjection) -- I want to finish this letter.

" I am sure that if it had been your vehicle you would infinitely prefer to receive a friendly warning letter" - and as I say that's not friendly - "than an official sum mons from a police constable particularly since the Minister's letter suggested no punitive action was being contemplated," No punitive action. Just interfering with his rights in his own home, insinuating to his children that he's a kind of a guy that hides his car in the garage and also takes another car out and heads out No. 2 highway and doesn't tell the kids about it. Now is that impunitive or not? I say it is.

I say that's absolutely impunitive, Sir, and the Minister should think about it. Final lesson that we get from the Registrar in this particular letter is, "Your statement that you were not driving a vehicle on that particular date and place closes this incident." Mr. Speaker, I don't know if this is tabled or not, this particular copy; if it was, fine, if it wasn't it 1 s here for the page to take. I think the Minister should have a look at that because No. 1 is, his Department doesn't answer this letter.

He goes to a $25, OOO man, stacks his desk full of garbage, absolutely full of garbage -- let's see now, just a minute, just hold on, hold on, hold on, there's a - I saw it here - all right, I'll read it again. Okay. "Your letter unfortunately became buried in an avalanche of other papers on my desk. " I say that there's got to be girls in the Highways Minister's department that could answer that letter without causing an avalanche on the desk of the Registrar and I say for that reason, Mr. Speaker ... MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable First Minister on a point of order. HON.

EDWARD SCHREYER (Premier) (Rossmere): Yes, Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that surely even if some of the letters that were read onto the record this evening by the Member for Charleswood were in some way or another, which escaped me, but is apparent to you, Sir, in some way or another relevant and germane to the bill that is before us, surely the letter that the honourable member is reading now can in no way be construed as germane to the subject matter of the bill that's before us, so I rise on that point of order. MR.

SPEAKER: The point is well taken, I've already mentioned it twice to the Honour able Member for Charleswood. After this I shall have to ask him to cease and desist or else to stop debating. The Honourable Member for Charleswood. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SIDNEY SPIVAK, Q. C. (Leader of the Opposition) (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. If I'm correct, we are discussing Bill 99, substantial amendments to The Highway Act. The Highway Act is administered by the Minister of Transportation.

The principle involved in the amendments is reflected in the manner in which that department is administered, and I think very seriously . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. The Honourable Minister is debating the same point that the Honourable Member for Charleswood was trying to make, and that's precisely what's wrong. That it's been repetitive, and he's been debating the character of

July 20, 1971 2929 (:MR. SPEAKER cont 'd.) • . • • • the Honourable Minister and not the bill before us and I'm going to say it to the whole House once more, we have rules of procedure that we must carry out, I want the honourable members to conduct themselves accordingly and carry on as gentle men in debate, The Honourable Member for Ci .. arleswood, MR . MOUG: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate what you've brought to the attention of the several members in the House, Undoubtedly we were acting out of line there, Now on that letter I had so many interferences with it, Sir, by members of the House that I would like to get it on the record verbatim and with leave and with your permission, I would like to start from letter A on the second letter and read it into the record, If I am going to be out of order doing that I would like to be informed now so there'd be no interruption in the letter.

MR, SPEAKER: I can inform the honourable member that I don't have extrasensory per ception so therefore I can't tell what's in the letter, so how can I rule on it? I think he should use his prerogative and debate the point and if it is out of order then I'll have to interrupt him, The Honourable Member for Charleswood, MR, MOUG: Well, Sir, owing to the fact that I had to read it twice now to get it on to the record, certainly I won't read it again, MR, SPEAKER: Order, please •. If it's going to be repetitive it is out of order. MR.

MOUG: Well as I mentioned, as I already read it twice, there's no sense I read it again in order to get it on the record, bu.t I would like to mention further that I think that the colours of vehicles regardless of if they're a help to the Minister of Highways or not in his inspection and his detective work up and down the Highway 3 and up and down the perimeter, I suggest that it's a little awkward and it's a little heavy for anybody to have to be reporting, particularly if they own a construction concern or a few vehicles, a transfer firm where they paint one or two trucks at a time on a changeover.

I don't say where they take all their trucks and they can afford to do it, they take them in, they take them all in one day or all in a series and they paint them all the one colour, I would suggest to you that it's a little cumbersome, that part of the Act, for quite a few people to live with.

It's a problem for the farmers because there are some mornings they start out with a white truck and after cleaning out the milk shed and the areas that they have their feeders, their cattle feeders in, they find themselves that night with a different colour truck, So I think for that reason, I think it's a nothing to start with, Why the department wants it on there I don't know. I would suggest that they give some consideration to looking into it deeper and giving it some concern.

There's an area in there where doctors and optometrists are being put into a position where they're asked that they report everybody that comes into their office.

If a person is in there with a leg on their glasses, it's broken, and has to leave them for a day to get a new leg put on because it's a three-hinge instead of a two-hinge or some such thing, that man is with out glasses, that optometrist is obligated to inform the registrar, and the registrar of course in a part of the bill is involved to restricting that man's licence until he gets his glasses back, What I'm saying is hypothetical and what I say is it wouldn't keep a man's licence away for more than - by the time the mail got out there, the man would have his licence back, but there is instances like this.

It puts the doctor in the position that every time he looks at some body he doesn't know whether he should phone up the registrar and tell him to cancel the man's licence or not, because he doesn't know how serious the man's medical problem is, and for that reason I say that that part of the Act is terrible. There's many many parts of the Act, Sir, that should be looked at. We are all in favour, I think government and the Opposition side of the House as well right now is in favour of getting out of here. I think we've been in the House too long.

We came in late; we've been delayed while we're in here, and we're looking at the late parts of July, I think everybody wants to get their family out for their summer holidays, Our children are out of school now and we want to take them for a holiday, We're being delayed by handfuls of bills coming out every day, handfuls of bills coming out every day, handfuls of amendments coming out every day, and I think it's about time that we look at taking -- Bill 99 is the one that I refer to now and I think that the government -- (Interjection) -- Yes, Bill 99, · MR, SPEAKER: The honourable member has five minutes, MR , MOUG: The government should take this opportunity, and I think it would be well advised if they took the opportunity to take this bill, pass the parts of it that are necessary in regard to insurance on tractors, semi-trailers and the likes of it, pass those several areas

2930 July 20, 1971 (MR. MOUG cont'd.) • • • • • of it, snowmobile if you wish, as one member mentioned, pass those areas and drop the rest. There's no panic on the balance of this. There's a lot of housekeeping on it and there's lots of legislation, Sir, that is very very important, and I think that they should take this, pass the necessary parts and keep the rest over to another session or till the next sitting of the Legislature. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. JACOB M. FROESE (Rhineland): Mr.

Speaker, I hadn't quite finished perusing the bill and the Honourable Minister of Education says I could adjourn it. Well the experience in this House has been lately that whenever I make a motion to adjourn it is not agreed to, the government opposes it and they're exercising closure left and right when it comes to me.

This afternoon I was ruled out by the government, yet i=ediately after that we had about four or five adjournments which the government agreed to quite readily, but when I make the motion to adjourn, it's a completely different thing; then the Minister of Mines and Resources or the House Leader takes very strong objection. MR. SPEAKER: Order. The Honourable Minister of Mines and Na tural Resources. MR. GREEN: I rise on a point of privilege. The honourable member has suggested that I prevented him from debating, and the fact is that a majority of the House voted in toto ••• - (Interjection) -- That 1s not true?

Well, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that I rise on a legitimate point of privilege. The Honourable Member for Rhineland says that I prevented him from ad journing the debate. The fact is that the Speaker declared a vote carried by a majority of the members of this House. MR. SPEAKER: Procedures of this House are democratic. They are all carried out by votes of the majority of the members. There is no individual member except when a question of leave is under consideration that it can be presented, otherwise it's the majority that counts.

So I would suggest to the Honourable Member for Rhineland the matter of privilege the Minister raised is correct. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, I will make some remarks on the bill to some of the pro visions in it that I have considered, and also make some remarks on some of the matters that have been brought to my attention by my constituents in connection with the Highway Traffic Act. One of these is the matter of the wide trailers. This has been a real bad obstacle for some of my constituents. It's a 14 foot wide trailer.

They're unable to move it and they're not getting a permit to do so,

whereas in Alberta and Saskatchewan they are able to do that with escort, and my constituents who have this problem certainly don't object to this at all but they want to be able to move these wide trailers, 14 foot -- yes, and certainly these have been constructed; these are in existence today, and surely enough we should be sensible enough in this Chamber to see to it that whenever a new owner acquires such a trailer that he is allowed to move it or have it moved, even though there may be some restrictions, but certainly enough a permit should be issued so that if an escort is required, well let it be that way, but certainly let's not refrain from not having to move at all so that no dealings can be made.

I think this is something that should not be in our statutes and I hope the Minister, when he gets up to reply in closing debate, will make a statement on that very part and in that very connection. Some other provisions in the bill, one in connection with bumpers. I notice here that there is a provision that by 1973 a certain t:YPe of bumper, or at least a bumper that will carry a certain amount of resistance. They refer to it as an energy absorption system. I take it that just how much will be stated in the regulations or will come out in the regulations after wards.

Maybe the Minister could tell us just what he intends to do in this connection and what happens to all the automobiles that were built prior to 1973 that do not qualify and will not have the necessary bumpers that will be required in the new automobiles. Has the Minister made arrangements with the various automobile manufacturers that they will be complying with the bill before us ? I think this is important to know because people will be wanting to buy new cars and if they don't meet the standards what are they suppoed to do?

Or will we be changing the Act next year to accommodate the new cars even though they do not meet those requirements? I think we should have some idea on this very matter whether this is going to happen or not. There are other provisions in here; one deals with the matter of serial numbers when they're altered or removed. The provision says that no one is supposed to deal or nobody is allowed to sell such motors, and whether this applies to the total vehicle or whether ft applies to the motor only, what can a person do when someone else mutilates a serial number on your vehicle?

Just because this may happen and that the owner is not responsible, what can a

July 20, 1971 2931 (MR. FROESE cont'd.) • • • • • person do? I think if we are going to legislate against this, we should also have the answer for an alternative as to what is to take place. When the pro vision says not to be sold, the owner shall not even possess, own, operate, buy or sell, or even wreck. This is what the provision says and I think that goes pretty far. Another matter has already been referred to by one other honourable member but I think it's worth repeating and I certainly want to enlarge on it. This has to do with people driving tractors. Younger people.

The restriction is placed on those 16 years and under, and I feel when it comes to driving a tractor that we have many boys who are quite capable of driving a tractor at 14 or 15 and that this will cause a hardship to many of our farmers in rural Manitoba. Certainly during harvest and other periods in summer, younger boys will assist the farmer in his work, and if we are putting it into the bill that such people are unable to drive on a public road, that will cause a hardship because not all farmers have their land immediately to their home buildings.

Many of them, especially in my constituency, farm several miles away from where their residence is, and they have to drive back and forth, and I certainly do not support this particular provision in the bill. This applies to other implements of husbandry that are self-propel driven, and I feel that a change should be made, that we should consider the people younger than 16, the 15 especially and probably go as low as 14 years of age, so that we would not be barring these younger people from helping on the farm. And if -- (Interjection) -- The suggestion has been made to make it twelve.

I don't think we need go that far. I think 14, 15 will do, but certainly these are the young people that enjoy that type of work driving a tractor and at the same time they can perform a useful service. I notice that there is also a relaxation in connection with the matter of hiring a truck for service, for hire, and I welcome this part. I certainly believe this is something that we should probably have done in the first place but, nevertheless, even now this is welcome and I certain ly intend to support that part of the bill.

There are some other matters, the matter of penalties for speeding offences, Here again it's on the basis of so many dollars for each mile that you exceed in speed over the al lowable limits, and Pm not so sure whether this should be the type of fine, Then also with that same provision or pertaining to that same matter, for those who are unable to pay the fine the provision mentions that no less than one day for each dollar of fine imposed or until the fine has been paid in case a person cannot pay the fine. I think that is too much to ask for - $1, 00 a day.

I think there should be more allowed for each day that the fine is levied, Because on that basis even if the Minister had gone to jail under his recent trouble that he had, at a dollar a day this would have been 1,000 days and this would have been years for the fine that was im posed against him, and I feel that this would have been unjustified; he didn't deserve it; and I feel that we shouldn't put that kind of a thing in the legislation in connection with the Highway Traffic Act, This also applies to the matter of default of payment of fine when under suspen sion.

The dollar a day applies in that connection and I feel a change should be made in that re gard.

There are a number of other matters that I should probably touch on, The bill is far reaching, It touches so many different aspects of the Highway Traffic Act, and I don't want to take all the time here tonight but I mention some of these points because I think they are very valid ones and some of the ones that I feel should be changed and that need a second look and also need consideration by this House and by the Minister, so that there could be some recon sideration given to some of the points in the bill, Thank you. MR, SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Souris Killarney.

MR, EARL McKELLAR (Souris-Killarney): I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Arthur, that debate be adjourned, MR, SPEAKER presented the motion. MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR, FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): Mr, Speaker, if the member would permit, I would like to speak on the bill, MR. SPEAKER: The question is open. The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek, MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to start in to read Bill 99. I scanned it.

When you take a look at a bill that says changes to the Highway Traffic Act, you really believe that it's probably housekeeping and something that should be done to the bill, especially when it has (2) after it, But after scanning the bill, one has to say that he should

2932 July 20, 1971 (MR . F. JOHNSTON cont'd. ) • • • • • thoroughly read it and dig into every section, which is what I started out to do, and frankly, Sir, got to about Page 28 , 29, and wondered how in the hell a bill like this would get into this Legislature. There are obvious reasons why legislation is passed but unfortunately the Minister lies awake at night and decides when he's dreaming or thinking of something or , as the colleague from Fort Garry said the other day to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, puts his nightmares into a bill. Mr. Speaker, on the

section of bumpers alone, all of a sudden every car manufacturer that sells an automobile in the Province of Manitoba is going to be required to put a bumper on an automobile that comes into Manitoba and he doesn't really have to put it on an automobile anywhere else. This is either designed to build a fence around this province in some way, shape or form or we'll have to make our own bumpers or our own cars. It seems inconceiv able that legislation like this could be passed. The

section of the lights having to be standardized in the Canadian Code is referred to on lights only. Where are the sections in this Act regarding the Canadian Code that might refer to springs , ball jo ints or anything else that might be on a car. I don't know the Canadian Code backwards, but he refers to lights, but then he doesn' t put anything else in regarding the Canadian Code as far as I can see. As I said, I got to

section 28. But getting back again, I'm a salesman, I have to have a car for business, and now all of a sudden I have to have a car that is shipped into Manitoba without a bumper, that has one that's made here; it's got to be a special bumper and I've got to pay more money .

Here we have standards that really, what are we saying when people cross our border, a man that's transferred here that has a car when he's transferred here -and again I will admit that it says from 173 on -but he's now in the position of having to have something special when he comes to Manitoba, and having something special when you come to be Manitobans at this particular time is getting to be a habit, Higher corporation taxes, higher everything else, and now you have to have a situation where you've got to have basic differences in automobiles, and the Minister stands up and he gets --public opinion is what he looks for in this Highway Traffic Act, say ing, "Here I am, the great saviour of Manitobans.

I'm out to protect you, " And all he does is sit back and think of these stupid things, not considering the fact that rules and regulations were made originally for some reason and he is prepared to wipe them out tomorrow on his whim. It almost reminds me of the letter that he got from a 17-year-old boy. I would say he got an answer from a 17-year-old Minister; that's the way the mind works, Now we say that we have doctors. The doctors have to report my medical status if I'm a salesman. I earn my living driving a car, and many men do, and, Sir, I'll tell you what'll happen.

I will tell you that the salesmen and the people that have to use their car in business will live in fear of going to a doctor. You will find that there will be quack people set up all over the place that'll give a written okay for examination. For an extra fifty bucks here and there you'll get your licence back. That's what he's setting up.

I' m suggesting it happens in any profession, The lawyers - it was said to me today, it was said in Law Amendments the other day, Sir, on Bill 36 by one man who is a lawyer: "I can't divulge the advice I gave my client, " when he was questioned by the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, - (Interjection) - Well, it was questioning by another but he said, "It's regarding St.J ame·s Assiniboia. " It said, "I can't divulge the information that I gave a client.

" Why don't the lawyers have to divulge the facts on represe ntatives banned three, four times on a case when he's had an accident or something like that? Mr. Speaker, this big brother system is just going a little bit too far, We 're not being treated like human beings in Manitoba when we find

an Act like this coming across the desk. We're turning around and we're saying, "Look. You're not old enough to do what you think is right; I'm going to tell you to, " And, Mr, Speaker, why ?

Because obviously the Highway Traffic Act (2) which is basically designed for legislation apparently because of Autopac , etc. , and I would be quite willing to accept the sections in this bill that are definitely required for Autopac whether I agree with it or I don't, but it's there and it has to be done, but why take a bill when you're designing something to have legislation meld together and put hidden sections in it that will harm the people of Manitoba; and that's really what happens, The honourable member is right, control the people of Manitoba. Why ? Why do Manitobans have to be con trolled ?

Why do we have to be treated like children ? Why do men have to have said to them if you go to your doctor you 're in danger of losing your licence ? Why do people have said to them, if you go to have your eyes tested you may be in danger of losing your licence ?

July 20 , 1971 2933 (MR, F. JOHNSTON cont'd. ) You know, Sir, I'm not in any more fav our than you would be, or the Minister or anybody else, of having people on the roads that are dangerous, and I think we presently weed these people out with our test programs, etc.

Yes they are very conscientious people in this testing, You can call people in for a test, If I'm not mistaken, and I can't repeat word for word, there was a lady 83, 82 passed her driver's test; if she couldn't have passed it she wouldn't have been driving, But now we have a situation where you don't live in fear of going for a driver's test, you live in fear of going to see your doctor; and I assure you that this is a situation where - doctors don't want it, Why ?

Previously - and I'll give you the example , Sir, of my mother who was asked to take a form by her insurance company to her doctor to be filled out to see if she was capable of driving a car and when he signed it on that basis , of her own free will she went there to the doctor and got it signed, He signed it because he knew she would drive.

Now you're not having people go there on their own fr ee will to have licences reissued and what have you; you are saying to the doctor if somebody comes to you and you find something wrong, you can't have a licence, Now how many people who enjoy their car are going to do that ? The Minister must have a heart as cold as this microphone. How many elderly people enjoy their car to go shopping? How many elderly people love their car in the winter rather than suff er when it's cold -- in winter when it's cold or summer when it's hot ?

How .many people who just get some little pleasure out of life driving to the beach will live in fear of having a medical test and losing their licence ? And this all comes from a nightmare -- and laugh, the Minister of Consumer Af fairs will laugh, but by God he won't laugh if he does to his doctor and he'll say, "Look, there's nothingwrongwith me , " and all of a sudden he1dbe toldhe can't drive his car. Why? Why? Because the Minister of Highways says, I don't want you to.

He may have a murmur , stiff finger , I don't know what it is, maybe he woke up with sore feet , but all of a sudden he can't drive his car, I, Sir, did never expect that Manitobans would be treated in this way; and as I said, Sir, I can't go past Page 28 in the bill because all of a sudden it started to disgust me and that's it, But in those sections there were bumpers, there's lights , painting of cars - I'm glad you reminded me.

They won't be glad you reminded me, but all of a sudden - a year and a half ago when I owned a white car with a black top and I changed it to a blue car with a black top - I have to run down and report it -- (Interjection) - befor e I do it ? You got to be kidding, You mean to tell me I've got to have a permit to have the colour of my car changed?

Mr, Speaker, it's humorous , there's no question about it, that it's humorous; that if I'm sitting in the house and my wife says, "I'd like to see the car painted green," I'd say, "LookHazel, Muriel, for God's sake you go through the rigmarole, I don't want to do it," That's gotta. be humorous; the fact that I want to have the colour of my car changed, You know, I've often mentioned my dog Jay-Jay and he wouldn't get in an argument like that, Sir, I •ve had some intelligent conversations with Jay-Jay but I doubt if I'll ever have one with the Minister, Mr.

Speaker, I said I didn •t go past 28; I would like to stand here and I'd like to go for 40 minutes and 40 minutes after that on this bill, but I have to admit to you, Sir, and to the Minister of Highways that I haven't read it all, but what I have read is childish, disgusting, big brotherish, dictatorial in many ways, which says Manitobans are not going to have the right to think for themselves any more, And you know, my honourable colleague from Fort Garry shocked the daylights out of the government when he said the "m uffled sound of jackboots" a year ago, and I don't really like to accuse the government of that kind of thing but when you see legislation like this and you sit down and you have to wonder why, why? -- There's another reason maybe that the Minister of Highways is thinking about -- they've now taken over the in surance in this province; maybe they don't want as many cars on the road, and they asked the Minister of Highways to design

an Act to get around it, I'm not suggesting that, I'm not com pletely suggesting that, but I have to say to myself, why, why do we get hidden sections in Bill 99 that is taking away the basic freedom of rights of Manitobans to think for themselves ? It's beyond us. We see it and we get it in speed-up; we get it at a time when there's no more logic to pass a bill like this than fly to the moon.

The logic of this bill is to combine the sections in this bill which is necessa ry for Autopac, but to stick these hidden clauses in at this particular time during the legislation is not only insulting but it's insulting to the intelligence of the people of Manitoba and the Minister of Highways turns around and says, I'm your great protector and he gets great publicity and great great things on the By-line by "I've done this, I've done this to protect you, " But mind you, Mr. Speaker, he will come to his reckoning one day when people

2934 July 20, 1971 (MR. F. JOHNSTON cont'd. ) , ••. will find out that they won't accept him. Sir, I'm in a business where I sell power tools and we have a power hammer that puts in anchors; it's a self destructing thing because it keeps working all the time, a power hammer, and the Minister is a self-destructing person, and he will gradually find that out if he keeps passing this kind of nonsense legislation. Thank you , MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Transportation will be clo sing debate. MR. McKELLAR: Mr. Speaker, I took the adjournment .. . MR.

SPEAKER: The ques tion was open, the vote had not been taken , MR. McKEL LAR: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Riel, that debate be adjourned. MR . SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried , MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, would you call Bill No. 107, please. MR. SPEAKER: The proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. The Honourable Member for Souris-Killarney. MR. McKEL LAR: Mr. Speaker, speaking on this Brandon extension of boundary each year, I'd like to say a few words at this time.

I'm sorry the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce isn't in his seat right at the present time because I'd like to say a few words to him - I was hoping he would be -(Interjection)-! don't know, thatisn't the same as looking in an eye . , . MR . SPEAKER : Order, please . I may suggest to the honourable member our rules call for the honourable member to address the Chair not any individual member. MR. McKELLAR : Mr. Speaker, I'm just addressing you , I started to get around to my opening remarks on Bill 107

an Act which completely destroys the principle that's been es tab lished by all governments up to the present time, and what I mean is they changed the boundaries up till this year in the Province of Manitoba, have always been done by the negotiations and resolutions by all interested parties, and the first breakthrough in this principle, Mr. Speaker, was in the unicity bill, Bill 36 , where no negotiations were entered in by all interested munici palities, And along comes Bill 107 ; same thing again, Mr.

Speaker, forcing it down the munici palities' throats, legislating against the minority, and I don't care whether it's an individual or whether it's an individual municipality, Mr. Speaker, it's all the same as far as I'm concerned this is the government you know speaking for the people. I disagree wholeheartedly. Why do I disagree?

Because never at any time were the Municipality of Cornwallis con sidered in any negotiations, Do you not remember in the last sess ion of the Legislature when the Honourable Member for Brandon West brought in a bill to extend the boundaries of Brandon; and how was that done? - by negotiation and agreement by both parties. One only has to know the area around Brandon, Mr. Speaker, and I know that as well as anybody with the exception of the Honourable Member for Brandon West. But I know the Fotheringham farm on the west side of Brandon, I know all that area, because I represented that, Mr.

Speaker, for eleven years here and I know it so well, and I know the agreements that went on between the City of Brandon, and everybody was happy, and everybody was happy, until the Minister of Industry and Commerce realized the election promise that he made to the people of Brandon, that he would extend their boundaries before the next campaign came along. So what happened, what happened, .l\/Ir .. Speaker ?

The President of the University of Brandon was asked to be a commis sioner - one-man commis sioner to look into the boundaries of Brandon, and he did bring in a report to extend the bound aries, and I know what the report is. So what do we have now, Mr. Speaker? A bill at the tail end of the ses sion, as the Honourable Member for Brandon says, an important bill for the people of Co rnwallis, an important bill for the people of Brandon, but shouldn't this have been dealt with sooner, or shouldn't this be dealt with, Mr.

Speaker, by giving it to the municipal committee, refer it to committee and let them deal with this bill between sessions where they could go to Brandon and listen to the many people in the City of Brandon, the Municipality of Cornwallis, Souris, Wawanesa and all the other rural municipalities? Because they are all mixed - the municipalities which I represent, Mr. Speaker, are in this bill and I only want to ask why. Why are they named in the very first page of this bill, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why. They are only there for a very good reason, Mr.

Speaker, and while they mightn't be affected this year, it would be only quite easy next year to bring in another amendment, and I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs to withdraw these municipalities, withdraw them from that bill, because if he doesn't I'll move an amendment, because they're no longer required in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I did represent the people for 11 years; I did represent the people of Corn wallis. The Honourable Member for Minnedosa represented the people for Elton for over 12 on 13 years and we do know something about the problems of the day. We do know something

July 20, 1971 2935 (MR. McKELLAR cont'd. ) • • • • • about the make up of this great area around Brandon be cause the development has taken place in the last 12 or 13 years. I would like to just say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs at the present time, this development did not come easv and it came for a very good reason, because Cornwallis had something to offer to these large indus tries and they offer ed them a deal, and the deal was good enough that Mr. Simplot was willing, along with a loan from the government, to invest $30 million in the Municipality of Cornwallis. -- (Interjection) - Mr.

Speaker, the honourable members weren't here, so they haven't got a clue. He did invest some money. He did invest money. Mr. Speaker, if you can't keep these people shut up, over here I'll shut them up before I fini sh; because I got a story to tell, Mr. Speaker, I got a story to tell. Mr. Speaker, if the reverse was true, I wonder if it would happen; I wonder if they'd ex pand Cornwallis' boundaries into Brandon, I wonder if that would ever happen? If you're so interested in minority rights , Mr. Speaker, if they are so interested in minority rights why didn't they push Brandon in a little bit ?

Maybe that would make some sense if you're dealing with minority rights. - (Interjection) -- Yes . This would make some sense. Selkirk into Winnipeg, Let's take over all of Winnipeg, put it in the Town of Selkirk. But this only came about, Mr. Speaker, because there was a certain election in 1969 , certain promises the Min ister of Industry and Commerce made and he thought he better carry them through. And the only friend he had in Brandon I guess was Dr. Dulmage, the only friend he had in Brandon, so he put him to work. And Dr . Dulmage came out with a report. Dr, Dulmage came out with a. report.

I don't blame him if he came out with the report he came out with, that was his own views , that was the views as he saw fit . But wouldn't it have been better, Mr. Speaker, wouldn't it have been better if the govern ment of the day had said to the City of Brandon, negotiate with the Municipality of Cornwallis, negotiate ? We'll give you lots of time, there's no rush; Brandon isn't going to die for twelve months; They're not going to die even if - so a lot of bad things did happen, they're not going to die. They're going to carry on. Brandon was here long before any of us , and be here a lot longer.

So why not wait a few months, Mr. Speaker? Let the municipalities negotiate with the City of Brandon, Let them try to negotiate a deal that would be acceptable to both parties. But they didn't do that, Mr. Speaker, they didn't do it. They brought a bill in and that's the end result. And what's the Minister of Industry and Commerce concerned about? He's the princi pal of urban government for all urban areas.

Well, let me tell the Minister of Industry and Commerce that there is more to Manitoba than urban areas; there's far more to Manitoba than urban areas and I tell you there's a lot of fine people in the rural parts of Manitoba. There's a lot of wonderful municipalities in rural Manitoba, too. and they deserve the same treatment.

It's kind of unfortunate, Mr, Speaker, kind of unf ortunate the policy of the first 100 years in the Province of Manitoba hadn't continued because I think the government of the day will live to regret it, What right or what security have any municipality in the Province of Manitoba -what right have they to say that a year from now the Minister of Municipal Affairs will be in with a bill to take over about five municipalities and put them into one area - without a vote, without a vote, Mr, Speaker, of the individual municipalities, The ratepayers don't even have a say, Did the ratepayers in the municipality of El ton have a say, the people that the Member for Minnedosa represents; did the people in the Member for Brandon West's constituency, did they have a say ?

I don't think they had a say. Even the constituents of the Member for Brandon Ea st, did they have a say on this bill ?

Not very much, not very much, And I safely say here right now it's a sad day for the individual person, Where is this wonderful group of people tha(are always speaking for the common man - and we have more common men in the western part of the province I would say than any other part of Manitoba, We have people that have made something out of themselves and are wanting to continue that great way, We have farme rs that retired in my area, they've gone to the outskirts around Brandon thinking they had cheap taxes , thinking they had a fine home and a wcnderful place to live the rest of their life , and now overnight the government is saying to them that they are a part of the City of Brandon and their taxes must go up three times as high as they presently are, Mr.

Speaker, they can talk all they like about all the wonderful things in urban govern ment but there are still some wonderful things in our rural parts of Manitoba, in our rural municipalities , and I hope that they are not all taken in by this big wonderful idea involving everybody into a common denominator and stopping them from living as individuals . Mr, Speaker, we heard all about the high debts that exist in Brandon. We all heard all

2936 Ju ly 20 , 1971 (MR. McKELLAR cont'd) •• • , , about the fortunes of Cornwal lis , and I guess I know as much about these figures as anybody because I did inquire into these during the period of time that I was a member.

It's difficult to assess a municipality in the position that Cornwallis was in in the past, I must say the Steam Plant was built under the Liberal Government, industry, large industry, Dryden Chemicals and Simplot constructed under our government, Motels were constructed up to North Hill; the refinery which has now been torn down was constructed during the day of the Liberal Government, and other industries all around Brandon, along with the provincial government and Federal Government to the North Hill.

And these have been a valuable asset in the area around Brandon because Brandon could not have existed without these industries and government support both provincially and federally. Mr, Speaker, I don't suppose you realize the income at the Mental Hospital that assists all the City of Brandon.

This is wonderful, Along with all the other industries like the Federal Experimental Farm; but these, 1f this bill passes, are all part of the City of Brandon, all part of the City of Brandon, I don't suppose the Minister of Municipal Affairs ever contacted these large industries like Simplot, Pioneer Electric and Dryden Chemicals to see whether they were in favour of the formula he set out in this bill, If he did contact them I'd like to hear when he closes second reading on this bill because I think these people are important in our economy in western Manitoba and they should be considered.

It's true they don't pay any taxes at the present time into the City of Brandon, that 's true, but I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the salaries that these companies pay out mean a lot to the City of Brandon and they will continue to do so for many years to come, 1f they continue to operate, Mr, Speaker, I think it's only fair to the people in the Cornwallis area who are so greatly affected by their loss of assessmen t; three-quarters assessme nt is going to be taken away.

The Honourable Minister and the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce come along and say there is going to be a sharing of industrial and commercial taxes, on a per capita basis , on a per capita basis, Well, one only has to know the population that will exist in Corn wall1s compared with what it will be in Brandon to know what it will mean to the Municipality of Cornwallis that remains after the boundaries have been changed, I would imagine there's 800 people, And in the Act it says that Shilo will not be a part because under the Unconditional Grants which means the people in Shilo are not classed as citizens in the Municipality of Corn wall1s under the Unconditional Grants Act, So it would mean about 800 people1I would imagine, in the Municipality of Cornwallis compared with about 34, OOO in the City of Brandon, You can see the proportion, Mr.

Speaker , of the taxes the Municipality of Cornwallis will get, Mr, Speaker, I think it's only right and proper to agree, all the members of the House, to agree with what the Honourable Member for Brandon West said, that the Committee of Municipal Affairs should go to Brandon and listen to these people. These people are busy now, Do you realize how busy the farmers are, Mr, Speaker, and many farmers will be affected? Do you realize how busy the people in industry are at this time of the year ?

Do you realize how many people are away on holidays , Mr, Speaker, and it's impossible for everybody to get into Winnipeg here to express themselves, I mean the interested parties, and all the people in the Municipality of Cornwallis are interested, and I mean interested, because their whole municipality is affected to the point where I doubt very much, Mr. Speaker, if this municipal ity will be able to continue.

Mr, Speaker - (Interjection) --Yes , speak for the people in Brandon, I'll speak for the people in Brandon, sure, I'l l speak for the people of Brandon and I say the people of Brandon should have negotiated with the Municipality of Cornwallis and it's only right they should have, but as they didn't and as this bill is in, the best thing the govern ment can do to be fair to all the people in that area is to have the commit tee go out to Brandon and listen to the many briefs that will take place there, What difference does it make, Mr. Speaker, if this bill doesn't pass this year ?

It's true there's supposed to be an election this fall on a ward system, But what difference does that make ? Ca n anybody tell me what difference that makes ? The aldermen are elected now, the aldermen can continue for twelve more months , ju st like they did in Winnipeg a year ago. And I can see no good reason, Mr.

Speaker, why one year is going to make that much difference to either municipality, I hope that the people will -if they do have to come to Winn ipeg, and I don't know what the government's decision is yet -but if they do have to come to Winnipeg, and I do hope many of them will come, both for and against this bill, both for and against, because if they don't come in, we'll never know whether this bill should have been passed or whether it shouldn't.

July 20 , 1971 2937 (MR. McKELLAR cont'

d) Mr. Speaker, I could go on a lot longer about this bill but I know the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources ls anxious to get out to Room 254 to get us to work -- (Interjection) - Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Minister of Transportation just opened up his mouth again.

I'd be the last one to say to anyone else in this Chamber-and I saw a lot of members come and go - but every member of this Legislature has spoke some co=on sense for as long as I've been in here , and it's an ill day for the Minister of Transportation to get up after what he called me during this past session, I don't mind him calling me anything -- (Interjection) - MR. SPEAKER: Order, pleas e. MR. McKELLAR: Mr.

Speaker, I don't think there's much else I'd like to say other than I hope that the government from now on don't decide to chop away at all the rural .munici palities in the Province of Manitoba without letting the rural municipalities coming up .with negotiations on their own. It's not right and proper, as I said at the start of my speech, for a government to step in, a big brother to step in and say to a small municipality that a large part of your municipality ls going to be taken over and handed to a large city, adjoining city.

I don!t think this ls right and proper and I would say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that he better take this under consideration because I'm afraid that if he tries this about once more in the Province of Manitoba that he'll be hearing loud and clear from the interested parties, and I do hope, again, that the people come, express themselves, because it's only again, as I mention ed before, through that way will we know whether the change in boundaries for Brandon ls right and proper. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question ? The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. DONALD W.

CRAIK (Riel) : Mr, Speaker, I move , seconded by the Member for Swan River, that the debate be adjourned. MR, SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. CRAIK: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. The question before the House is the motion of the Honourable Member for Riel to adjourn debate. A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS: Messrs. Beard, Bilton, Craik, Ferguson, Froese, Girard, Graham, Henderson, Johnston (P. la Pr. ), Johnston (Stur. Cr. ), McGill, McGregor, McKellar, Moug, Patrick, Spivak, Watt, Weir and Mrs. Trueman.

NAYS: Messrs. Adam, Allard, Barrow, Borowski, Boyce, Burtniak, Cherniack, Desjardins, Doern, Evans , Gottfried, Green, Hanuschak, Jenkins , Johannson, McBryde, Mackllng, Miller, Paulley, Pawley, Petursson, Schreyer, Shafransky, Uskiw , Uruski and Walding. MR. CLERK: Yeas , 19; nays, 26. MR. SPEAKER declared the motion lost. MR, SPEAKER: The question now is Bill 10 7. The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker , I believe I now have the opportunity to speak on this bill, and I don't ••• MR, SPEAKER: Order, please. I have the point of order.

The honourable member has spoken, When he adjourned he lost his right to speak. Order, please. I stated the rule, it's done, Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker ••• MR, SPEAKER: Order, please. MR, F. JOHNSTON : Mr. Speaker, regarding Bill 107, the Brandon Bill, and I guess one would expect or wonder why a resident of the City of Winnipeg would be speaking on the Brandon Bill, but basica lly, Sir , my remarks tonight are going to be directed basic ally to the First Minister, through you, Sir.

Earlier today we heard from the Honourable Member from Brandon We st who is a resi dent of Brandon who is making a plea to this Legislature asking them to please not puah Bill No. 107 to the point of not having hearings or proper hearings from the people of Brandon. The bill was brought in approximately one o' clock last night, or this morning.

Sir , the bill has repercussions to approximately 40 , OOO people, the second largest urban area in this prov ince, and all of a sudden this Legislature is being asked to pass this bill and many of us not having an awful lot of what the bill states, and I'm sure, as usual the government not having

29 38 July 20 , 1971 (MR. F. JOHNSTON cont'd) • • • • • caucused the bill properly. Later on we heard from the Minister of Industry and Co=erce, the Member from Brandon East, and he went through a long detail of the Dulmage report. He went through details of the problems of health in the area, but he also mentioned one thing in the back of the bill - and I can't quote the letter, I haven't seen the letter that he tabled and it was regarding the DREE grant, Sir - and I believe the Federal Minister said he had hoped that the boundaries would be changed as soon as pos sible.

I am sure, Sir , that any Federal Minister who would receive representation from the Premier of the Province of Manitoba which said we are making moves to change the boundaries of the City of Brandon and we would ask you to consider the fact that we have DREE grants coming, but please consider the fact that we want to have some discussions with the people; I can't imagine any Federal Minister turning such a request down.

I, Sir, fully realize that the Brandon situation is regarded by the government I guess similar to the Winnipeg situation, and although I deplore the handling of the Winnipeg unicity bill, or the Greater Winnipeg bill; although I deplore the fact that I don't think there's been as many hearings as there should be, I would say that the Minister of Urban Affairs did, in his opinion, do what was right.

He presented a draft of the bill to us around the end of May or first part of June and then later on he presented the bill and gave time, Sir , gave a lot of time for discussion and debate on the bill which is what we are not seeing here tonight. We've seen what is close to being closure on a discuss ion of a bill that affects 40 , OOO people. It may be all very well to say that the Brandon boundaries have to be changed, but the people of Cornwallis have made representation and have made their feelings felt.

The people , Sir, of Cornwallis come under the Minister of Municipal Affairs and it is my understanding and my feeling towards the Minister of Municipal Affairs is that he is willing, I would say, I won't put words into his mouth, he would be willing to listen to them and possibly solve this problem in due course to the satisfaction of many people, and if it can't be solved then, fine, let the Legislature or the committee make reco=endations . But, Sir, what has happened?

We have a new Ministry of Urban Affairs presently in this province, and when the Minister presented his estimates he was very proud to say that Winnipeg would be the first in the discussions that would come up regarding the changes in the urban area of Manitoba.

And, Sir, I say to the Premier that when the Minister of Urban Af fairs has settled the unicity bill, which will I'm sure pass this Legislature this session, he _ should have ample opportunity, or have ample time as the Minister of Municipal Affairs of this province to study the Dulmage report, to have hearings, or if necessary have hearings or meetings as he had in Greater Winnipeg1 in Brandon.

But we have disregarded the Minister of Municipal Affairs in my opinion; we have overlooked the opportunity for a new Department of Urban Affairs to look at the situation; and secondly, or thirdly, what has basica lly happened is the Member from Brandon East firmly believes in his own mind that this should go through and he's pushing this caucus ; and I say to the Fi rst Minister, for God's sake make him stop pushing. Sir , the Member from Brandon East mentioned wards.

We are asked to vote on the changing of wards for the City of Brandon or go to the ward system and nowhere before us have we got the ward boundaries. In the unicity bill the government or the Minister of Urban Affairs set up an independent body to look at the new wards for the City of Winnipeg. He was criticiz ed for the wards he brought in and he was fair enough, and whether I agree with the decision or I don't, he was fair enough to set up an independent body to set up wards; and now we're being asked, Sir, to vote on a bill where we don't even know -Mi.at wards there will be in Brandon.

I don't think this is fair to the people of Brandon, Sir. I don't think it would be fair to anybody. We are asked now to vote on a bill which basica lly says there will be a new tax arrangement for the situation of the people of Cornwallis versus Brandon in the takeover, etcetera.

A new tax arrangement that doesn't say how much or how little;and we had an example, Sir , from the Member from Rhineland tonight who must have put a seed in the Minister of Munici pal Affairs ' mind when he said, "why does the people of Brandon have this kind of a concession when I as a resident of Winkler found my taxes go sky high, etcetera, because of reasses sment and nobody came along and said to me will there be any five-year plan, will there be any savings or concessions to me ?" Personally, Sir , the fact that we have now developed a Department of Urban Affairs or a Ministry of Urban Affairs in this province is the first thing should happen is the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister

July 20 , 1971 2939 (MR. F. JOHNSTON cont'd) ••••• of Urban Affairs should have the chance to talk about it, and they should tell the Member from Brandon Ea st, for God 's sake sit down and be quiet and quit pushing because we have to investigate this thing. But no ••• MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The honourable member is casting aspersions upon the Minister. The bill is introduced by the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. I don't think it' s fair of him to do that. The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F.

JOHNSTON: Thank you, Sir, I'm sorry, But my feelings are that way and I will not refer to it again. The Dulmage report which was brought in had a recommendation on boundaries and the boun daries reco=ended in this bill are not the same. The boundaries that were recommended should be debated or at least there should be hearings on the report , or we should hear from the Minister of Urban Affairs. Mr. Speaker, why then, why then would a report be tabled or shelved the same as the Boundaries Co=ission report has been shelved for Winnipeg and no hearings whatsoever ?

Why then shouldn't the people of Brandon be allowed to be heard on a report that definitely has a bearing on this co=unity ? Why then should not the people of the Cornwallis and the surrounding areas who have made statements and have made issue and brought to the attention of the Minister that they are not happy, why should they not have had hearings by the Minister of Urban Affairs ? Sir , is the Minister of Urban Affairs in this province now a sham or was it set up ju st for unicity of Greater Winnipeg?

Frankly, I don't know why, as I said earlier when I was speaking tonight, Sir , why these things happen with this government; why they don't take regard for the fact that when boundaries were changed or are changed in the rural part of Manitoba that there is usually some sort of agreement strived for between the two parties involved.

You know, as much as I dislike the Winnipeg bill, Sir, at least we know the boundaries of Greater Winnipeg, but here we have a bill that is changing boundaries. and taking in rural areas, which is not unlike, as my colleague from Souris-Killarney said, why didn 1t Winnipeg take in Selkirk or Portage la Prairie ? - (Interjection) - That 's right. The re, Sir, is the example of what you're having, "you better not. " That's what the people of Cornwallis are saying and they're expecting from the Minister of Municipal Affairs some sort of protection as far as the decision is made as a desist for hearing. Mr.

Speaker, the Dulmage report suggested a regional planning for the Brandon area when the boundaries are changed, etcetera, and it would make sense that when we do pass the bill for the boundaries of Brandon that in it is a regional zoning or planning authority for the Brandon area, What is being passed in 107, tonight it looks like, or at least second reading because we are being forced - what is being passed tonight is basically saying maybe two or three years from now we'll have to do it all over again and I'm sure - and I'm not sure of many things when it comes to the Ministers over there getting in agreement -- and I've got the laugh from Mickey Rooney again -- but by the same point I'm not sure: but I am sure if the Minister of Urban Affairs or the Minister of Municipal Affairs are given the opportunity to take a look at the Brandon situation, which is the second largest urban area in this province, that it would become a situation that would be presented, and I'm sure you would have agree ment from all sides.

Sir, I am getting comments, I know, and I've had the co=ent ''hear, hear" or I've "said that before, " and basically I would hope that the members on that side from Winnipeg would think a little bit more heavily upon what's happening in Brandon. It shows a "don't care" attitude for the rest of the province.

In other words, because the bill is here, we'll ram it through , and as I said earlier , we have a government who is self-destructing, and I don't care if they wreck themselves and they get voted out of office, but I say through you, Sir, to the First Minister , don't start wrecking people's lives in Brandon or at least give them the opportunity to speak and be heard on this bill.

And I say to the First Minister through you, Sir, why not - go ahead, give me all the answers or questions and what have you about the health and everything else like that - give me all of these circumstances, and I' ve heard them, but again I say why not , why can't the people of Brandon be heard and why does this have to be pushed through today or tomorrow or even the next day when the bill was presented at 1:3 0 last night. It's ridiculous, Sir.

I said when speed-up was mentioned, I said when speed-up was mentioned that very strange things would happen in this Legislature when men are pushed to the limit and I assure you tonight is an example of it happening. And I would like to say that there should be a cooling off of minds at least until tomorrow morning after tonight. I would suggest, Sir, that we do need it but people in the backbench over there don't,

2940 July 20, 1971 (MR . F. JOHNSTON cont'd) • they just sit grinning. But by the same token, Sir, the Brandon bill should have more consideration. The people of Brandon should be heard - and the comment that I should sober up I don't mind. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I should like to indicate to the gallery that they are not entitled to pa rticipate in the debate. If they can't adhere to the Rules I shall have to clearthem out. The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F.

JOHNSTON : But if it has to be done, Sir, if things have to be said and I again, Sir, would preface my remarks or finish my remarks by saying to the Fi rst Minister, that he has the responsibility to see that all people in Manitoba have the right to be heard on things concerning thetr lives and the people of Brandon are no different. They have that right and they should have that respect. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question ? The Honourable Member for Gladstone. MR. J. R. FERGUSON (Gladstone): Mr.

Speaker, I beg to move , seconded by the Hon ourable Member for Charleswood that debate be adjourned. MR. SPEAKER: I didn't hear the honourable member, there's too much noise. Would he repeat what he said. MR. FE RGUSON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Charleswood that debate be adjourned. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. SPIVAK: Ayes and Nays , Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. The Honourable Member for Souris-Killarney on a point of order. MR.

McKELLAR: Any debate while the bells are ringing, it's always been the way during my period of time that I've been here, till the bells stop ringing then the Speaker takes over. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the Honourable Minister wishing to speak to a point of order ? The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Minister of Labour)(Transcona) : Well, Mr. Speaker, it's not really a point of order because I recognize • • • MR. SPEAKER: Well, otherwise there's no question before the House. The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, may I in all due respect suggest that there is no rule under our House, in our House Rules , that the division bells should ring forever and a day and I suggest that in the absence of such that • • • MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the Honourable Minister speaking to a point of order ? MR. PAULLEY: Yes. MR. SPEAKER: Fine. The Honourable Minister of Labour . MR. PAULLEY: My honourable friend from Emerson, as I indicated on a couple of debates, there's a lot to learn. I do suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that in accordance with past precedences in this House that there is no necessity - (Interjection) -- I am standing on a point of order, my honourable friend - (Interjection) -- MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Order , please. I should like to indicate to the Honour able Member for Riel that he should have the courtesy to let the Honourable Minister of Labour express his point of order. I'm trying to hear it too. The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR.

PAULLEY: What I am attempting to do, Sir , is to say that the process of democ racy must continue and that it - well my honourable friend from Emerson doesn't know of which I speak and I appreciate that. All I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that any member of this Assembly in the absence of any rule as to when the division bell should cease can - (Interjection) - well it's not even a bell, you're right - can, in essence, allow or provide for the continuance of the ringing of the horn or the bell forever and I suggest, Mr.

Speaker , that in the absence of that in order that we may continue the process of the proper conduct of the Ass embly, that you, Sir , in order to prevent such frivolity should order that the division bell cease and that the vote be taken. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. CRAIK: May I refer yourself, Mr. Speaker, to Rule 10 of our own rule book. MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. GABRIEL GIRARD (Emerson) : I suggest first of all, my understanding of the rules

July 20, 1971 2941 (MR. GIRARD cont'd) • • • • • is that there is no point of order unless there is a matter before the House, and may I suggest that it might be wise for the Speaker to take the matter under advisement. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. MR. GREEN: Rule 10 says that there shall be no debate. I don't rise in a debate, I rise on a point of order.

I suggest that the conduct of the House is in the hands of the Speak er, that it is the usual custom for both sides to agree as to when division bells should stop ringing; but it is a matter of custom only, that the matter is in the last analysis in the hands of the Speaker and the Speaker should permit the bells to ring for a reasonable period of time, after which I suggest to you that it is incumbent on the Speaker to call the question. MR. SPEAKER: In that case, I should like to adjourn the House for five minutes and confer with the two House Leaders. The House is adjourned for five minutes, House Resumed MR.

SPEAKER: I asked for the House Leaders to come and see me ; only one appeared, apparently the other party wasn' t interested, The�e is no point of order. I'm on my feet, I want to state the situation as it is , This House will either run with decorum or it won't run at all, I'll adjourn it, Would you please sit down till I get finished stating the situation. There were members in of all parties at the time when I made the request, I had no one come from any of the other parties as I requested.

The division bells have always been rung on the understanding that the Whips would control them, I'm not going to make a ruling in regard to how long they should ring but I'm going to ask once more that after this division is over I want to confer with the House Lead ers, I want to arrive at an understanding of how this House is to operate, because it's the will of the House that concerns me and that's the way I want to operate. I am only the servant of this House but I do think that we all have to act responsibly if we are going to get concluded in this sitting.

Now the question before the House at the time of divisi .on was the Honourable Member for Gladstone, seconded by the Honourable Member for Charleswood, debate be adjourned on Bill 10 7. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion, MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie, MR. GORDON E. JOHNSTON (Portage la Prairie): Mr, Speaker, and I know you're acting with the best of intentions when you stated that you had asked co-operation from the House Leaders of the official parties of this House on deciding a matter where there is a great deal of contention tonight, but I suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, that five members of this House are being disenfranchised by that decision. Five members of this House have no say in an unofficial meeting, nor can they speak in this House on this matter and I think with all respect to your position, Sir, that there should be some consideration to those five members and perhaps one of them could be allowed to attend any unofficial meeting that you may see fit to call. MR. SPEAKER: The rules in respect to the point of order are clear. The House rules recognize only people of four members or more as an official party to have representation in that regard.

I believe I ruled on that earlier. I am not complete in stating on my point of order in respect- (Interjection) -- Did the member enter during • • • • out please. Order, please. Order, please. As I stated to the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie there was no point of order. I can recognize that there may be some concern in that regard and I'm certain that when we get to the rules coinmittee meetings we'll have to devise some means of representation ; I think this can be worked out by negotiations with the House Leaders and with the different members of the House.

Now, as I said, all those in favour of the motion, please rise. A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows : YEAS: Messrs. Beard, Bilton, Craik, Ferguson, Froese, Girard, Graham,H enderson, G. Johnston, F. Johnston, McGregor, McKellar, Moug, Patrick, Spivak, Watt, Weir, and Mrs. Trueman. NAYS: Messrs. Adam, Allard, Borowski, Boyce, Cherniack, Desjardins, Doern, Evans, Gottfried, Green, Hanuschak, Jenkins , Johannson, McBryde, Mackling, Malinowski, Miller, Paulley, Pawley, Petursson, Shafransky, Turnbull, Uskiw, Uruski , Walding. MR, CLERK: Yeas 18; Nays 25. MR. SPEAKER declared the motion lost.

2942 July 20 , 1971 MR. SPEAKER : I should like to indicate to all honourable members that when a division is taking place, and I wish they would mention this to their colleagues, there can be no one enter or leave during that division. Are you ready for the question ? The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR. MOUG: Mr, Speak.er, I rise to speak briefly on Bill 107.

I'm not opposed to the bill, I don't think that anybody on our side of the House is really and truly opposed to it; I think it's a matter that Brandon needs to have their voice heard as does the City of Winnipeg need their voice heard, I think that the government side of the House stands here and laughs tonight and says that I stand up and say that I'm not opposed to Bill 107 after voting twice, as we did in a division, and that's not the case. I think that Brandon should be heard, it's a principle.

They're an urban centre, we have an urban Minister, they have 35, 000 people in their city, they're going from one urban centre, they're adding in nine or ten municipal areas into it and all of a sudden the Minister of Municipal Affairs brings in a Bill 107 and sidelines the Minister of Urban Affairs, I say that if the Minister of Urban Affairs is good enough for the City of Winnipeg and it's 12 municipalities it's good enough for Brandon, That's all we want.

We want Brandon represented by an urban Minister and not a Municipal Affairs Minister that's looking after hay patches and the far north and areas like that. I'm not trying to belittle any municipality when I say that, but I say if it's Urban Affairs Minister we have in this gov ernment, we'll use the Urban Affairs Minister. I think it's disgraceful to think that Brandon is belittled by that.

They have an area here in the bill, there's two full pages of description of what will comprise this new area, two full pages, There's not one person on that side of the House can explain to me where the boundaries are going to be, The people of Brandon don't know where they're going to be; the people of the seven municipalities, or nine, Daley, Cornwallis , Elton, Glenwood, Oakland, Whitehead, none of them know where it's going to be, they have no idea.

They expect those people to sit down in Brandon, 35 , OOO of them, in that neighbourhood, and sit there and take it quietly, I say I can understand why they are dissatisfied in that city with the Minister of Industry and Commerce, and they're dissatisfied, The Mayor of Brandon stated clearly the other day that there's no way that the people of Brandon are going to take over the responsibilities of this government by asses sing two mills against their assessment for the next ten years. - (Interjection) - No, I won't, I won't ,no. No, I won't. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, MR. MOUG: I'll correct it to say 20 years.

I was only taking it out of the newspaper and if it's 20 years I' ll go along with the 20 years, That's worse.

But I have to say at this time that the Mayor of Brandon was such a gentleman that he said he wouldn't question the Minister of Industry and Commerce because the Minister of Industry and Commerce is far smarter than he was and there's no way you question the Minister of Industry and Commerce's word, And this Minister sits here , Mr, Speaker, and he's not smart enough to recognize that he is being ridiculed, absolutely ridiculed by the Mayor of Brandon, He sits here smiling, he says did you see what the Mayor of Brandon said. I read what he said, believe me, That's why I got up here, that's why I got up here, Mr.

Speak.er. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce, HON. LEONARD s. EVANS (Minister of Industry and Commerce)(Brandon East) : Mr, Speaker, on a matter or privilege, the honourable member is being dishonourable in the kind of remarks he's making about me, and furthermore his remarks are irrelevant to the bill at hand, They're absolutely irrelevant, MR, SPEAKER: Order, please, The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR. MOUG: Well, Mr.

Speaker, if that's a point of order well then nobody can get up in this House and say anything, You know, that's where democracy just gets thrown right out, MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the honourable member wants a point of order I should indicate to him that he should stick to debating the question before us. I did not make a ruling on the issue because I didn' t feel that I should at the moment, but if the honourable member wishes to debate that point, I should indicate to him that it is not part of the proce dure of what we have before us .

We have a bill and I wish he would confine his remarks to Bill 107. MR . MOUG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, My apologies for getting out of line. I wouldn't want to join the government side of the House in getting out of line every time I stood up, but I certainly would have to say to you that the people of Brandon are being short changed,

July 20 , 1971 2943 (:MR, MOUG cont'd) • I don't want to credit the government with anything but when they brought in Bill 36; we had fair indication they were bringing it in, we had a bundle of paper the size of Eaton's catalogue previous to the bill being brought in, The only difference between that and Eaton's catalogue was there was no bargains in it; when they brought in the bill and two days later they brought in that many pages again explaining the sections of the bill, And I admire the government for that, I didn't admire what was in the bill but I admire the government for what they did, And as I say, I do not oppose Bill 107 but I have to say to you today that I don't like the way the people of Brandon are being treated, and I'm speaking as an urban member, not of Brandon, urban member of Winnipeg because the representation they have from Brandon on this side of the House, he doesn't want to get up and speak for them, He won't do it, He gets up this afternoon and he reads letters to us much like I do about the Highways Minister, But I don't read them about my municipality, This man gets up and reads letters to us abo ut what's going on out there, The only thing the Mayor of Br andon doesn't agree with him, The Mayor of Brandon said that if they have to pay their own money to get the complex finished he's going to quit, They go on and say they're going to - in this bill they estimate taxes, This is fine and I think they can, and I can't dispute it, but I say that if you have the peopl.e of Brandon here, the Mayor of Brandon, some of the councillors and some of the people that live there and from the different municipalities they can dispute it, - (Interjection) - and I'm sure they can, - (Interjection) - MR, SPEAKER: Order, please, Order.

MR , MOUG: They get into another area there, Sir - I'll try and ignore the static from the other side, I thought our thunder storm was over last Friday night but apparently it's still going, They get into the ward system and I don't object to ward systems, We're imple menting that in Bill 36 in the city here and I agree with the ward system. But there's nothing in this BUI to say what they're going to do with the ward system. Does the man have to live in the ward he's being elected from?

It doesn't mention it, It doesn't say the Mayor has to live in the city, It doesn't say how he's elected, how he's appointed, it doesn't say anything, All it says is they want ten, The boundaries they don't mention, They mention two pages in here and if everybody can figure that out without the help of a good stiff barrage of lawyers, you got me . • • There's nobody knows where the hearings are going to be held, when they're going to be held, if the people are going to get an opportunity to listen to the Munici pal Affairs Committee if that's where it goes, in Law Amendments Committee if that's where it goes, Nobody knows, Yes , 2:30 in the morning you could be called in here.

They've been called in Agricultural Committee, when the farmers are expected to be in the fields at 5:30 or 6: 00 in the morning in Agriculture, there was a hearing in here at 1:30 in the morning, as was this bill introduced for second reading at 1:3 0 in the morning, And all of a sudden much like Bill 99 they bring it in here, they shoot it in front of you and they say we're putting it in closure, there's no way to amend it, there's no way do you amend it, They go to the point exactly, Mr, Speaker, as they did a few minutes ago by sending the House Leader of the gov ernment side of the House down there • , • knowing the rules as he does, and the man on our side of the House that knows the rules as he does didn't happen to be in the House , I'm sorry I'm off track, questioning you, I won't1Sir, But I say that Brandon is being sold short, very very short, There 's nobody knows where those hearings are going to be held, I say they should be held in Brandon, It's easier for us to send out a committee of 18 or 20 people out there for two days to listen to their briefs and listen to their discussion on this than send all those people in here and give them no notice, And the way I can see it coming up now with the length of this session as it should be, I can see no way that these people are going to have any 48 hour notice to prepare their briefs to bring them here,present them to that committee, I say this is the time that this government should be stopped and stopped now, and if they don't get the support of the Minister of Industry and Commerce, they're being sold real real short, I hope they get to know about it, He stands up and says everything in that bill is good, This is fine.

Everything in there is good, As far as I'm concerned , there's one or two things that I condemn, one or two things; but as far as the people in Brandon are concerned I'll bet there's a million things in there that they're con cerned about, They're concerned about the farms in these rural municipalities, the other nine other than the City of Brandon, The people of Cornwallls, what do they say about it, Let's get them in here, let's go out to them. Let's go out there to Brandon and let these ten

2944 (MR. MOUG cont'd) • municipalities say their piece on this bill. July 20 , 1971 Mr. Speaker, I think that this government -mind you I'm glad to see it - I think they're shooting themselves down fast; they are not giving the people anything that they said they were going to. They're a people's government, they're proving today exactly what they are.

For that reason, Sir, I would like to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Gladstone, that the proposed motion be amended by removing therefrom all the words after the word "that" and substituting therefore the following words "that this bill be not read now but read six months hence. " MR. SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to say a word or two, in connec tion with this bill, or the motion that is now proposed by the Honourable Member for Charles wood.

I have listened with a great deal of interest to all of the debate that has taken place on Bill 107, and one of the main concerns of members opposite particularly is the guiding factor or premise that the citizens of Brandon and the Municipality of Cornwallis have not had an opportunity of appearing before a committee of this Ass embly to make their representations - and my honourable friend from Portage la Prairie says, when. I, in all due respect , Mr.

Speaker, suggest to the members of this Assembly that the only time that representations can be made on a bill that has reached the stage that 107 has, is after the bill has been passed to a committee to hear representations. The mover of the motion for the six-month hoist, in effect is saying the absolute reverse - (Interjection) - When I'm finished. The member who proposed a six-month hoist of Bill No. 107, in effect ls saying that we don't want to hear representations from the people of Brandon or Cornwallis or any others who may be l.nJ;erested in the subject matter contained within Bill 107.

Because it is.historic, I'm sure, Mr . Speaker, as you realize, and I trust that most of the other mem bers of the Assembly should realize; if they don't may I respectfully suggest that they should consider an investigation into the net effects of a six-month hoist. That means that the bill is killed and killed completely; that notwithstanding the fact that there may be representations one way or the other in respect to the bill, they will not be heard. Now, Mr .

Speaker, the criticism that I have heard as a member of this Assembly, particularly from my honourable friend the member for one of the constituencies in Brandon, that he wants an opportunity for the people to be heard, and I think this is the base of the proposition for second reading of 107. But I want to say that there appears to be a division between the Honourable Member for Charleswood and the Honourable Member, Mr. McGill from Brandon West.

If they are in concert one with the other, then I would suggest that the objectives of the Honourable Member for Brandon West would be achieved by voting against Bill 107, and in effect depriving the people of Brandon of being heard in respect to the pro positions contained in Bill 107. - (Interjection) - I didn't hear my mumbles from Charles wood. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. MR. PA ULLEY: So I say, Mr.

Speaker, that if it is a sincere desire of the members of this Ass embly -and I'm not trying to differentiate between that side or this side or any side of the House -but it is historic in parliamentary procedure in this House and other jurisdictions that in order for the people to be heard -and I, in all respect, Mr. Speaker, believe that they should be heard. But the only way, Mr.

Speaker, in which they can be heard is by the forwarding of the bill from inside of this Assembly to the outside of the As sembly, and the Honourable Member for Charleswood has now suggested that the people of Brandon should be deprived of a right - (Interjection) - Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend from Lakeside says, "nonsense. " I suggest that I know my honourable friend's psychol ogy at this present time. MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The Honourable Member for Charleswood. Point of order. MR.

MOUG: Sir, I rise on a point of order./The Minister of Labour says that it is my wishes to deprive Brandon of hearings and this is exactly the opposite thing, I rise for that reason, I say I rise to speak tonight only because I want to see Brandon have a hearing; and no other reason. MR. SPEAKER: No point of order on that matter. The Honourable Minister of Labour.

July 20, 1971 2945 MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to do is to penetrate the mind of my honourable friend from Charleswood that the only way that the people of Brandon can be heard on Bill 107 is for it to come out of this Assembly and go into committee and his - (Interjection) - tomorrow, the next day, it doesn't matter really. --(Interj ection) - My honourable friend from Lakeside, Mr. Mumbles of the Ass embly I don't pay too much attenticn to anything that he says at this time of the evening, I do say, Mr. Speaker - (Interjection) - Pardon ? - (Interj ection) --That 's right, that's right, MR .

SPEAKER: Order, please , Rule 40, our own Rule -''When a member is speaking no member shall interrupt him except to raise a point of order or privilege. " I don't know if the honourable members desire this rule to be read when each sp

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-3-126
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 3rd hansardpdf 126.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2db286d0cdbb5957e4563972c7182bc61ecdce66

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