Manitoba Committee Hansard — 16 June 1977 (Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 11, 30th Legislature, 4th Session)

30-4-la11

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba HEARING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AMENDMENTS Chairman Mr. J. R. (Bud) Boyce Constituency of Winnipeg Centre THURSDAY, June 16, 19 77, 8:00p.m. Printed by P.N. Crosbie -Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba

IME: 8:05 p.m. Law Amendments Thursday, June 16, 1977 IR. CHAIRMAN, Honour able J.R.(Bud) Boyce. MR. CHAIRMAN: There was an indication this afternoon there was somebody wanting to make tpresenta tion on Bill 57 th is evening. If there is, would they pl ease come to the podium and identify 1emselves, and would you spell your name so we would have it on the record. MR. RALPH MORRIS: Yes, my name is Ralph Morris. Mr. Chairman and commit tee members, I'd <e to thank you for arran ging to hear us this evening. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else with you, Mr .

Morris, or is there someone else wishing to ake representa tion? MR. MORRIS: Yes, there is a Mr . Ken Lees with me, and he is here to assist me in answering any 'chnical questions which you may have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it the will of the committee to proceed with hearing Mr. Morris and Mr . Lees? �gr eed) Mr . Morris. MR. MORRIS: Thank yo u. May I proceed, Sir ? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MR. MORRIS : Thank you. We have pretty well taken care of paragraph one by the question and 1swer routine. Mr.

Grant Murray had been on standby for the last two to thr ee even ings. nfortunately, he could not make it this evening so I'm repr esenting him. The Canadian Business Eq uipment Man ufacturers Assoc iation appreciates the opportu nity to lpear before this commit tee on the important subject of attachment of equipmen� and devices to 1e Manitoba Telephone System's netwo rk. For those of you who may not be familiar with our association, CBEMA is a volu nt ary, non-p rofit ade association which has represented the interests of business equipment manufactu rers in an ad a for over 40 years.

Its membership pr esently consists of over 60 firms actively engaged in the anufacturing and marketing of a wide range of business equipment and office furnitur e. The 1sociation is structur ed into seven semi-autonomous produc t gr oups which repr esent firms anufactu ring similar products. Terminal attac hment is of vital interest to the dictati ng mach ine and 1e compu ter gr oups in our association as well as, for example, photocopy and duplicating.

The dictating machine group consists of seven major Canadian suppl iers of electr onic pr oducts ' record voice messages and provide for the recovery and transcription of these messages. The ·oducts of these members range from com mon devices such as portable and office dictating units, 'complex business dictating systems which can be remotely controlled for giving dictation from all cations con nected to telephone switchboard or external telephone networks.

Use of com munications in conjunction with these produc ts has in recent years opened up new lportunites, possibilities and methods of conducting business that would otherwise not be )ssible. The gr owth of te chnology and the capabilities of these produc ts has paralleled that of the ectr onics technology in general and we foresee no decrease in the rate of expansion in the near tu re. The firms represented by the computer group, manufacture and market a wide range of >m puters and comput er-related equipment for business, industry and government.

Together they ive provided over 80 percent of the com puters used in Canada. Canadians are sophistic ated users 'comp uters; Canada ranks second in the world in com puters per capita. The users of comput ers in anada have a wide range of altern atives from which to choose the level of service and cost best 1ited to their own requirements. More and more, these computer installations depend on the use of com munication facilities to ·ing information to the computer for proces sing and to re turn the comput er output to locations here it is req uired.

Ther e is a large and rapidly gr owing variety of equipment and software programs suppor t the computer use of co mmunication facilities. Data process ing users must be free to tlect from this wide variety of equipment in order to develop effective system solutions to th eir 1ique problems. We are here because we believe that if Bill 57 is passed in its present form, not only suppl iers such ; ourselves, but the users of co mmunication services will suffer.

"U sers" incl ude, of cour se, the nail businessman and profess ionals who use our produc ts, but also government, universities, >spitals, the large Manitoba-based companies and nationwide organizations which operate in anitoba. The reaction will not likely be immediate but will occur slowly as Manitobans realize their · >unt erparts in other provinces have capabilities that they do not have. We believe that legislation should ensu re the integrity and safety of the telephone network. We do not believe that legislation should provide the carrier with such broad and restrictive >wers as are given in Bill 57.

CBEMA made a written subm ission to the Public Util ities and Natural Resources Comm ittee on e subject of term inal attachment on Februar y 23, 1977, prior to Bill 57 being introdu ced into the 267

Manitoba Legislature. Law Amendments Thursday, June 16, 1977 In addition, CBE MA has been an active participant in the development of the terminal attach mer program administered by the Federal Department of Communications. We participated in the firs phase of the program which went into effect for voice products on April 30, 1960, and now we ar serving on task forces which are studying the implementation plans for the second phase of thi program, which relates to data devices.

Interconnection of subscriber-provided devices to the telephone network is controlled to variou degrees in different countries of the world and in different provinces in Canada. In the United States the right of users to attach devices to the telephone network was established in 1968. Since that tim there has been an ever-increasing variety of equipment and devices available to the user. Canadia1 users, even today, are more restricted in devices permitted for attachment than their United State counterparts.

Trends have been developing in Canada, however, towards providing more freedom fo attachment, to the benefit of the users. The Federal Department of Communications has establishe1 a policy favouring the relaxation of rules under which computer users are given access to carrie transmission facilities. This policy resulted from many years of study: by the Telecommission, tht Computer/Communications Task Force, the Computer /Communications Secretariat, and specia working groups. Input was received and studied from many interested associations, government and industries from across Canada.

In a broad sense, this policy is now being proposed as legislation in the new "Act respectin! Telecommunications in Canada", or Bill C-43, currently before the House of Commons. This bil would give the CRTC the authority for "directing a telecommunication carrier to permit th1 interconnection of its facilities with other facilities or equipment on such terms and conditions as th1 Executive Committee may determine".

The Department of Communications Terminal Attachment Program which I mentioned is a1 example of the trend towards making it possible for communication users to attach their equipmen to the telephone network. The DOG policies and programs, of course, apply only to those carrien who are regulated by the Federal CRTC. Much of the pressure for increased freedom in attachment to the telephone network is comin! from users who see the increasing number of machines and devices available, and wish to be able t< take advantage of this equipment for their own operations.

In Canada, as in other countries, it i1 within the non-regulated portion of the environment that technology is exploding. Considering the environment just described, we are concerned that Bill 57, both in its wordin! and in its intent as expressed by the Manitoba Telephone System, is restrictive legislation which wil have a detrimental effect on the development of economic activity in Manitoba.

MTS, as a practica matter, could not provide the wider and ever-increasing variety of products that are offered by thf electronics and data processing industry and which require attachme nt to, and use of, the telephonf network. Bill 57 applies equally in its wording to decorator telephones and to the attachment of thf largest computers. lt leaves the decisions as to what can be attached not to those who need thE equipment, but solely to the·MTS.

CBEMA believes that the sole objective of legislation for attachment should be to protect thf integrity of the telephone network, and the safety of those involved with the network. This can bE accomplished by ensuring that equipment to be connected meets published technical specificationl for attachment. The administration of the law should be as simple as possible, so as to ensure thE least cost for manufacturers, users and the MTS. The legislation should make it easier for users tc select equipment which is competitively priced and which meets their needs.

Bill 57, in our opinion, does not meet these objectives. Its intent appears to be to create a morE restrictive environment: its effect would be less choice and more expense for the users. We are prepared, if any member should desire, to give a clause by clause analysis of our concern! with this bill. These concerns were detailed in our attachment to our May 3rd letter to Mr. W.

Jenkins Our association believes that the whole philosophy of the bill should be re-examined with amplE opportunity for the industry and user community, as well as the MTS, to make their views known We, therefore, urge the Manitoba Government to consider withdrawal of the bill in its present fom and to consider re-drafting of the bill with input from all interested and affected members of thE Manitoba community. I repeat, that if passed in its present form, equipment suppliers in Manitoba would be faced witt serious restrictions to the conduct of their business in Manitoba.

Further, as a result, users anc potential users of the MTS communication services would be prevented from being as efficient as their counterparts in other provinces and in the U.S. A., who are permitted more freedom of choice ir their ability to attach equipment to the telephone networks. Mr. Chairman, I know how busy and tired you people must be and I appreciate very much thE opportunity for this presentation. We would be pleased to answer any questions you have. MR. MORRIS: If there is a photocopy machine around, Sir, I would be delightedto see that copies 268

Law Amendments Thursday, June 16, 1977 .re made for you. Can that be arranged or ... ? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that can be arranged. lt sometimes helps with the recording. Are there any 1uestions of Mr. Morris? Mr. Toupin. MR. TOUPIN: Mr. Chairman, to you Mr. Morris. You have a list here of all companies that you epresent or are wanting to represent in your brief here this evening. I take it they do business in :askatchewan and Alberta where we have two telephone companies that are endeavouring to do 1usiness about in the same field as we are in the Province of Manitoba, are they not? MR.

MORRIS: To answer the first part of your question, sir, all of the firms which are members of �BEMA do have representation either through dealership or direct factory outlets in all provinces 1cross Canada, including of course Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I am not in a position to remark on vhat the Saskatchewan Telephone Company may be involved in at the moment. MR. TOUPIN: Mr. Chairman, I am informed - again I only go by reports that I have received from ny officials - that the conditions imposed in Alberta, as an example, are quite more stringent than is :ontemplated under Bill 57. MR. MORRIS: On the which, sir?

MR. TOUPIN: Are quite more stringent than considered under Bill 57 here in Manitoba - s that •our understanding of the companies that do business in Alberta? MR. MORRIS: No, sir, I do not have details of the motions or actions which are taking place in �lberta. I am very familiar with the Federal Department of Communications for Ontario, Quebec and �ritish Columbia. The requirements of Bill 57 are significantly more string ent than the Department of �ommunications Ontario, Quebec and B.C. requirements. MR. CHAIRMAN: Did Mr. Lees want to comment on that question?

Would you come forward, Mr . . ees. it's a joint presentation. MR. LEES: Mr. Chairman and members, if I may. The Alberta legislation, as you suggest, is a very estrictive sounding legislation in its wording. The

interpretation of that legislation and the mvironment we work with does not always follow the letter of the law, so to speak, and we are able to lo business in Alberta quite successfully but we do face restrictions there. However, I understand, md you may have better knowledge on this than myself, that the Alberta Telephone is considering at his time adopting the Federal DOC terminal attachment program in Alberta modified to suit their >articular needs. MR. TOUPIN: Mr.

Chairman, in the brief presented by CBEMA in February, I would like to find the >aragraph that indicated that in principle CBEMA was in accord with Bill 57 as drafted at that time. ls here a change to that position? MR. LEES: Excuse me ... MR. TOUPIN: I'm sorry. I've got the

section of your brief. lt is Page 7, subsection 4, and the 1uotation is: "CBEMA agrees in general with the MTS proposal. " Again, I say at that time it was a draft >roposal. "That legislation "- and here I am quoting - "That legislation be enacted that would allow he Public Utilities Board of Manitoba to approve specific practices for interconnection of customer >wned terminal equipment to the public switch networ k." Has that position changed, Mr. Lees? MR. LEES: No, sir, that has not changed.

I should comment first of all that that submission was lated February 23 and Bill 57 was not introduced, I believe, until April 4th. We were commenting not >n Bill 57 but on the presentation given by MTS in January I believe. In that presentation, MTS ndicated their position that they believed the Public Utilities Board should be the arbitrator of lisputes or disagreements and we fully believe in that principle. That's still our policy; we do not >elieve that Bill 57 adequately addresses that need. MR. TOUPIN: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lees and Mr.

Morris, you are both aware that the bill makes ·eference to the agency being the Public Utilities Board in regards to the possible disputes. MR. LEES: Yes, sir,

Section 43-1 and 43-2 make reference to tariffs requiring approval of the 'ublic Utilities Board. The problems that exist with that, there are a number of them. The way it is set Jp, MTS will write that tariff.

The feelings of the Public Utilities Board will not be reflected in any way n the tariff that is written; it will be written by MTS and the Public Utilities Board will have the function >f approving or disapproving of that tariff, so we feel that tariffs will still reflect, not what users want >ut what the MTS wants, and that the Public Utilities Board will be in the position to be there saying res or no and not having really any input into the process of establishing tariffs. Another very serious consideration we believe is one that I believe was addressed in debate in rour House by Mr.

Sherman concerning whether the Public Utilities Board really has under its Act he power to approve tariffs in all of these areas. We understand it is the present practice in Manitoba hat the Public Utilities Board does not approve of tariffs in other than telephone related matters .. )ata Transmission tariffs, for example, are not approved, as I understand it, by the Public Utilities 3oard.

Now, Bill 57 addresses attachment of devices in many areas other than for providing elephone messages and we are concerned that the Public Utilities Board may not have the right or :he powers to address tariffs that might be issued by the MTS. MR. TOUPIN: Mr. Chairman, the legal advice that we get, Mr. Lees and Mr. Morris, is that the 269

Law Amendments Thursday, June 16, 1977 Public Utilities Board has had, stilt has, the jurisdictional power to set tariffs. I would like to infon both Mr. Lees and Mr. Morris that the Committee will be considering amendments; both the Stand in Committee and this Committee and members of the House generally have appreciated th comments that you made in February and May of 1977 in regard to Bill 57. We wish to thank y01 MR. LEES: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shafransky. MR. SHAFRANSKY: I have one question. Mr. Lees, I had a nuer of letters and telephone calls fror a Mr. Flood.

I wonder if you are the people who are representing the same group. Somebody sai CBEMA and I just didn't quite understand it. I've tried to get hold of Mr. Flood but he's not availablE MR. LEES: Mr. Flood is a member of our organization on our office staff in Toronto anc unfortunately, ended up in the hospital last week and has been there for a week and a half; that's wh you were not able to reach him. Yes, we are in the same organization. MR.

SHAFRANSKY: I was just curious because I had a number of telephone calls and I indicate' that as soon as I knew when the committee would be called to hear the presentations on thi particular bill, I would contact him. I did ask the Clerk's Office and they said they would phone him. was just curious whether that was the same group or not because somebody said CBEMA. MR. LEES: We appreciate your co-operation. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Morris and Mr. I Lees. was glad we could accommodate yoL There are amendments to Bill 57. Would the.

Minister pass out the amendments to Bill 57 and we wi consider it clause by clause? MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 57,

An Act to amend the ManitobaTelephone Act. Clause 1-pass. There' an amendment to Clause 1. Mr. Shafransky. MR. SHAFRANSKY: Is this Bill 57? Mr. Chairman, I move that the proposed subsection 43(3) o The Manitoba Telephone Act, as set out in

section 1 of Bill 57, be amended by adding thereto, at th1 end thereof, the words "for the purpose of transmitting or receiving messages passing through th1 telecommunication equipment of the commission." A further motion .. . MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment please. Is the amendment acceptable? Mr. Sherman. MR. SHERMAN: We haven't dealt with 43(1) yet. MR. CHAIRMAN: This is the amended

section which Mr. Shafransky read which has beer circulated. MR. SHERMAN: But you haven't called 43(1) yet, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: No, but we're going clause by clause. If I may, gentlemen please, th1 amendment which was read was not for 43(1 ), it / was for 43(3). 43(1), I? Mr. your pleasure to accep this Sherman. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, I want to put the situation .. . MR. CHAIRMAN: May I have a little order please so I can hear Mr. Sherman. MR. SHERMAN: I wish to put a situation to the Minister at this juncture for his comment on 43(1) Mr. Chairman. Under

section 43(1), the use of equipment must be authorized by being included in thE MTS's tariff as approved by the Public Utilities Board and that's good in one respect because it meam the rates charged have to be approved by the Public Utilities Board.

But the shortcoming, and I thin• I've suggested this to the Minister before, is that the MTS can prevent the use of some sorts o equipment simply by not putting it into their tariff and I feel that the clause and the bill are faulty ir that, at the present time they contain no procedure by which the Public Utilities Board could orde1 the Manitoba Telephone System to quote a tariff for the connection of any type of equipment. So, would start at that point and ask the Minister for his impression or his. opinion of the validity of what I am alleging. MR. CHAI RMAN: Mr. Toupin. MR. TOUPIN: Well, Mr.

Chairman, we're going back to discussions that we've had on second reading of the bill in regard to what is considered to be powers of the Public Utilities Board or not. I contended then and I contend now that they do have the power in regards to equipment that i� considered to be harmful to the network and that still remains and that satisfies us. MR. CHAIRMAN: May I just point out that the latter point was well taken. The clause under consideration, if there's an amendment to the clause which the member wants to propose or to speak against the clause or ... Mr. Sherman. MR. SHERMAN: Well, Mr.

Chairman, telecommunication equipment doesn't just mean phone lines or attachment devices of the type referred to by the Minister. it also refers to cable equipmen1 and data processers, computers. lt's true that where you have a non-competitive situation, the Public Utilities Board is an agency of review. But where you have a competitive situation in the rate field, the Public Utilities Board has no power to review and the Manitoba Telephone System remains supreme in that area and they can simply include and exclude from their tariffs anything that they wish to do. MR. TOUPIN: Well, Mr.

Chairman, again I indicate that the Public Utilities Board is not limited to those items referred by the Manitoba Telephone System as in the tariff. They can review any item that 270

Law Amendments Thursday, June 16, 1977 s considered to be serviced by the Manitoba Telephone System. I would refer the honourable nember, Mr. Chairman, to

section 77 of the Public Utilities Board Act in regard to its power and it's tot limited to telephone lines. it's quite encompassing in regard to its jurisdictional powers. I would tsk the honourable member to read that section,

section 77,(a), (b), and (c). MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Axworthy. MR. AXWORTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister is missing a pretty fundamental point. it nay be true that the Public Utilities Board, through its own Act, has been issued jurisdiction in these treas. Whether it exercises those jurisdictions in relation to this specific item is a totally different natter, and without guidance by this Legislature as to what they should be doing, then the Public Jtilities Board would not be acting as it has not been acting in the past.

He may say that there is urisdiction, but they have not been exercising that jurisdiction. Mr. Chairman, I assume that I was ;peaking to the bill and I think if the Minister of Labour would like to speak to it, there is a microphone tvailable at the table, anytime he would like to. MR. CHAIRMAN: May I ask that all remarks be directed to the Chair? MR. AXWORTHY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I assume that microphones are available to all members of he Committee to use when they raise their hand, and are so acknowledged. The question that I'm raising is that under the wording of this particular

section 43(1), as it's lefined, it could conceivably even involve connections , let's say, to the television set. But without ;ome presumption built in by this legislation as to guide the Public Utilities Board and to find for it the •ind of jurisdiction and authority over this item that we would require, then we would keep ourselves n the same position as we are now, which is that the Public Utilities Board does not exercise urisdiction in those areas which it calls competitive rates. Therefore, the Manitoba Telephone )ystem is free from any jurisdiction than it has been.

So all the Minister is describing to this :;ommittee is that there is a latent jurisdiction - that they have received no direction, guidance, nstruction from this Legislature or for that matter, from the government as to what the Manitoba relephone System is required to do. I think we have to build that in . If we're giving the PUB the liscretion that I think it's incumbent upon this Committee and Legislature to indicate the guidelines or that discretion, otherwise, we will simply not have any authority being exercised. MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 1- pass.

Gentlemen, we have the motion to pass or amend, so if ;omebody has an amendment ready that they wish to move, you know. I'm at your will and pleasure. v1r. Sherman. MR. SH ERMAN: Mr. Chairman, not wishing to move away from the position that has already been lxpressed. At the very mini mum I would want to move an amendment having to do with the reference o the telecommunication equipment of the commission on the grounds that 43(1) is unnecessarily ·estrictive, and it refers to the telecommunication equipment of the commission, not to the public ;witched network. So I would move that in

section 43(1), that the term "telecommunication lquipment" in the first line thereof be struck out and replaced by the term, "public switched network. " -(In terjection )- Well, I'm in the process of writing it, I apologize, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sherman, if you wanted to write your amendment - Mr. Axworthy wanted o speak again also. Mr. Axworthy. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman, I have another question that perhaps the Minister might be >repared to answer relating to this section. That is, does this

section also apply to equipment that is ;upplied by MTS itself? Would it also be subject to any jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Board or are hey outside its jurisdiction? MR. TOUPIN: Mr. Chairman, I would refer the honourable member to 43(1), the third line. MR. AXWORTHY: Okay. MR. TOUPIN: And not supplied by the commission. I think that's fairly clear. MR. AXWORTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, what happens in a case then where MTS itself is in the >usiness of supplying all kinds of similar kinds of equipment. lt means that they are not subject to the ;ame regulation that the private supplier is, is that what we're being told? MR. TOUPIN: Well, obviously that's what the

section says, Mr. Chairman. MR. AXWORTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, so in effect what we are saying is that the private supplier is ;ubject to the authority of the Public Utilities Board with its tariffs, and MTS can basically do what it IVants without being subject to any kind of authority, regulation whatsoever, and I would really ask he Minister if that's the case, does he consider that to be a fair application of the law? MR. TOUPIN: Mr.

Chairman, the Manitoba Telephone System is aware of the equipment that it ;ells and connects to the system but is not aware of what is being supplied and attempted to be :onnected by other firms, and that's the reason for the section. MR. AXWORTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, certainly the Manitoba Telephone System would know IVhat equipment it is prepared to sell, but would the import of this particular

section then not be to Jive it a major competitive advantage over any private supplier because they're being subject to two lifferent sets of rules. And if it is being subject to the tariff of the Public Utilities Board, why shouldn't 271

Law Amendments Thursday, June 16, 1977 the Manitoba Telephone System �I so be subject to the same kinds.of guidelines and rules so that th1 would not have any particular built-in natural advantage simply because they are the ... In this ea: they are really writing the rules to suit themselves and to give themselves the specific built advantage. MR. TOUPIN: Mr. Chairman, I take it that the Public Utilities Board will keep in mind adjudicating the selling prices and conditions that the Manitoba Telephone System has for itse MR. AXWORTHY: Well then, Mr. Chairman, it comes back to my original point.

That would be nic but the Manitoba Telephone System has not been appearing before the Public Utilities Board for ar kinds of rates relating to that kind of equipment. lt only comes before it for telephone rates, and it h� not been appearing before it for other kinds of setting of rates. MR. TOUPIN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Backhouse to make a comment here. MR.

BACKHOUSE: I would just say that on many of Manitoba Telephone System's equipmer offerings of the type that I think we are dealing with, they are offered at rates approved by the Publi Utilities Board and I cite the case of the Telephone System telephone answering recorders, which i similar to the equipment that is being talked about. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman, it's an interesting coincidence that Mr.

Backhouse raises th example of the telephone answering systems because I had in my files, and I think it was brought u in the House, that in fact as the Manitoba Telephone System has gone into that particular business i competition with private answering services, they are offering substantially lower rates, using the lists that they acquire to develop customers and so on.

There is a great deal of uncertainty on the pa1 of the private answering services to the very major advantage that the MTS is beginning to employ t pursue one of its satellite activities and as far as one can determine that has never been reviewed b the Public Utilities Board, the whole question of its operation into the answering service businesl And yet, they are obviously going to have the end effect of putting the private people out of busines as a result. MR. TOUPIN: The advice, Mr. Chairman, that I am receiving is that the Public Utilities Board ha the jurisdictional power to investigate. MR.

AXWORTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, I've read the Public Utilities Act as well and of course it's i1 the Act, but they've never exercised it. A MEMBER: So what? MR. AXWORTHY: Well okay, then what's the point of having it there if they've never exercised i1 Well in the last two or three, four or five years, we've been moving into a number of new areas relatec to the whole telecommunication, electronic telecommunication field. lt's a brand new field. Th1 Public Utilities Board has not been introducing itself into these areas, because no one has beer indicating that that's what they should be doing.

The government has certainly made no effort to de it. Now we are passing laws giving Manitoba Telephone System very substantial new powers, anc saying, well the Public Utilities Board if it wanted to could move into the area but no one is instructin! them to do so, and like any regulatory commission, they work on the basis of presumption just a: courts and everyone else does. So, I would assume, Mr. Chairman, that we should be setting forwarc that we would like these things to come under the review of the Public Utilities Board. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. I want to give as much leeway as possible.

Nevertheless, we an exceeding the proper debate on clause by clause consideration and if any member has ar amendment to make, then that amendment should be moved. The Member for Fort Garry moves that

section 43(1) of clause 1 of the first line thereof, the word: "telecommunication equipment" be struck out and replaced by the words, "public switchec network. " Mr. Sherman. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, if I could take one minute to speak to that proposed amendment. I derives from the fact that for many many years now, not only in Manitoba but throughout Nortt America, that terminal devices have been connected to leased lines in certain other communicatior services of telephone companies without restriction. What

section 43(1) says is: "connection to the telecommunication equipment of the commission ," etc. - that means any telecommunicatior equipment . As I've suggested, for many years that practice has not been restricted in Manitoba 01 elsewhere.

I can understand the Minister's interest and the Manitoba Telephone System's interest ir making sure that connections of this kind referred to in this clause are controlled when the public switched network is involved but the clause doesn't say that. lt says "to the telecommunicatior equipment, " and as I've suggested that could include leased lines and other communication services. So that's the reason for the amendment asking that it involves the public switched network and no1 the telecommunication equipment of the commission generally. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other comments to the amendment? MR.

SH ERMAN: I would assume the Minister might want to respond to that. MR. TOUPIN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't see a reason why I should have to respond to a suggestion made by the Member for Fort Garry. The suggestion made by the government is contained within the section. We feel that we need to have telecommunication equipment in the bill. 272

Law Amendments Thursday, June 16, 1977 rhe member is saying, we don't need that; he's substituting. Obviously I'm against it. MR. SHERMAN: That's fine. The Minister may be obviously against it, but I think it's not m reasonable or unparliamentary to ask why he's against it. He has put a position here that for ali i mow may not even have taken into account the points that I raised in my amendments. MR. TOUPIN: Mr.

Chairman, again, I indicated on the principle of the bill on second reading, if the 1onourable member wants to go back to the -( Interjection)- when I talked about telecommunica ion matters that are not necessarily on the switched network. So the only way to cover these is by 1aving a

section that deals with telecommunication equipment, generally, not only the switched 1etwork. Now is that clear? MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question on the amendment? MR. SH ERMAN: Well, all I'm asking ... The Minister has made that declamatory statement on ;econd reading and again now and he's never given me a reason for it. -(In terjection)- Why doesn't 1e have to? The Minister of Labour said he doesn't have to. I suggest to you, Mr.

Chairman, that even he Minister of Labour in all our intensive labour legislation debates gives us reasons for what he's 1oing and why he's doing it. -(l nterjection)- MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, if all members will address their remarks to the Chair perhaps we can inish our legislation in the next couple of weeks. Mr. Axworthy. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman, the Minister just made what I find to be somewhat of a curious ;tatement.

He said that the original purpose for bringing this amendment in, as we were all told, was o prevent against people either using these connections, these sort of additional linkages on this ;witch system. Now he is saying we've got concerns about a whole other range of telecommunication lquipment. Would he care to elaborate what these other concerns are, because that was not the ·eason why the bill was originally introduced. lt seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that a lot of things are >eing tucked into this bill that were not there.

So what we would like to know is - going back to the >riginal objective as outlined by the Minister as to why we have the bill, which was to prohibit sort of he use of these i I legal connections to the switch system -w hat are these other telecommunications 1reas that he's now talking about? Is he talking about cable? Because if it's cable then no one is !legally connecting up on there and isn't that a very different matter? Shouldn't we have a different ;et of legal prescriptions dealing with it? What other kind of equipment is he referring to? MR. TOUPIN: Well, Mr. Chairman, again ... MR.

CHAIRMAN: Excuse me if I may. The equipment that is being specifically referred to is elecommunication equipment and public switched networks in this amendment. MR. AXWORTHY: Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Committee has to vote on whether they're for the amendment or against the 1mendment. MR. AXWORTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to know ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Once we deal with the amendment and if the

section is amended, then we can 10 back to the broader question relative to

Section 1 -( Interjection)- but it's a specific .. MR. SHAFRANSKY: That's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you keep quite please, Mr. Shafransky? MR. SHAFRANSKY: Yes. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman, I think that you've properly outlined what one of the lines of 1uestioning is because the Minister has introduced, in a sense, a different definition. He is now ;aying that there is a whole other range of equipment. I'd like to know what they are so that we can nake a proper judgment as to which way we should vote. MR. TOUPIN: Mr. Chairman, I have not introduced a new concept. This has been in the bill.

This is tot a question of the amendment before us. If the honourable member wants to talk to the tmendment of the Member for Fort Garry, that is new. What we're talking about in regard to elecommunication equipment, that's been in the bill. If the honourable member missed the speech hat I made in the House on second reading, it's on Hansard, he can look at it. We talked about elecommunication equipment. If he wants any details in regard to techniques that can damage the ;ystem whether it be switch or under the telecommunication equipment system itself, I can ask Mr. 3ackhouse to explain, Mr. Chairman. · MR.

CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, please. lt is not within the rules of the Committee to call technical tdvice on clause by clause consideration. The Minister answers for his bill. But the question once tgain, for or against the amendment, gentlemen. Mr. Sherman. MR. SHERMAN: I have no objection to the question being called, but I simply ask you, Mr. �hairman, in the light of the position that the Minister is taking that he's not prepared to discuss these :lauses, what is the point of a clause by clause examination in Law Amendments Committee? MR. TOUPIN: I am prepared, that's hogwash. MR. SHERMAN: You're not prepared. MR.

TOUPIN: I am. MR. SHERMAN: You're not prepared to justify the clause for a question. 273

Law Amendments Thursday, June 16, 1977 MR. TOUP!N: I don't want to justify yours, I'll justify mine. I'll vote against yours. MR. CHAI RMAN: Gentlemen, please. I would suggest that there's a motion before the Committe to consider, and we can either consider it calmly or not. Mr. Shafransky. MR. SHAFRANSKY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I believe Mr. Sherman moved a motion in amendment t Bill 57 and that is the question before us and we have to dispose of it. If Mr. Axworthy has any othe matters that he wishes to discuss, then he can discuss it along his own line.

But I think that we have a amendment and we should talk to the amendment and dispose of that amendment, whether we pas it or reject it. A MEMBER: Question. MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favour of the amendment? A MEMBER: What are we voting on? MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment as proposed by Mr. Sherman. All those in favour of th' amendment - 9. All those opposed to the amendment - 12.

Section 43(1). Mr. Axworthy. MR. AXWORTHY: I have an amendment to move. THAT

Section 43(1) be amended to delete the words on the third line thereof "and not supplied b� the Commission" so as to make the

section read as follows: "Connection to the telecommunication equipment of the Commission of equipment, devices o contrivances capable of transmitting or receiving messages passing through the system of th• Commission may be authorized under the general tariff of the Commission as approved by the Public Utilities Board, and unless such equipment, device or contrivance is so authorized for a connection that no person shall connect it to the telecommunication equipment of the Commissi on. " I can give you the copy of that if I may, Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I would draw to your attention that it is with the co-operation of both sides of thE House, that we're having two concomitant meetings going. In future if Mr. Sherman has a motion wish he would give it to a member of the Committee to move. MR. SHAFRANSKY: This is now Mr. Axworthy's. MR. AXWORTHY: Yes, but I'll move Sherman's. MR. SHAFRANSKY: We want to dispose of that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion as presented, Mr. Axworthy. MR. AXWORTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, it goes back to the point I raised in questioning the Minister.

I think that the way this clause reads, that it excludes the Manitoba Telephone System frorr having to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Board in this whole wide area o1 telecommunication activity that is defined as being competitive, everything from answering systems to conceivably. The way it's being been defined it could even include the hook-up to television sets, I suppose, if you wanted to stretch the jurisdiction of the word.

And to have one set of operators, those on the private side being required to come before the Public Utilities Board and come under their jurisdiction, and not to have the Manitoba Telephone System do so, obviously creates a major disparity. lt gives the Manitoba Telephone System the ability, if it so wants to exercise it, to gain unfair competitive advantage in any of these areas.

And it would seem to me that as a public utility operating and engaging in these areas, it should be absolutely required that it come before the Public Utilities Board and be subject to its authority, and I find it unfathomable that it isn't' and why it excludes itself automatically from this Act. So the purpose of the amendment would be to include it just as everyone else would be included under the authorization of t he Public Utilities Board and under its jurisdiction, and that's the point of the amendment. QUESTION put on the amendment and lost. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 43(1)-pass; 43(2)-pass; 43(3), Mr. Axworthy. -(lnterjection) MR. SHAFNSKY: He is not a member of the Committee and he could not vote in any case. MR. AXWORTHY: Pardon me? MR. SHAFRANSKY: The Law Amendment Committee. MR. AXWORTHY: Yes. MR. SHAFRANSKY: You're not a member of the Committee. MR. AXWORTHY: Of course, I'm a member of it. MR. SHAFRANSKY: Then you will put on there .. . MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the Deputy Clerk would do me a favour and see if Mr. Shafransky is on the Committee. Mr. Axworthy. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want to have Mr. Shafransky worry about it.

In fact, I think I was put on it last February, and I wouldn't want him to worry about it. Seeing he's so concerned about me, I would hope we would like to get the matter straight. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. -(In terjection)- 43(3). Is it the will of the Committee to adopt 43(3)? Mr. Axworthy. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman, I think I've asked for the floor. MR. SHAFRANSKY: Mr. Chairman, I have a .. . 274

Law Amendments Thursday, June 16, 1977 MR. CHAI RMAN: Mr. Axworthy. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman, the question I have is that the definition of this Act, where it lefines that equipment is adjacent to the telecommunication equipment, I believe it is talking about he whole notion of acoustic links which is, as far as I know, the first time this has been done in any �orth American jurisdiction, and I'd like to Minister to elaborate upon whether that in fact is the case. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Toupin. MR. TOUPIN: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I refer the honourable member to the present Act. lt's :ontained within the present Act and it has been for quite some time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sherman. MR. SH ERMAN: lt's my impression, Mr. Chairman, subject to correction by the Minister, that in he present situation a judge can draw that conclusion in the absence of any other explanation; but he clause in front of us, Sir, says, "That shall be conclusively deemed, " that means that the judge is >eing directed to draw that conclusion. lt's not an optional conclusion, and in that respect it would :eem to us that 43(3) goes too far.

As I think I suggested to the Minister during the debate, what it really means, that a store selling his equipment that is quite leg� ! can be in violation of the law simply for keeping it n� � �'� telephone. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Toupm. :) MR. TOUPIN: Mr. Chairman, again the legal

interpretation of the difference between the existing \et and the

section before us, as it is intended to be amended - and the honourable member has a :opy of the amendment - should alleviate any of the problems pointed out by the Honourable i1ember for Fort Garry. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shafransky. MR. SHAFRANSKY: Mr. Chairman, I have a motion. I move that the proposed subsection 43(3) of he Manitoba Telephone Act as set out in

Section 1 of Bill 57, be amended by adding thereto at the 1nd thereof, the words "for the purpose of transmitting or receiving messages passing through the elecommunication equipment of the Commissio n." MR. CHAIRMAN: Agreed? Pass. 43(3) as amended-pass. 43(4). MR. SHAFRANSKY: Mr. Chairman, I move that the proposed subsection 43(4) of the Manitoba ·elephone Act as set out in

Section 1 of Bill 57, be amended: (

a) by striking out the words "or the Public Utilities Board " where they appear in the third line 1ereot and again in the fifth line thereof, and (

b) by adding thereto immediately after the word "equipment" in the fourth line thereof the words or service. " MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the amendment acceptable to the Committee? Mr. Axworthy. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman, on the .. . MR. SHAFRANSKY: That is not permitted. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Axworthy. MR. AXWORTHY: Are we getting another ruling from the sub-Chair on it. MR. SHAFRANSKY: No, I'd like you to be your own man for a change. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Axworthy. -(lnterjection)- MR. AXWORTHY: Please don't ever do that, Mr. Shafransky. Mr. Chairman, I would want to raise rith the Minister two items under this

section which I thinj< giveS enormous amount of discretion to 1e Commission without, again, any check or balance or control. lt says in the third line, "that in the opinion of the Commission, " and we've now taken out the 'ublic Utilities Board, "the connection will or might injuriously affect". Now, the import of that, Mr. :hairman, is simply that if someone in the Manitoba Telephone System, for whatever reason that 1ey deem, decides that something may be affecting it, they have enormous powers to eliminate it. hey don't have to appear before anybody. They don't have to justify it to anybody.

There is no �course for appeal. There is simply no way of dealing with that very significant power because there 1 just simply no forum in which anybody can make representation against that Act. So we're simply aying we're giving an enormous amount of discretionary power to the Telephone Commission in lis area, and frankly I think, Mr. Chairman, that that would be really trespassing upon some very ignificant rules of law in this case. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Toupin. MR. TOUPIN: Mr.

Chairman, if the Honourable Member for Fort Rouge will refer to the mendment that is coming forward, 43(8), I believe that that will rectify the problem that he brings ut. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman, before we pass one to the other, what's the import of that? MR. TOUPIN: If I'm allowed, Mr. Chairman, the amendment that will be brought forward under 3(8) brings forward concerns expressed by individuals in regard to the MTS. lt could, under this 1gislation, act in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner in disconnecting equipment under

Section 3(4), and discontinuing service under

Section 43(7). In order to alleviate these concerns a Jbsection (8) has been proposed which would provide for an appeal by the owner, of any equipment 275

Law Amendments Thursday, June 16, 1977 that has been disconnected under subsection (4), or the subscriber whose service has been stoppe under subsection (7), to the Public Utilities Board for an order requiring MTS to reconnect th equipment or re-establish service. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 43(4) as amended-p ass. MR. SHAFRANSKY: Mr. Chairman, I move that the proposed

Section 43 of the Manitob Telephone Act as set out in

Section 1 of Bill 57, be amended by adding thereto at the end ther eofth following subsection .. . MR. CHAIRMAN: You're down to (8). We've jumped over a couple. -(Interjection)- Th suggestions of the member of the Committee make eminent good sense. -(lnterjecti on)- MR. SHAFRANSKY: Thank you, George. I'm glad that you know how to count. The only thing i that whoever drew up these amendments didn't number them as they are supposed to be proper! amended. MR. CHAIRM AN: When you are ready to proceed, 43(4) as amended-pass; (5)-pass; (6)-pas: (7)-pass. Mr. Axworthy. MR.

AXWORTHY: I wish to raise a question in relation to 43(5) where it states in the first line th1 "every person who sells, leases, distributes or otherwise provides any equipment, device c contrivance which is capable of transmitting or receiving", I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, th1 probably is unconstitutional. I don't think this Legislature has the ability to legislate for everyone wh may be selling such equipment throughout this jurisdiction and others. I think that, if nothing else, should be amended to say "every person who sells, leases or distributes or otherwise provides in th Province of Manitoba." MR.

CHAIRMAN: Perhaps Legislative Counsel can comment to that question. MR. TALLI N: Yes, there is a presumption that the law enacted by this Legislature will only apply 1 any time within the Province of Manitoba. MR. AXWORTHY: In Manitoba, okay. MR. TALUN: lt's almost an irrebuttable presumption, I might add. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman, if I may ask legal counsel a question in relation to that, that this i what I think we had previously called the snitch arrangement where the Commission has certai authority in relation to such persons. lt may be that they would be operating outside the provinc itself.

Now, how would that operate? Would it work unequally for those who actually have locations i the province and those who are just sending or transferring equipment into the province who hav their locations outside? MR. TALUN: I don't know that it acts any more unequally than other provisions of the law. Fe instance, the warranties under The Sales of Goods Act of Manitoba don't apply outside Manitob1 MR. AXWORTHY: I see. So in this sense there would be no jurisdiction over those supplier outside of it as there would be if they were located inside the province?. MR. TALLIN: That's correct, yes. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 43(5) -pass; (6)-pass; (7)-pass? Mr. Sherman. MR. SHER:MAN: Mr. Chairman, I want to propose an amendment to 43(7) on the grounds tha under the present wording of the clause, an innocent party could be caught and have his or he telephone service cut off by the Telephone Company for having been involved in a situation abou which they knew nothing. I will propose an amendment that would include an insertion of a word i1 the clause.

The reason for it is that if a person, for example, installs a piece of equipment withou authority, then anyone else, at any time, who has that particular piece of equipment in hi possession, Sir, is in contravention of 43(2) and can have his telephone service cut off for good.

I could happen this way, that if a person violates 43(2), is caught, convicted and fined, then decides t1 get rid of that device and sells it to another person, and that person buys it and asks MTS to install i for him - and there is nothing wrong with the device, it's an authorized device - that second perso1 is in violation of the Act, and when the MTS finds that particular device in that house, the MTS cat take the action of cutting that person's telephone service off for good. lt really permits th1 punishment of a person who has broken no law, Mr. Chairman.

What he did, he bought a piece a second-hand equipment that had once been illegally used by a former owner. I find that that is at unjustifiable result of the clause as it is presently written. I think that possibly could be got round although it might not be the complete answer- but I think it possibly could be got round by insertin! in the second line of the section, the word "knowingly" after the word "person ", where a "persor knowingly contravene s. " MR. CHAIRMAN: ... move suchamendment? MR. SHERMAN: Yes, I could have Mr. Jorgenson move that amendment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Toupin. MR. TOUPIN: Mrr.

Chairman, I was wrestling with the proposed amendment by the Member fo Frrt Garry. Tl1e suggestion that we have, is that if there is a contravention of the Act, knowingly o otherwise, by anyone, and if the actions are taken under this

Section as indicated, the individual o 276

Law Amendments Thursday, June 16, 1977 the corporation in question has an immediate appeal to the lu blic Util ities, so that can be rectified, you know, fairly quickly. What is being suggested by legal counsel is, instead of inserting "knowingly" in the second line as indicated by the Member for For t Garry, after the word "person", that it be left to the provisions of appeal to the Public Util ities. MR. CHAIRMAN: May I ask a question? Is the Minister referring to the pr oposed new clause 8 of

Section 43? MR. TOUPIN: Yes. I would wish, Mr. Chairman, that the Member for Fort Garry would take my comments in context with the propo sed amendment coming up on the next Section. MR SHERMAN: All right, that's acceptable Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, 43(7)-pass. Mr. Sha fransky. MR. SHAFRANSKV: Mr . Chairman, love that the proposed

Section 43 of the Manitoba Telephone Act, as set out in

Section 1 of Bill 57, be amended by adding ther eto, at the end thereof, the following subsectionppeal disconnec tion, etc. 43(8) Where 54 (

a) under subsection 4, the Commission has disconnected any equipment, device or contrivance; or (

b) under subsection (7) the Commission has stopped pro viding telecom munication service to any person; the owner of the equipment, device or contrivance disconnec ted, or the subscriber whose service has been sto pped, as the case may be, may apply to the Public Util ities Doard for, and the Public Uties Board may gr ant, an order req uiring the Commission to reconnect the equipment, device or contrivance or to com mence providing the telec ommunication service that was stopped and the Public Uti lities Board may make the order subject to terms and conditions binding either on the appli cant or the Commission, or both.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the amendment accept able? (Ag reed) MR. CHAIRMAN: 43-pass;

Section 1- pass; 44( 1) -pass;

Section 2-pass;

Section 3-pass;

Section 4'pass; Preambl e-pass; Title-pass. Bill be reported as amended. Bill No. 82, The Statute Law Amendment Act (19 77). There are no amendments to Bill 82. Page 1- pass. There is a typog raphical correction on Page 2. Mr . Jor genson. MR. JORG ENSON: I would like to suggest that we deal with this

part icular bill clause by clause. MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause by clause? MR. JORGEN SON: I would appr eciate it if you would just wait for a moment until the Leader of the Opposition gets here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 1- pass; clause 2-pass; clause 3-pass. Mr . Lyon. MR. L VON: We have the advantage of the Legislative Counsel's memorandum on this bill. Is there any significance other than the printed signature? This is just part of the mechanization, I take it, that's going on in all departm ents of government. Is there any other significance? MR. CHAIRMAN: Legislative Counsel. MR. TALLI N: No.

As far as I am aware it is just so they can have them all pr inted so that they don't have to be signed by hand. There are getting to be more and more changes of names going thr ough. By the way, on this point, the 11 (1 ) and 11 (2) should be 11. 1 (1) and 11 .1 (2) . If we could make that correction - t is a typog raphical error. MR. CHAIRMAN: Agreed? (Agreed) As corr ected, then-pass.

Section 4-pass;

Section 5. Mr. uyon. MR. L VON: Could we have some indication, Mr. Chairman, as to why the board is being expanded beyond five? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Toupin. MR. TOUPIN: Mr . Chairman, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition is quite aware of the expansion that is taking pl ace in the co-ope rative movement. lt is intended mainly to have a larger board, first of all, to have a larger repr esentat ion of the movement; secondly, to have more expertise on the board mainly to advise in regard to the guarantee of loans that are being made by means of the board. MR.

LYON: Is the idea that, as with some other administrative boards and some cour ts, that the board is empowered by the present statute to have quorums of say, three, sit on separ ate matters at the same time? MR. TOUPIN: Mr. Chairman, it is not the case in this board, I believe. I haven'tgot the Act befor e me. The board is entitled to appr ove guarantee of loans up to a maximum I believe, of $1 00,000; anything beyond that has to go to the Minister and from there to be ratified by the Lieutenant egoverno r-inouncil. I am recommending an increase in the board to have an increase in expertise on the board. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Agreed? (Agreed)

Section 5-pass. (Sections 6 to 9 were read clause by clause and passed.) Mr. Jo rgenson. MR. JORGEN SON:

Section 8. I am just so curious about the numbering1 ,2,4,5, and 3 at the last. I wonder if there is . . . MR. TALLIN:

Section 2 adds subsections 29(4) and 29(5) to the Act. Those 29(4) and 29(5) are of the Queen's Bench Act, not of this bill . MR. JORGENSON: Oh, I see. 277

Law Amendments Thursday, June 16, 1977 MR. CHAIRMAN: I made the same error, Mr. Jor genson. Clause S, sub 1, 3. So B is passed. Sectic 9-pass;

Section 10 -pass;

Section 11 -pass. Mr. Lyon. MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Tallin has asterisked this as a new power. Is there anyth in specially notorious about t his, or is it again . . . MR. TALLIN: No, as a matter of fact, this is to meet a problem that occur s under The Evidence Ac which says that docu ments issued by a court will be acceptable in other cour ts if they are under th seal of the cou rt. This is to provide for those situations such as our Provincial Ju dges' Courts wher ther e is no seal, so that their or ders will be acceptable under the signature of the per son havin custody of the court documents. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 11 -pass;

Section 12 -pass; Sectio 13 -pass;

Section 14 , sub (1 )-pass; sub (2)-pass. Mr . Lyon. MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, does this extend extend the same penalty as is provided in part of th Fire Prevent ion Act at the present time. MR. PAULLEY: There is no change in those provisions. We are merely tidying up the Fir Prevention Act because we no longer have reference to subu rban municipalities. MR. CHAIRMAN: (2)-pass; (3)-pass; 14 -pass; 15 (1) - pass; (2) -pass. 15 -pass? MR. LYON: On 15 , Mr .

Chairman, that change, I pre sume, because there is no message with th isbill, doe not involve any financial changes in the operation of the Pre-arranged Funeral Servi ces Act. Th Publi c Uti lities Board, according to my reco lle ction, has been administering that Act for some tim� MR. TALLIN: They have been administering parts of it but there is no anticipated expend itur because the Public Utili ties Board is already established under another Act. MR. LYON: Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: 15 -pass; 16 -pass; 17(1 )-pass; 17 (2) -pass; 17 (3)-pass? MR.

LYON: On 17( 3), this is, I take it, the usual exemption that is provided for court officers an other officials to pr otect them carrying out their lawful functions under the Act. MR. TALLIN: I'm afraid I don't remember the exact wording of the

section but t he usual wording i that as long as they are acting bona fides and not negli gently they are free of liability. MR. lYON: Within their statutory authority. MR. CHAIRMAN: (Sections 17 to 23 (1 ) of Bill No. 82 were read and passed). 23(2) -pass? M Lyon. MR. LYON: Could I just ask Mr. Tall in, Mr. Chair man, are these privileges above and beyon those that are accorded to other club s under the reg ular provisions of the Liquor Control Act, or ar they the same? MR. TALLIN: No, they are special provisions. You are talking about 111 (14 ), I tak it? MR. LYON: Right. MR.

TALLIN: There are special provisions which apply to municipally- owned golf club s and now will apply to municipally-owned curlin g club s. MR. L YONl: So it's really an exte nsion of the golf provisions to the curling. MR. TALLIN: Yes, for the municipally-owned ones. MR. LYON: Where there are no paid-u member s as such. MR. TALUN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: 23-pass? Mr . McGill on 23. MR. McGilL: Mr. Chairman, does this amendment then el iminate that necessity of having to siq in people who are visitors or members at a golf club ? There has normally been a ... MR. TALLIN: No, not for the municipally-owned ones.

They never did have to sign in for the go club s. This will extend the same type of privilege to the municipall y-owned curl ing club - cu rl in facility, really they are. MR. CHAIRMAN: 23-pass; 24 (1 )-pass; 24(2)-pass; 24-pass; 25 (1 )- pass? Mr. Lyon. MF LYO N: On 25 (1), it merely permit s the cour t to make the appointment without resor t to th Lieutenant-Gove rno r-in-l ouncil. MR. TALLIN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: (Sections 25(2) to 28 of Bill No. 82 were read and passed 29 (1 ). Mr. Lyon. MR. LYON: Mr . Chairman, we are getting a new Advisory Committee on tree protec tion.

I take that there is no authorization under the Plant Pests and Diseases Act to pay the member s of th Advisory Committee. MR. TALLIN: This was part of the message which was brought in with this bill. MR. LYON: They are going to be paid? MR. TALLIN: Yes. The authority is not in this Act but i' the Interpr etat ion Act where it says when you havethe powert o appoint a person you have the powe to affix his remuneration. MR. CHA�RMAN: 29(2) -pass? MR; LYON: We are now going to license arborists. Arborists, I take it, are what? The equivalent c tree surgeons? MR.

TALLIN: In the absence of the Minister for Agriculture, perhaps I might be all owed to ente into debate on this question. At the pr esent time, the Act allo ws for the licensing of tree pruners but only tree pruners, ne people who tr eat trees in other ways. The problem is that there are now many people who go out an; 278

Law Amendments Thursday, June 16, 1977 lon't prune trees but treat them by injections or by transpl ants and that sor t of thing. The idea is to m large the scope of the licensing provisions to include these people as wel l as the tree pruner s who vere pre viously licensed. MR. CHAIRMAN: 29{2)-pass; 29{3)-pass; 29-pass; 30 {1 )-pass. 30{2) . Mr. Lyon. MR. LYON: This repr esents some change in pol icy. Could we have some explanation of what's 1appening here? MR. TALLIN: Under the Act, there are provisions for two types of agreements.

There is a >rovincial agreement into which the Atto rney-General enters for the pol icing of small municipalities >Y the RCM P. At the present time, that agreement appl ies to municipalities of populations under ,500. That agreement now is going to be raised to cover municipalities where the population is mder 5,000 persons. Municipalities with mor e than 5,000 persons have the power to enter into an tg reement on thei r own with the RCMP for policing.

So this real ly effects the RCMP pol icing in small nunicipalities who will now come in under the pr ovincial agreement, rather than having to have their >wn agreement with the RCMP. There is some saving to municipalities because under the pro vincial agreement I think they pay or the first two at one rate and for the next thr ee at the next rate

whereas I under the specific tgreement with the RCMP I think they pay the same rate for the first five. MR. CHAIRMAN: {Sections 30{1) to 34 of Bill No. 82 were read and passed.)

Section 35. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, 35 is apparently incl uded in error and should be taken out :om pletely; is that corr ect? MR. TALLIN: Yes. . MR. GREEN: There was an error in transc ribing, transpo sing dr afting instructions to a particula r I ill. MR. TALLIN: Yes. MR. GREEN: lt was supposed to be to another bill and the other bill isn't going in either. MR. TALLIN: Yes, well it was co mplem entary. MR. GREEN: In any event, I would move the deletion of 35. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed? {Agreed) This will mean re numbering of the bill. I am autho rized to en umber the sec tions. 36{1 )-pass; 36{2)-pass? MR.

LYON: Could I ask Mr . Chairman, does this mean that we're ridding our selves of the age-old lesignation of the Chief Sherif f or the foremost She riff as the High Sherif f? We used to have a Hiqh iheriff of Manitoba. Is he now just going to become the Chief Sheriff of Manitoba? After all, you know he Sheriff of Notti ngh am was the High Sheriff. MR. TALLIN: There was no statutory prov ision for the High Sheriff. lt was just a trad itional title. MR. LYON: So we're substituting the common law of terminology. We're substituting the statutory erminology for the High Sheriff. MR.

TALLIN: We're substituting the 20th century term inology. MR. LYON: How do you spell jail? -{ln terjec tion)- MR. TALLIN: By the way, that is the only spe lling for jail. MR. CHAIRMAN: {Sections 36{3) to 42 of Bill No. 82 were read and passed).

Section 43. Mr . Lyon . MR. LYON: Just out of curiousity, Mr. Chairman, prior to this amendment in

Section 43, what was 1e proced ure that had to be fol lowed by the Registrar in order to make such minor changes? MR. TALLIN: He had no authority. He reco mmended to the applicant that they apply under the �hange of Name Act. MR. LYON: Re-apply? MR. TALLIN: That's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: 43-pass; 44-pass; 45{1 )-pass. MR. LYON: Well, we have the Minister here, Mr. Chairman. He could, no doubt, give us a full xplanation of ... MR. CHAIRMAN: 45-pass. MR. LYON: I've been waiting for this all night. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Chairman, the purpose of this is that it wasn't clear, really, under the Workers �ompensation Act, whether we cou ld estab lish a medical review panel and the reports of that panel ubmitted to the Workers Compensation Board.

The basic principle is involved here that we have had considerable number of compl aints directed toward the Minister and to the Board that appeals on 1e basis of the medical cond ition of an individual, the Board was not com petent under pr esent �gislation to adequately deal with those com plaints, and that there was no body that was com petent, eally, to hear from the complainant's physician or the complai nant, as to the medical situation of the 1jur ed worker.

The basic principle of this is to make it clear that we can estab lish a medical review board corised f physicians recommended by the Manitoba Medical Association, the medical adviser ofthe injur ed rorker, so that there can be a review by this board of the disposition of the medical assessment in espect of the injured worker. There is no such provision at the present time and the purpose of these 279

Law Amendments Thursday, June 16, 1977 amendments, Mr. Chairman , is to make it adequately clear that on the basis of physical condition . injured worker has the right of an appeal from the prese nt - may I say - arbitr ary decision of t 1 medical panel under The Workers Compensation Act. MR. CHAIRMAN: (The remainder of Bill 82 was read and passed.) Bill be repo rted . MR. LYON: Mr . Chairman, just one brief comment. I notice that Mr .

Tall in st ill foll ows the exc elle pr actice of giving the member s of the commit tee a memor andum re the statute law amendment bil lt facilitates tremendously the consideration by the committee of these bill s, and I just want to tha1 him, again, for giving the co mmittee this kind of assistance. I'm happy to see it's st ill carried 01 MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 62,

An Act to amend The City of Winnipeg Act. Clause by clause. What your pleasur e? MR. LYON: There are a number of amendments, Mr . Chairman. I think clause by clau� unfortunately, is ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 1. Mr. Minaker. MR. MINAKER: Mr . Chairman, I wonder if the member who is intro ducing the amendments mi� indicate how this last amendment handed to us, varies from the one that we received the other day. there any difference? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller. MR. MILLER: Yes, I want to clarify this. lt is exactly the same with the exception that this afternoc legal counsel, Mr .

Ta llin, made some word change s on the second motion 15 (1). Apparently I wasn't satisfied with the wording so I thi nk he added or deleted some words, I am not sur e which. f added some words but they are not substantive, they were necessary for the wording itself, otherwi it is the same as I distri buted in the House. MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 1- pass; Clause 2. Mr . Johannson. MR. JOHANNSON: Mr . Chairman, I have an amendment.

I move that clause 1 (p.2) of the Act set out in Sec tion 2 of Bill 62 be amended by adding immediately after the word "respons ibility" at tl end ther eof the words "but shall not apply to a com mun ity comm ittee." MR. CHAIRMAN: Pass? (Sec tions 2, 3 and 4 were read and passed)

Section 5. Mr . Joh nsto1 MR. F. JOHN STON: Mr . Chairman, this amendment as the explanatory notes that were kinc given to us by the Minister explains certa inly this

section makes it very clear that the Mayor will not I able to be the chairman of the Executive Policy Committee. Mr . Chairman, I fail to see that if we gi the Council the right to vote for their own, and set up th eir own comm ittees, and wegive the Coun' the right to decide who the chairman of that co mmittee is, if the Council so decides to vote the May as the chairman of the Executive Policy Committee, I don't see any reason why this Legislatu should take the opinion that the City councillo rs cannot have a person that they want as the ch airm• of th eir Executive Policy Committee.

The Mayor has been in that position; this says he can't be in th position; yet the cou ncillo rs have the right to choose the chairman and if they want to choose tl Mayor, that should be their privilege. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Mill er. MR. MILLER: Well, Mr . Chairman, I recog nize what the member is saying but if you look at the I: itself, the Mayor is ex officio on every commit tee and, of cou rse, including EPC. He has the ti breaking vote on EPC as well.

We didn't feel it was proper that the Mayor, who is el ected at lar � should then have to be in a competition with other counci llor s to be el ected as chairman of tl Executive Policy Committee because, under the present Act, the Mayor is automatic ally chairman is not a matter of ch oice of the council member s at all. He is establ ished today as the chairman EPC.

By mal<ing it an ele ctive office, then the Mayor would have to be in a position where he wou have to be stan ding in election against other councill ors who might be nominated and fran kly we fc that as the Mayor is el ected at large by the City at large, that he shouldn 't be having to put himself the position where he may or may not be chosen as the chairman of EPC. In other words, he shou ld! have to run for the position but he is on it ex officio , has a vote and has a tie-casting vote as we MR. F.

JOH NSTON: That position is not consistent with the fact that the Mayor has to run again other counci ll ors who want to run for Mayor. Mr. Chairman, the fact is that if the council should ha the right to make th eir own decisions, as a matter of fact, many of the procedures that are laid dov here are basically proced ures that should be in the position of the council to make those decisio1 and not the Legislature, and especially this one. These particular positions within The Winnipeg A were brought in because it was a brand new Act for a brand new city.

The City has been in operatic the elected member s of that City should have the right to elect who they like as chairman comm ittees. I would move, Mr. Chairman, that Sec tion 5 be deleted. MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion before the committee is that

Section 5 be delet ed. Mr. Axworthy ar Mr. Green. MR. AXWORTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think along with Mr . Joh nston that this particul amendment really is incons istent with other provisions of the Act and I think if it is all owed to < through as stands, it will create an enormous amount of trouble and confusion on City Council. Wh is real ly happen ing under this Act and the amendments that it is imposing is that the Executive Pol i1 280

Law Amendments Thursday, June 16, 1977 :::omm ittee is being cr eated as a very powerful com mittee. lt is the co-ordinating central commit tee of counci l; it will have very significant powers under this Act and the chairman of it -a s chairmen of nost comm ittees, many comm ittees in this case, because of the nature of City government - will 1ave a very powerful position. What would happen if you have a Mayor who is elected from a council >eat and at large with one set of powers and a chairman of the Executive Policy Committee with mother.

You have two very str ong, competing individuals who both will be muscl ing for certain �dvantage and I think it would probably res ult in stalemate. I don't think you can have a form of �overn ment that has two heads to it, in effect, and that is what you would find happen ing. You would :>e creating two people and they have no relationship one to the other. In fact, they could be political :>pp onents as far as that is concerned.

So there you have the Mayor who has his own base of power md the chairman of the Executive Policy Committee who comes from comm ittee with another base :>f power; you've got two strong individuals who are going to simply end up fighting . ! can tel l you, Mr . Chairman, I can cite you example s from a numb er of other city govern ment syste ms where things like that have emerged and it has simply ended up in the city govern ment being tota lly fru strated and stalemated. MR. GREEN: Mr . Chairman, if Mr.

Axworthy has those concerns which are a problem -t here can oe personal ity problems develop in any council - and I can say that no matter what Act you have, vou will have some problems but that this amendment is designed to make those problems as minimum as possible. If the member can rec ognize that there would be a problem, if a there wasso �alled other head of cou nci I, what wou Id be the corn pounded problem if the Mayor was el ected by all :>f the people of Winnipeg, ran against this person, and was defeated as the chairman of the Executive Policy Committee.

There are only two ways of dealing with this question; either name the Mayor the ::hairman of the Executive Policy Committee -(I nterjec tion) - we ll, tha t's the way it was in the old Act - and do not give the discretion which woul dn't satisfy Mr . Joh nston - or make it quite clear that the committee heads are council aldermen and that the Mayor is an overall authority. Because if you 'lave the Mayor run ning for this position and losing, you will have an intolerable situation on coun cil. That would compound the situation to no end. That would make the City Council practically unworkable.

Now to talk about practical experience, I was a member of the Municipal Council and it was rec ogn ized throughout and was in the City of Winnipeg that the Mayor was not a chairman of any of the commit tees. The chairman of the City Finance Comm ittee was, at all times, the chairman of the Executive Policy Committee of the City and there was never the kind of problem tha t you are :iescri bing as between the Mayor of the City and the ele cted chairman of the Finance Committee which was effect ively the Policy Committee.

There was never a problem between the chairman of Metro, even after he was ele cted by the co uncil, and the chairman of Finance of Metro which was the ::hief commit tee of Metro. So, we saw it two ways.

We saw one situation of making the Mayor the ::hairman of the Executive Policy Committee - and that was consider ed - and we saw the other system because it co uld work equally well of making the Mayor ex officio on all comm ittees with the casting vote on Executive Policy Committee but do not start the council off with a fight between the Mayor and another councillor as to who is going to be the chairman of the Executive Policy Committee. So that man will be chosen from the council. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. MR. DOERN: Ju st in response to Mr . Joh nston and Mr . Axworthy.

There are powers that are being given to the Mayor which I thi nk strengthen his position. The tie-break ing vote, the veto ... A MEMBER: it's not a veto. MR. DOERN: ... well, a delaying veto or whatever you want to call it. I st ill th ink that's an additional power that was not there before. Un der the present Act, up until this point in time, the position of the Deputy Mayor was a very powerful position and the Deputy Mayor, in effect, was the leader of the majority party on counc il. My impress ion was that the Deputy Mayor either co-ope rated or tended to co -oper ate with the Mayor.

Power ful pers onal ities, I think, are simply part of the politic al process and ther e are powerful person alities on council; there are powerful personalities around this table. You know, we can't legislate against that. I don't think that that is something that is undesirable and 1 don't think that it means that the government will gr ind to a halt. I just think it is in the natur e of things and it is in the natur e of politics. MR. AXWORTHY: Wel l, Mr . Chairman, the point I raised had noth ing to do with perso nalities. That was not the issue I raised. I am saying that ...

A MEMBER: You said powerful person alities. MR. AXWORTHY: Oh, no. 1 said that two people with powerful political positions, which is very different. That we are creating positions where th ere is ver y strong executive authority in each one of them . lt has noth ing to do with per sonal ities, whether they are weak, str ong, meek or mild, the fact of the matter is that the creation of two competing sources of autho rity will end up in that kind of stalemate. 1 would suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that in this day and age when the resp onsibilities of city government have been enhanced and that the kinds of activities that th ey have to engage in are so 281

Law Amendments Thursday, June 16, 1977 much more important, that you need very strong executive direction. If there has been any one failir which is not answered in these amendments , the most predom inant failing identified by the Taras� Commission and by most observers, in the City of Winnipeg over the past years since the Un icity B was passed, was the lack of any strong policy executive direc tion on City Council, that there were tc many cooks making the stew.

There was too much fragmenta tion in authority; too many peop making decisions; there was no consistency; there was no ability to create a direct line of policy: was simply a series of ad hoc react ions to events. I don't think you can have a modern city governme1 working in that kind of context. That was the very clear evidence presented by the Taras� Commission, that was point number one.

I would suggest that these amendments do noth ing 1 rectify it; in fact, they probably only heighten and exagger ate that problem by creating, ne pers onality clashes - nonetheless, those will always take place, I agree - but creating in effect tw centr es of executive authority and if the Executive Policy Committee and the Mayor are at odds, the it is not going to work. Any Mayor who is a good politician worth his salt will always be in conflict wi1 them . That is the basic fallacy, I think, in the way the Act is constructed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minaker. MR. MIN AKER: Mr.

Chairman, just to make it proper, I will mo ve that motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favour of the motion to delete Sec tion 5. (Yeas 8; Nays 10 ) Th motion is defeated. Sec tion 5-pass.

Section 6. Mr . John ston. MR. F. JOH NSTON: Mr . Chairman, I read this to say that the deputy mayor can only represent th Mayor or shall act in pl ace of the Mayor in all matters relati ng to reg ular, special, emer genc meetings of Council. Now that means that the Mayor is ex officio on all committees and the deput mayor cannot represent him on those comm ittees when he is away, the deputy mayor now can't vot1 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller. MR. MI LLER: That's right.

The deputy mayor acts on those matters which the Mayor is req uired b law to do, the signing of documents, the signing of certain declarations or the bonds, but the deput mayor does not act in the absence of the Mayor as if he was the Mayor-on commit tees. He doesn't q to comm ittees, unle ss he is a member of the comm ittee. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minaker. MR. MIN AKER: Mr .

Chairman, with leave of the comm ittee, I would suggest that if we refer t 29(7) , Page 14 of the Act, would could happen - and I know from experience having been on th Executive Policy Committee - that if the Mayor was away, say for a th ree-week or four-week hol id

a) and there was a tie vote on the Executive Committee, if there were seven members and you had si member s and they were stuck on a situation, that because the deputy mayor does not have a votE you could be caught in a tie for four weeks, that nothing would be done. I am just wondering whethe this is the way that we want to operate our city council or not. MR. MILLER: Mr . Chairman, yes, if there is a tie vote, as on any other st anding co mmittee, then th motion is sily not passed. This is the way it usually works. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Johns ton . MR. F.

JOHNSTON: Is the Minister saying that the business has to be held up? MR. MI LLER: No, no; it's negative. The motion is defeated. lt doesn't pass. MR. F. JOHNS TON Wel l, if the mayor has the privilege with the new amendments of bre aking the tieing vote, that's th1 privilege that you' ve given him on this com mittee. MR. MIL LER: Only the mayor. MR. F. JO HNSTON: But the Deputy Mayor won't have the same privilege? MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, if you allow the Minister to answer the questions that are bein! asked of the Minister through the Chair. Mr. Axworthy. MR. AXWORTHY: I'm sorry, Mr . Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 6-pass; 7. Mr . Johannson. MR. JOHANNSON: Mr. Chairman, I move that sec tion 15 of the Act as set out in

section 7 of Bill 6: be repealed and the following

section be substituted therefor::

Section 15 added 7. The Act i: amended by adding ther eto immediately after

section 14 thereof the fol lowing section: Mayor eJ officio on com mit tees 15

(1) The mayor shall be an ex officio member of each comm ittee of th1 counci l, except ing the board of commissioners and excepting the com munity committees otherthar the co mmunity comm ittee fort he community for which he may be the elected counci ll or fora ward ir that commun ity, but he shal l not be the chairman of any committee, including the executive policl committee. 15

(2) Where a person is el ected as both the mayor and a counci llo r, the pro visions o subsection (1 ) which apply to the mayor, apply mutatis mutandis to that person. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Stee n. MR. STEEN: Yes, I have a question, Mr . Chairman, to the Minister. I can cert ainly under stand wh) he wouldn't want to have the mayor as a member of com munity com mit tees. Does he not believe tha· ther e is a purpose, Sir , by having the mayor or an elected person as part of the board o· comm issioners, having some liaison between the political arm of counci l and the board of 282

law Amendments Thursday, June 16, 1977 comm issioners? MR. MI LLER: Mr . Chairman, we gave this considerable thought. The feeling was that the board of comm issioners are really administrators. They have a board. They meet. They discuss various things. If the el ected people at any time want to have the top administration - all of them or just the Chief Comm issioner - before them for the asking of questions, they of cour se c an do that at any time because they are the emp loyees of the ele cted people.

So it isn't a matter of sitting in at all their reg ular meetings to discuss administr ative problems, but that they can always call on them when they want to and it shouldn' t be a matter of form or req uirement that ther e must be member s of council sitting on the board of commissioners, which basically is an administrative board made up of administrators. MR. STEEN: Jus t one comment to the Minister, Mr . Chairman, is that I was always of the opinion that there was a purpose being served by having an el ected person on the board of commissioners.

Occasionally the board of com missioners, who are senior civil servants of the City, would be propo sing an idea to executive council, for example, or executive policy commit tee and by having someone there who actually runs for public office, occasionally they added someth ing to the decision-making and put a feeling of the el ected person into some of those decisions that were being made. I thought that in the past that it was a purpose well- served . MR. MILLER: Mr.

Chairman, the board of com missioners repo rts through EPC and ther efore it isn't just one ele cted person that will be hearing the board of com missioners, or adding political input. lt will be the EPC who will be seized of the matter, whether it's a recommendation, or whatever it is, and then the political people, at that point, at EPC, will then consider whether the com mission's proposals make sense or don't make sense, or whether it lacks the kind of political input that's required. MR. STEEN: Mr . Chairman, my final comment on this subject is that I just thought that it saved time.

In very few incidents that the board of commissioners would be proposi ng some form of legislation to the executive pol icy co mmittee, that input from an ele cted person would be of some advantage. The times that it would occur would be very few. But I think that in those few times, that there would be time saved. That's my only reason for offering that suggestion . MR. CHAIRM AN: Amendment -pass; 7 as amended-pass; 8-pass.

Section 9-pass. Mr . Johanns on. MR. JOH ANNSON: Mr . Chairman , I have an amendment. I move that Bi11 62 be amended by adding thereto immediately after

section 9 ther eof the following section:9.1 The Act is amended by adding immediately after sect ion 17, the following section: Suspension of res ol ution 17 .1 (1 ) Subject to subsection (2) , (

a) where a res olution is adopted or passed by a vote of the council, without a notice in writing given at a previous reg ular meeting of the counci l; or (

b) where the rules of the council are suspended for the purpose of giving second and thir d readings to a by-law at any one meeting; or (

c) where, in the opinion of the mayor, there is an error or omission in any by-law or resol ution adopted by the council authorizing the expenditur e of money; the mayor may at any time within 48 hour s after the above mentioned res olution or by-law is passed or adopted by the cou ncil suspend the implementation of the resol ution or by-law by giving the clerk notice thereof in writing and the reso lution or by-law shall have no force or effect unless the council exercises the power mentioned in subsection (2) . Suspension overruled 17 .1

(2) Where the mayor exercises the power mentioned in subsection (1 ), a majority of the member s of the council pr esent at any subsequent meeting of the counc il, may remove or overrule that suspension. MR. CHAIRMAN: To the amendment-pass. Mr . Axworthy. MR. AXWORTHY: Wel l, Mr .

Chairman, I think that the origin of this particu lar resolu tion occu rred when Mayor Jub a appeared one evening to give us his opinion on the counci l, and the question was put to him whether, in fact, there should be some additional powers given to the mayor, which I th ink is the position taken by our gr oup on second reading that, again going back to the basic thesis, the problem with city government is that there has been no clear direction. At that time the mayor simply indicated that what he was interested in was simply recov ering some of the powers that he had under the old City of Winnipeg Act.

I st ill don't think that gives the full import to this particular question of giving the mayor some ability than to have powers to exercise as an executive of the government. Aside from, as he now is, an ex officio member of com mittees, he really has noth ing else to do. -(I nterjec tion)- I think I'll get to that, if I may be all owed. MR. CHAIRM AN: Order. MR. AXWORTHY: Are you in a hurry? Are you? That's too bad. lt really is too bad. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. JOHANNSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. There is a rule of relevance and the member should get to the amendment as quickly as possible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There are many rules, such as speaking when another member is speaking also. If the member will continue, I will det ermine whether he is in or out of order. Mr. Axworthy. MR. AXWORTHY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wel l, Mr . Chairman, I thi nk that the point we should be examining in this amendment concern ing the ability of the mayor to reserve rules, first is, should it 283

Law Amendments Thursday, June 16, 1977 be simply overridden by a majority vote in counci l; or if the mayor has some reason, are we simpl asking him, in this case, to hold up for a cert ain period of time and then it goes back and get repeat ed. Or should that indicate that the mayor has the power to indicate his preferences and that more substantial number of member s of cou ncil will be required to over come it -6 0 percent or twc thir ds rule? So that in fact it does become a power that has some util ity to it, as opposed to simply delaying action .

But, again, if we are trying to build in to this Act - I would like to see it built in: know other members don't - the ability of city government to work well and to work with some torn of executive direction, then I think you have to give the mayor some powers of this kind, which thi does not do. Therefore, I think that we should take a longer, slower look, as other com mittees, Mr . Chairman . o this Legislatur e are prepared to do with impor tant pieces of legislation and not ram them throuql within half an hour.

I would remind members of the committee that we have spent, you know, many hours on th1 family law bills because member s of that commit tee on all sides have been prepared to deal with tha with a degr ee of discussion and rationalit y, and not simply try to ram it thro ugh in one even inq'l sitting. I think the City of Winnipeg Act has the same kind of importance and we should not bE prepared to ram it through ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order. Order pl ease. Order please. Order ple ase. We have to pr oceec accor ding to rules. What is before us is an amendment.

If the member wants to amend the amendment, he should so move. I'm willing , in the Chair, to sit here as long as the committee wishe� to sit. But nevertheless, to keep things procee ding properly, the procedures of the Legislatur e have been established over many years and they are of utility to us all. So if the member has a fur ther amendment to this amendment, then it would serve the comm ittee well if he would so move. But nevertheless to become involv ed in taking shots at each other, I don'1 think serves anyone very well. So we have the amendment. Mr . Ste en, to the amendment. MR.

STEEN: Yes, very briefly. I think it's a good amendment and I can site you an example where such an amendment could be used. In the last municipal elections in the City of Regina the mayor came back with a brand new council with the except ion of one member who was reta ined from the old counci l, and you could get a lot of gr eenhorns in there who could use the expertise of some senior members. Yet it avoids having a dictator in, by saying that at a second council meeting they can override the mayor. So I think it's a good amendment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Johnston. MR. F. JOHN STON: Mr .

Chairman, I would req uest a point of clarit y, if I can . The amendment that was read becomes 9(1 ) and I'm look ing at the original bill that repeals

Section 16 .1 of the Act. - (I nter ject ion)- That stays in? Wel l, I'm just referri ng to the old Act. That's the

section regard ing the mayor running for council, if I'm not mistaken. MR. MI LLER: What has been repealed is the req uirement that a counci llo r must res ign in order to run for mayor. MR. F. JOHNS TON: That's not the amendment, tho ugh. MR. MIL LER: No, no. Nu mber 9 refers to

Section 16 .1 of the Act. 16 .1 of the Act is the one that req uires a councill or to resign in order to run for mayor. So that has been repealed and that's as is. What was introduced by Mr . Johan nson is the new section, or a new subsec tion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sec tion 9 as amended? Mr . Jo hn sto n. MR. F. JOH NSTON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak to

Section 9, which allows cou ncill ors to run for ... -(l nterjec tion)- MR. GREEN: Well, Mr . Chairman, I bel ieve we are on the amendment. Have we passed the amendment? Well, aren't we st ill onl y on the amendment of 9. 1? MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on

Section 9 subsect ion 9.1 which becomes a new

section to the bill. Mr . Minaker. MR. MIN AKER: Well, 1 was just going to ask for a clarification, if I could, Mr . Chairman. We're talk ing about the amendment before us. If that is approved then you st ill have to cal l

Section 9. I would like to know when we have an opportunity to speak on the original

Section 9. MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favour of the amendment -15 . All those opposed to the amendment - 7. Now, Sect ion 9. Mr. Joh nst on. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Sorry for causing the confusion, Mr . Chairman. Mr . Chairman, this is the

section that allows council lors to run for cou ncil and mayor at the same time, and I don't intend to dwell on it for a long time. MR. MI LLER: Mr . Chairman , on a point of order. This

section that's repealed - and that's what I think we're talking about. The

section that's repealed stated that a counci llor must resign in order to run for mayor. Is that the sec tion that you're dealing with? MR. F. JOHN STON: That's right; the

section that's repealed. MR. MILLER: That's the

section you want to repeal. MR. F. JOH NSTON: Yes. 284

Law Amendments Thursday, June 16, 1977 MR. MIL LER: All right, okay. As long as we're on the same .. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Johns ton. MR. F. JOH NSTON: Well, Mr. Chairman, we cert ainly feel that it's not a good practice to have the counci ll ors be able to run for mayor and council at the same time. lt's a case of you have your cake and eat it too. If you want to be a councillo r, you be one. If you feel that you can run for the mayor of the City, you have to be prepared to take on that job. lt has always the practice. As a matter of fact, we can't com pare it to the Legislature.

I know a man can be on council and run for the Legislature, but it is not a comparable situation. So, Mr. Chairman, I believe the

section that is being repealed should not be repe aled. lt should stay in the Act, which would create a situation where a co uncill or cannot run for mayor and councillor at the same time. MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favour of the amendment ... MR. F. JOHNSTON: I can't make the motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ju st a minute. You know, if you're wondering why I like to be tidy, a bit, it makes it difficult for the recorders to keep track of people if they just venture back and forth, and so on. Mr . Minaker. MR. MI NAKER: Mr. Chairman, I'll move the motion that we delete the original

section 9 of the Act. The reason, I would like to just very briefly suggest to the comm ittee, is, as my colleague from Cr escentwood said and I agreed 10 0 percent with him, that if I was ru nning for council again I'd throw my name in for mayor under this situation. You're going to get all the advertising you want and I would th ink we're going to make a mockery of the role of running for mayor.

You'r e going to end up with possibly 20 or 30, or 40 names on the mayor's ballot, for the very reason that you're going to get city-wide coverage to some degr ee if you're running tor the mayor, and it will assist anybody that decides to run for council in a ward. I th ink you're going to be faced with that situation and I don't believe that possibly the government has taken a very cl ose look at that situation that might occur. As a result it could, you know, affect the over all outcome of not just the mayor's position but even the individual selection of council lors with in the various wards.

So, for this reason, I am opposed to that particu lar sect ion of the Act. MR. CHAIRMAN: You wouldn't need a specific motion then . All you would have to do is vote against it, which would acco mpl ish the same thing. Mr . Doern. MR. DOERN: Mr . Chairman , I wanted to comment on what Mr . Minaker just said, and that is that I supp ose there are circums tances under which somebody can get free publ icity and not ventur e forth. I would give you a counter -example.

Namely, that I suppose members of the Conservative Party could have thrown th eir names in the hat in the leadership fight and that would pre sumably enhance their reputa tion, get them good public ity, and show the people in the ir riding tha t they are made of bigger stuff. But I don't see a stampede of people running for mayor sily because there is an opportunity for them. I thi nk these estimates are greatly exagger ated.

Undoub tedly, some people will run for mayor and council but, you know, as I say, you can run for leader ofyour party and yet, when there are leadersh ip cont ests there are very few people who seem to contest. lt doesn't help a person to get killed in a race. If a person runs and runs poorly, that may be very adverse to their political career so I think people will consider the advantage of running and the dangers of running at the same time. MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favour of the amendment? I'm sorry. Mr . Johnston. MR. F. JOH NSTON: Mr . Chairman, there is also another thing here.

There's no question that if a gr oup of council lors decide to run for mayor and council at the same time, hold their vote in their own particula r area, it could be worked against a person who is legitimately wanting to run for the mayor of the city if the councillo rs don't like him because of the way he cuts his hair or blows his nose or someth ing, it could create a gang-up situation and it is bound to happen some time or another. MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favour of the amendment, ple ase indicate. (Th irteen) All those opposed to the amendment? (Seven) 9 as amended-pass;

Section 10 , Mr. Johanns on. MR. JO HANNSON: Mr . Chairman, I move that the proposed clause 201) (

b) of the Act as set out in

section 10 of Bill62 be amended by striking out the figure "3" and substituting therefor, the figure "4." MR. AXWORTHY: Mr . Chairman, could I move a sub-amendment to that or would you want to vote upon that par ticu lar item first? I'd like to add a further amendment to that clause, Mr. Chairman . I thought I would wait and if you wanted to dispose of this one first, and then add another to it. MR. CHAIRMAN: What is the will of the Committee? Mr . Joh nston. MR. F. JOHN STON: We'd be agreeable to that. We have another amendment on a clause further down. We could take them in order.

If you want to vote on this, fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment as moved-pass. Mr . Axworthy. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr . Chairman, I would like to move that Sec tion 20

(1) Esta blish ment of commu nities, be amended to delete from subsection (

a) the words "City Centre-Fort Rouge," substitute the word, "Centen nial" and to further delete the words, "6 wards" and to substitute the words "4 wards" so the subsection will read "Centen nial - 4 wards" and sect ion 20 (1 ) Estab lish ment 285

Law Amendments Thursday, June 16, 1977 of com munities be amended to add, subsection (g) , cont aining the words, "For t Rouqe Cr escentwood" with "3 wards" so added, and that

section 20(1 )(

f) be amended by replacing "5" witl "4. " MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Axworthy moves that sect ion 20 (1 ), Est ablishment of com munit' comm ittees, be amended to delete from subsection (

a) the words "City Centre-Fort Rouge" and t< substitute the word "Cent ennial" and to further delete the words "6 wards" and substitute the word! "4 wards" so that subsection will . read - (

a) Centen nial, 4 wards, and a new clause (g ), Fort Rouge Cr escentwood, 3 wards, and that subsect ion 20(1 )(

f) be amended by repla cing "5" with "4". Mr Axworthy. MR. AXWORTHV: Mr. Chairman , dur ing the representa tions that this Committee heard and whid we are supposed to reflect upon, and there was a number of representa tions made that the way ir which the community commit tees had been red ivided was both unworkable, and in many case� unacceptable.

First, the reason was that, again one of the problems that had been identified by the Taraska Commission and by others was that there was an increa sing split in division between the Uni city areas and the other city areas, and that there was an imbalance of power and that this has resulted in the lack of the city paying full att ention to problems both in its inner city and its older neighbou rhoods, and they feltt hat by simply concentra ting all the Un icity wards into one com munity committee that it would isolate them from the rest and that they would con tin ually be out voted and tend to be isolated from it.

Ther efore, one of the reso lutions of that particu lar problem would be to provide for a different division of the com munity committees so that the older neighbour hoods would not be lump ed out, one or the other, and that there would be a broader base of supp ort and represent ations for those areas.

A second argument, which I think is mor e specific is that if you look at the way in which the com munity committees have been divided, the Fort Rouge area as it presently is and which contains a good part of my own pro vincial constituency, to align it say, with the kinds of thing s that are happen ing nor th of the riv er - on the other side of the tracks in the downtown area and so on - the com munion of interest and the ability to have com munity com mittees relate themselves to common problems would be highly separated and there would not be much degree of common interest in the same kinds of problems.

To use one example, as it was represented to us by one of the cou ncillor s from the Fort Rouge area, Councillor Kaufman, indicated that a major concern in the Fort Rouge area is the problem of transpor tation from down the town area through to the subur bs.

That up to this point in time there has been some suc cess by having an all iance between areas like Fort Rouge and Cr escentwood and so on, to try and politically for est all that kind of introduction of polic y, and that ther efore, there was a high degree of com munion of interest between those older areas such as Fort Rouge, Riverview, Cr escentw ood, parts of River Heights in terms of those interests than there would be say between the Fort Rouge area and parts of the Cent ennial area. Therefore, I think the third problem, Mr .

Chairman, would relate just simply to the acces sibility and the degree of com munication that would be req uired to maintain any logical cohesion in that commun ity committee. So, for those reasons, Mr . Chairman, I apologize that I would have liked to have had a map to see how it could have been redrawn otherwise, but I would ask members to seriously consider this item that maybe we want to reserve it and come back and think further about it.

But, I don't think that the present division of com munities are real ly the best division that would res ult in the best kind of com munity representa tion, and I think that therefore, we should take seriously the representa tions made to us by this Committee.

I would add to that discussions that I have held in the area with larqe numb ers of people from the Resident Advisory Gr oups and Commun ity Interest Groups, who feel quite str ongly that this would seriously impair thei r ability to maintain a particula r pol icy stance and program stance that they are trying to develop in terms of protec ting and conser ving thei r own neighbour hoods. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ste en. MR. STEEN: Mr.

Chairman , I've spoken to the Minister on this very subject where I believe that the Fort Rouge area has more in common with the Cr escentwood-River Heights area than it does with the centre core sect ion of the city and I'm quite prepared to suppor t the amendment on that basis alone. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller. MR. MIL LER: Mr .

Chairman, the Review Committee looked at this whole question. lt was their reco mmendation in fact, that there should be six com munities and that Fort Rouge should be tied in, or part of For t Rouge should be tied in with City Centre, because there is a similarity of problems and inter ests there. They will end up with the larg est number of member s - there would be six wards so that they would be in the lar gest single gr oup repres enting a community.

They have mor e aldermen than anybody else, and by com bining them I think you do address the problem of getting people to look beyond th eir particula r neighbour hoods and be seized of the larger pro blem, whether it be north of the river or south of the river. To simply attach it to Assiniboine Park-Fort Garry would 286

Law Amendments Thursday, June 16, 1977 nake that an enormously large com munity and a growing one,

whereas, putting that part of For t �ouge in the City Centre, although it's gr owing it's a fairly static com munity in relati onship to some of he sub urban ones. So, it felt that we should stick with the six community wards, the com munity �ommittees that was proposed by the Taraska Commission, and we feel that this is an adequate way :o assure that whether you live on one side of the river or the other you do concern yourself with the Jroblems on both sides. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Axworthy. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr .

Chairman, even on the basis of the Minister's argument it doesn't make nuch sense, because the transference of Fort Rouge into Cent ennial takes it out of the administrative jistrict already set up by the City of Winnipeg, which is distric t 6. So in effect, you would have a oolitical gr oup, the political representati ves from Fort Rouge, operating in a Centen nial Community Committee, but the del ivery of services and so on would be on the other side of the river in a tota lly separate administrative district, which doesn't make much sense.

In other words, there would be no harmony or symmetry between the political organ ization and the administrative organization, they'd be out of whack under the proposed arrangements in this bill. I think that that in itself, would dictate a c:hange in the boundaries of these com munity comm ittees. I would also suggest, Mr .

Chairman, that we were not suggesting that we amalgamate in with Fort Garry-A ssiniboia, we are tal king about, in effect, crea ting another com munity commit tee on that side, which at least would be within the district area, the administrative districts, so it would have some ability to super vise. But, what you are going to end up with now, is a gr oup of politicians with noth ing to super vise, because they are going to be in a political jur isdiction which has no supervision over the administrative side of it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wi lson. MR.

WILSON: Wel l, I can see the problems that the Member for For t Rouge is looking at, but if you're to stick with the six particula r distric ts then I would say that by all means, Fort Rouge is basically, as the Minis ter said, "static" and cert ainly the problems are exactly similar. And I would suggest, that if you're going to go for the seven, you migh t as well go for eight and nine, because I can see Transcona and East Kildonan have no relevance to one another. So, if you're going to go with the six, I can cer tainly see that particular area, we've just tied them in together with the DASH service.

We have designs, I believe there is designs in the works for what they call the Southern Fr eeway, which was a bridge over another street. I can envision ten years down the road at least two more bridges. Maybe we'll get into a situation where we build a lot of these street level bridges connecting the particu lar areas, so with more bridges being built at street level, and similar problems, and the fact that as they tear down the houses in the centre core for office buildings and that, the apartment blocks go up on the other side of the river.

So, I can see that people that want to live downtown are going to find a similar type of living in Fort Rouge, Memorial, Wolseley - there is a common denominator there. So, if you're going to stick with the six districts, I think it should stay where it is. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern . MR. DOERN: Well, in regard to the problem raised by Mr . Axworthy, obviously if there's a discrepancy or an over lapping between the political and administrative districts, I think the solution is very simple, mainly the administrative distric ts can be redrawn to coincide with the political boundaries. I don't see any problem there.

I assume that that will be a factor in the design of the administr ative wards. They will have to take into account the new pol itical boundaries. MR. CHAIRMAN: A question on Mr . Axworthy's amendment. All those in favour of the amendment? (Eight) All those opposed to the amendment? (Th irte.en) Sec:tion 10 -pass; Sec tion 11. Mr. Minaker. MR. MI NAKER: Mr . Chairman, I have the motion that the proposed clause 20 (1 ), sub-amendment of the Act as set out in sect ion 10 of Bill 62 be amended by stri king outthe figure "5" and substituting ther efor, the fig ure "6.

" I thi nk rather than my explanation of the motion, I'll let Mr. Joh nston. MR. F. JOH NSTON: Wel l, Mr . Chairman, there are two reasons for this. The first one being that at . one end of this particular, the com munity commit tee, you have one of the lar gest growths of the city in the Charl eswood area. The Fort Garry area has just about the same gr owth and has doub led in the past while and is conti nuing to double.

Ju st one example that I can give you, as of today the numb er of households accord ing to the Winnipeg Post Office in the Fort Garry area alone is 11 ,405 - Fort Garry constituency as a matter of fact. The other one is that the area, and Charle swood is gr owing and it has a very large area, and I might say that Mr. Axworthy's argument wanting to have more representa tion in this area could come in too, we should be looking at six council lors in that particular area. The other reason is, we have incr eased the coun cil to 29 which puts it in a very bad voting position.

I think that if you have any ties on council, in fact, I don't know how you can have if all the council lor s were there, you could be in a bad position by not having an even number of council lors. So, we would sugge st on that basis, because it is a very large area and a very growing area - and I know the 287

Law Amendments Thursday, June 16, 1977 argu ment can be made that other areas are gr owing but I can also produce figures on other areas assure you that these two areas of the city are the fastest gr owing, and I think the figure of 30 wou be a much better size. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mille r. MR. MIL LER: Mr . Chairman , sur e we can play with figures , and the figures we have indicate th< with five representatives this particular com munity commit tee would have, not the lowest, b1 amongst the lowest number of el ectors per el ected representative.

Now, it's true it may gr ow in t� next th ree years, but of course, Acts can be changed over a time and the gr owth can be taken in1 account. There's gr owth taking place in Nor th Kildonan at a very fast rate and has taken place in th Maples area and North Winnipeg. I th ink it's just as fast as Fort Garry if not faster and I don't doul that in time, I can see the day in the futur e - it may be ten years from now - when the Char leswoo area will be perhaps triple the size it is now because the land is there.

And, eventual ly For t Garry to< because there is large acreage there which is not ready for immediate development, but someday wi be developed. But at that time, cert ainly the whole matter can be looked at, the council may b incr eased or may be simply reshuffled if we wanted to keep the number s constant, but that' someth ing for the futu re. At this time, if we start chan ging these numb ers around, then I think ever area can claim that it is being un der represented or that it should have mor e representa tion than th next area. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 10 . lt is moved by Mr . Minaker that a proposed clause 20 (1) of the Act a set out in

Section 10 of Bill 62 be amended by st riking out the figure "5" and substituting ther efort h figure "6". MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favour of the amendment please indicate. Yeas, 9. All those oppose1 to the amendment? Nays, 12 . The motion is defeated. Secti on 10 . 20 (1) -pass; 20(2) -pass;

Section 10 -pass;

Section 11 -pass;

Section 12 -pass. Mr Joh nsto n. MR. F. JOH NSTON: Mr. Chairman, my comment s will be on

Section 12 , but they will relate prett• well right through till 20. This particu lar

section is something tha t the Legislatur e is doing again, and see no reason why the City of Winnipeg co uncil lors, with all the comm ittees that they have, th1 Executive Policy Committee and others, cannot sit down and make thei r own decisions regardin! how their com munity co mmittees will oper ate. One of the bad points of this legislation is that it has done nothing to let the local areas have an� mor e control over their own affairs.

And here we have the government agai n, after crea ting the city still not let ting the city decide what is best to be done and what should be done in th eir owr commun ity commit tees. Mr. Chairman, I would wonder why the govern ment wants to have this typE of legislation in this particula r Act. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mill er. MR. MIL LER: Well, Mr . Chairman, the fact i s, what is occurring here is reflecting what in fact thE city has already done.

When they unified the polic e forces, the fire departments, the public works a ne operations, they became unified and the supervision was done by the Central Administration and thE Council as a whole. All that is occurring her e is that we are rec ognizing what has occurre d, allowin!; on the other hand for cert ain programs to be oper ated by the local communities where they so desire. and they're spelled out in Sec tion 13 .

With regard to the superv ision, the fact is that word has been a contentious word for some time. 11 has been interp reted by some to mean actual supervision of a crew on the street by a counci ll or. 11 never was intended for that, and it doesn't operate that way at the present time. So that clarifies the Act.

The Commun ity Committee counci ll ors meeting in thei r Community Committees are elsewhere in the Act instructed to hear delegations, listen to the residents and bring to Council those thi ngs that they deem necessary and advisable, so that they have every opportunity to bring any complai nts about the services, the level of services or the way services are provided; if they're dissatisfied with them , they bring them to a Stan ding Committee, or to a designated com mittee or to the Council Chamber, the council floor itself. So they have every opportu nity to do that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Johnston. MR. F.

JOH NSTON: The Minister uses the words, "that this is what has been done by the city," and I see no reason why the city can't conti nue to do it if they so desire. Everybody that came before the Law Amendments from the com munity areas were pleading with us to let them have mor e control over thei r own affairs. And Mr . Chairman , I believe that in these sections the city is not being all owed to control thei r own destiny. MR. MI LLER: Mr . Chairman, I don't agree with that interpr etation.

I think the city, in this Act. is given far more power than it ever had before and far mor e flexibility than it ever had before. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wilson. MR. WILSON: Wel l, I just want clarification. Does this mean that the councill ors - can we say experienced - that several cou ncillor s had a very good working relationship with the district heads, 288

Law Amendments Thursday, June 16, 1977 ihether it was the District One man or what-have-you - would this change - because what I hought I interp reted the Minister to say was that, for instance if I walk down and didn't like the way he particula r - as a counci llor - the garbage crews were handling a particular street and the naltreatment of the receptacles or whatever, or the attitudes, I would be able to go to the foreman lirect rather than go to the Community Committee and then to a St anding Committee.

Are you 'uggesting then that now councill ors will not have any direct input with the administra tion, that they vould have to go to a comm ittee, or is it going to be just the way it was before? MR. MI LLER: The kind of example that Mr . Wilson points out is a very real one and I can't see any :o uncill or not doing his job. If a complaint is lodged and he feels something is wrong, he phone s the listrict engineer or whatever it is, and he makes known his views.

But he doesn't have autho rity to qo 1p to a work crew who is wor king on the streets and say, "Stop work." He can do it thr ough the district mgineer if he wants to, but he can't interfere with the work that is being done right then and there by �ome emplo yee of the city, or maybe a contr actor who is wor king for the city. MR. WILSON: What infl uence does he have with the district engineer? MR. MIL LER: Wel l, my experience is, that if you are an ele cted person you have influence with the 1istrict eng ineer, that's the reality of it. MR. WILSON: I see. So there's no change. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Johnston.

Section 13 . MR. F. JOHNSTON: Well, if the Committee is agreeable, and I thi nk probably they are, I would say �e would go to Sec tion 40. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's Sec tions 12 thr ough 40-pass. Mr . Johannson. MR. JOHANNSON:

Section 20. Okay. Mr. Chairman - we're on Page 5. I move that

Section 20 of 3ill 62 be struck out and the fo llo wing

section substituted ther efor: 20(27) (1.1) of the Act is amended by stri king out the words, "in respect of services the del ivery of Nhich is supervised during that year by the commun ity comm ittees an d, subject to Clause (

c) of

Section 36", in the thir d and fourth lines thereof and substitut ing therefor the words and figures "and :ilso the budgets in respect of which the community comm ittees participate during that year )Ur suant to

Part XXII for libraries, parks and recrea tion, recrea tion comm ission, the St. Boniface Vluseum Boardor com munity centres and". MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion as amended-pass. MR. F. JOHNSTON: : Are these all technical amendments? MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm advised that th ese amendments between this particular

section and

Section �0 are techni cal amendments. Mr. Johnston. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Because Mr . Johannson was so efficient and quickly re minded us of them, I checked through them ag ain. I have a question on one of them and I'm quite willing to wait till he moves it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion as read-pass. 24, 25, 26. MR. JOHANNSON: I move that subsection 29(3) of the Act does set out in

Section 26 of Bill 62 be amended by stri king out the words "and the election of the chairman of each of the sta nding committees," in the second and thir d lines thereof. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm advised that this one is a te chn ical amendment. 26 as amended- pass. MR. JOH ANNSON: Mr. Chairman, I move that subsec tion 29(7) of the Act as set out in

Section 26 of Bi11 62 be repealed and the foll owing subsections be substitu ted therefor: Tie Vote - Mayor present. 29(7) Where a tie vote occurs in the Executive Policy Committee, the Mayor shall have a cast ing or dec iding vote in addition to his vote as a member of the comm ittee. Tie Vote - Mayor absent. 29(7. 1) Where a tie vote occur s in the Executive Policy CommitteeS on any matter or thingnd the Mayor is absent from the mee ting, the matter or thing shal l not pass or be adopted. MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion as read-pass.

Section 27. Mr . Johannson. MR. JOHANNSON: Mr. Chairman , I move that

Section 37 of the Act as set out in

Section 27 of Bill 62 be amended by stri king out the figures "36(1 )" in the second line thereof, and substituting therefor the figures "35". MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a te chnic al amendment -pass. 28-pass; 29-pass; 30-pass; 31-p ass; 32, Mr. Johannson. MR. JOH ANNSON: lt's after 32, 32 .1. MR. CHAIR

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-4-la11
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 4th hansardpdf la11.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4bab5dabb098c6477ca5c2a33bd60ce2813fade7

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