Manitoba Hansard — 19 April 1966 (Sitting 86, 27th Legislature, 5th Session)

27-5-86

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8: 00 o'clock, Tuesday, April 19, 1966 Opening Prayer by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions Reading and Receiving Petitions Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees Notices of Motion Introduction of Bills 2015 HON. STEW ART E. McLEAN, Q. C. (Attorney-General)(Daupbin): Madam Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I should like to place on the table a Return to an Address for Papers dated the 11th day of February, 1966, on motion of the Honourable the Member for Logan. MR. GILDAS MOLGAT (Leader of the Opposition)(Ste.

Rose): Madam Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to address a question to the First Minister. I posed the question the other day to the Leader of the House in his absence regarding the Orders for Return that were still outstanding, and there are quite a number of them that refer back to Orders for Return and Address for Papers that were put into the House last year, and presum ably on which some of the work was done.

In view of the fact that the House at the time of adjournment had not settled whether or not they should be returned, I presume they were com pleted and I'd like to know when we may get them. HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier)(Wolseley): Madam Speaker, my honourable friend the Minister gave me the information about this and I've circulated a memorandum to all the Ministers asking them to expedite the Returns. MR. DOUGLAS L. CAMPBELL (Lakeside): Madam Speaker, before the orders of the Day are proceeded with, I would like to direct a question to the Honourable the Attorney General.

I notice that the Honourable the Attorney-General tabled one answer to an Address this evening and, if I recollect properly, he had promised me an answer to my questions on either Monday or Tuesday of this week, and I gather this is Tuesday of this week. Is the Honourable the Attorney-General in possession of those answers and will he lay them on the table? MR. McLEAN: I have to confess, Madam Speaker, I had forgotten about it. I'll check on it the first thing in the morning. MR.

RUSSELL PAULLEY (Leader of the New Democratic Party)(Radisson): Madam Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I wonder if I might direct a question to the First Minis ter. Could the First Minister indicate to us generally what the procedUre will be insofar as the Order Paper is concerned. I draw to your attention, Madam Speaker, that Committee of the Whole House has been the first item for quite a while now and then second readings. I wonder if the First Minister could indicate for our benefit what might be the order. MR.

ROBLIN: Madam Speaker, I would think it would be advisable to proceed with the second readings because our most urgent business now is to get the bills through second read ing so they may go to committee outside the House. So that's why we're not proceeding with the Committee of the Whole stage. They can be dealt with at our own leisure. I am trying to get the other bills out so that the public can come say, Thursday morning, if that should be possible to the Law Amendments Committee.

Madam Speaker, if you would be good enough then to go directly to second readings beginning with Bill No. 71, I suppose we can proceed with those. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK, Q. C. (St. John's): Madam Speaker, you have not yet called the Orders of the Day and I wanted to address a question if I might. I'd like to address a ques tion to the Honourable the Attorney-General.

In view of the fact that two years ago and one · year ago you reported that the Law Reform Committee had been working on amendments to the Limitation of Actions Act, is there any plan or possibility that amendments such as were con templated would be brought to this Session? MR. McLEAN: Madam· Speaker, this has proved a much more difficult task than I had anticipated and I am very doubtful that we will be able to have legislation for consideration at this Session. HON. MAITLAND B. STEINKOPF, Q.

C. (Minister of Public Utilities) (River Heights): Madam Speaker, before the orders of the Day, I was asked a question yesterday by the

2016 April 19, 1966 (MR. STE INKOPF cont'd) ..•..•. Honourable Member for St. George pertaining to Hydro and the question of Cana da Pension Plan payments had been taken •in December instead of for January. I've checked and found out that the law stated that payments made in January for December services had to be deducted from the pay. MR. NEl.SON SHOEMAKER (Gladstone): Before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, I would like to address a ques tion to my honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture.

In light of the very shocking report contained in this survey called - well, it's Publication No. 425, Seed Grain Survey - 1965, Manitoba, and the recommendation contained therein. I wonder if my honourable friend does intend to make amendments to the Seed Cl eaning Plant Act, or whatever it is called, to provide for more liberal arrangements in the Act. This is really a shocking report. HON. GEORGE HUTTON (Minister of Agriculture)(R ockwood-Iberville): Madam Speaker, the honourable member is questioning me with regard to government policy and I am in no position to answer his question tonight. MR.

MOLGAT: Madam Speaker, I would like to address a question before the Orders of the Day to the Honourable the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources. Some time ago I asked some questions regarding the Sproule Report and I obtained copies of the report and the answers to the questions. What I'd like to know from the Minister now is whether there were any changes in the regulations as a result of the Sproule Report. What action has been taken by the government ? HON. STER I.JNG R. LYON, Q.

C. (Minister of Mines & Natural Resources) (Fort Garry): Yes, Madam Speaker, as I announced, I think it was two years ago, changes were made in the regulations particularly with respect to incentives for deeper horizon drilling. This was part of the incentive program that was announced two years ago. The Sproule Report, among others, was part of the motivation for those changes. MR. MOLGAT : Madam Speaker, were there any other changes apart from that one made as a result of the Sproule Report? MR. LYON: I would have to take that as notice, Madam Speaker. I wouldn't want to answer categorically without checking.

ORDERS OF THE DAY MADAM SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill No. 71.. The Honourable the Member for Lakeside. MR. CAMPBELL: Madam Speaker, when this Bill first came to our desks I looked at it with a good deal of interest, because as you know, Madam Speaker, I frequently pay a lot of attention to the authority that is given in some of our bills to the Lieutenant-Governor-in Council to do certain things.

I think I have been consistently an advocate of putting into,the legisla tion itself, so far as possible, the powers that we are implementing in the Statute rather than leaving the law to be made by the Ca binet of the province . So I was at pains immediately to consider this bill in the light of the powers that are given to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and I noted immediately a variation from the usual form, because what usually happens is that we have a bill of some length that sets out some general powers and then we have a

section saying that the Lieutenant-Governor-in Co uncil, for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act and things that are not at variance with it, can do certain things, which are listed. But this bill - this one starts right out immediately after the

short title - it starts right out with the bold decision, right off the bat, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may of its own volition or upon petition in writing from a college mentioned in

Section 55 of The University Act, establish that college as a uni versity, and then the rest of the Act goes on to set out the general provisions that might have been expected in an ordinary act. Now others who have spoken have covered this subject so well that I do not need to dwell on it at any length, but I certainly do wish to go on record with a definite protest against uni versities being establish ed by Order-in-Council. If there is a college that should be esta bli shed as a university, then let 's have the recommendation brought here; let us pass the legisla tion regarding it.

As far as I am concerned, I have been aware for some time that Brandon College is, and I think properly, aspiring to the status of a university. I think it has some good reasons for expecting to reach that status . It has one distinguished member of the government side of the House as a graduate of that institution and there may be others that I don't know of, but I know of at least one, the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs.

April 19, 1966 2017 HON. ROBERT G. SMELLIE (Minister of Municipal Affairs)(Bi rtle-Russell): I must inform tile honourable speaker that I never graduated from that college, although I did make two attempts to get through second year and eventually made it. MR. CAMPBELL: Then, Madam Speaker, I was going to have to put him in a higher category than myself, with some reservations I must admit, but now I'm delighted to find that his record is no more distinguished than my own. I also am an alumnus of that college but I did not graduate.

I thought my honourable friend had completed what I had started, and I must confess that in spite of my honourable friend and I having failed to achieve the graduate circles, that the college has certainly shown its liberal tendencies in the fact that it gives a liberal edu cation by having among its graduates Tommy Douglas, Walter Dinsdale, and Mrs. John Diefen baker. Now when you add those three people to the Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs and myself, you can see that this college is certainly deserving of some recognition. MR. LAURENT DESJARDINS (St.

Boniface): The place will never be the same now. MR. CAMPBELL: Well, I admit the point that my honourable friend from St. Boniface is trying to make is that those people having left the university it will certainly not be the same as when they were there, because he recognizes with me the pretty enlightened group that once graced those halls.

Not at the same time I must --I suppose the college was hardly liberal en ough in its views to have accommodated all that group at one and the same time, and the people can tell from looking at my honourable friend and me there is a bit of difference in some --at least of the age groups represented there.

Now there is a move on foot, and my honourable friend the member for Brandon I'm sure could give us more information on this subject, to have Brandon College achieve the status of a university, and if the government will initiate a bill here that confers that status upon them, they can count on my wholehearted support. In fact I would not argue too stren uously about any one of the different names that have been proposed.

I understand that some are suggesting Brandon University, some are suggesting the University of Western Manitoba, some the Western Manitoba University, some the Assiniboine University, and there may be other names that I have not heard of. I'm not particularly concerned about the names. It seems to me that any one of those would be first class. Personally, I'd be rather inclined to tie ill the Western Manitoba feature, but any of those names would be all right.

What I think should be recognized is the extremely courageous and successful struggle that Brandon College has made through the years to keep afloat under very diff icult circum stances, and to make a really outstanding contribution in the field of education and of good citizenship to a very large number of students who have had the privilege of taking some part or all of their higher education there. So I repeat that if there is a disposition to confer that status upon Brandon College, I would be one of the very first to applaud that decision.

If a bill comes in, I shall certainly give it my wholehearted support, but I certainly do not think that it is proper for us to pass a bill which gives to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council the authority to confer this distinction upon that college or any others that are mentioned in

Section 55. When our Manitoba-born historian, Professor Morton, wrote the history of the Univer sity of Manitoba, he gave it the intriguing title that was taken from the Act -The University Act that the leader of this group mentioned this afternoon - "One University." That's the title that he gave to that history -"One University." That's what the Act says now, "One Univer sity, " and if this is going to be changed- and I'm quite in favour of it being changed -if it's going to be changed, then it should be changed in my opinion by

an Act of this legislature. · I have no particular comment to make on the other sections of the Act. After all, all of them in my opinion impinge upon the first one and derive their authority from it, and inasmuch as I definitely disagree with that controlling power that is given, I do not find myself in support of the B111. MR. MARK G. SMERCHANSKI (Burrows): Madam Speaker, this Bill seems to have some peculiar circumstances surrounding it in that it fails to bring to the attention of this House as to its exact purpose.

Surely we don't establish universities in this province on a wholesale basis, and if there is a need for additional universities, these can be dealt with as they are required. In a province of some one million there is not much room for the establishment of several universities. The University of Manitoba has, some five years back, encountered a very large influx of additional students, and in its wisdom it established what is known as a college within the university, and this establishment of the college in the university complex is along the lines of the modified English system.

2018 April 19, 1966 (MR. SMERCHANSKI cont'd) •.••. Now I can agree with the remarks that my colleague from Lakeside made in that if there is the intent of making Brandon College a university, then this should be spelled out in precise details and presented along those lines, because, Madam Speaker, how do we know that pos sibly somebody may want to establish a University of St. Boniface, and there might be some body else wanting to establish the University of Dauphin.

Now as mentioned earlier in the day, the establishment of a university in today's highly mechanized and specialized field, if you are talking of the scientists, you are talking of a large capital investment in equipment in order to perform the proper experiments for the under-graduate student. If you are talking of en gineering courses, there are many complicated expensive pieces of equipment that cannot be duplicated in institutions of learning.

You take some of the physics equipment at the Univer sity of Manitoba that runs into literally millions of dollars, how can we so flippantly re commend the establishment of other universities to cover the whole field of various faculties.

Now if there is a need to break up the Department of Agriculture or the Faculty of Engineering or the Faculty of Science or the Faculty of Art into separate colleges, then there is a certain amount of wisdom in this, but to simply bring in a bill for the establishment of additional universities, as if Manitoba is lacking several universities -- is this the inference we get from this Bill, Madam Speaker? This surely is the inference that is made from the presentation of this Bill.

Now I'm quite certain that our present University of Manitoba, its Board of Governors and its President, are fully aware of the requirements of university training in this province. They have been preparing for the ever-increasing registration of university students at the University of Manitoba, not in the last two or three years but in the last fifteen years, and I do not see the wisdom of bringing a bill in of this nature, to simply make a statement that we must establish more universities, because this is the inference of this Bill.

Now, Madam Speaker, we are not a large enough province that we require an unlimited number of universities, and I will state in closing that if there is a requirement for additional universities, and after the study is completed by the commission that has been set out to do this study, well then it will be at this time that we should take a good hard look before we establish another university in the Province of Manitoba, and at that point we should take action. specifically in reference to the university that would be recommended at that time. MR.

PAULLEY: I just want to clarify the position of my party - my group - insofar as Bill 71 is concerned. My colleague from St. John's went to some length to outline his thoughts, which we join of course in, in respect of Bill 71.

However, I want to repeat, Madam Speaker, what he said while speaking on the Bill, that we are not going to oppose the Bill going to second reading in order that members of the Council of Higher Learning and/or representatives of the universities or the colleges that might be interested in this Bill will have an opportunity of appearing before the committee to give us the benefit of their views.

We think it is important insofar as the subject matter of the Bill, the creation of universities, changing from colleges to universities, that we should have the advantages of the advice of members of the Council of Higher Learning and the colleges and university themselves, Madam Speaker. So we will not oppose the Bill going to second reading for that purpose, and we have some reservations of course about the Bill, but we do think that the matter should be considered outside of the Chamber in order that we might benefit from the wisdom of others as well. MR. ELMAN GUTTORMSON (St.

George): Madam Speaker, those of us on this side of the House would have no objections to considering a bill which would set up Brandon College as a university. For that matter, we'd be prepared to consider a Bill to consider perhaps United College as a university, but we think it's wrong in principle to have the Cabinet decide on what colleges should be called a university. We think it's wrong in principle that this is being handled in this way and I think the Minister would be wise to reconsider the position. HON.

GEORGE JOHNSON (Minister of Education)(Gimli): Madam Speaker, in rising to close the debate on the bill before us, I never anticipated, frankly and honestly, for one moment that the Bill would be looked upon as it has by some who have spoken. Others I think have made very excellent suggestions and I think the debate has been an excellent one because I think really we are all on all-fours. I think the method of approaching the establishment of the Council of Higher Learning as has been carried out has been proven to be most wise.

Rather than creating a super structure to initially examine this whole area, those colleges or affiliates who are now affiliated with the university, and the one non-denominational college, Brandon College, are studying this whole

April 19, 1966 2019 (MR. JOHNSON cont'd) •.•• , area with the university people, with members picked by each of these colleges to serve on the Council, with neutral chairmen of the Arts and Science Council and the Council in charge of other courses, and overseen by an outstanding Manitoban serving as chairman. They have been charged with - and the Member for St.

John's -I can assure him, have been charged of not only looking with the concern of the affiliates and looking to their future in the province in the field of post-secondary education, that the very kind of duplication he men tioned and others mentioned would be avoided, that in effect in a province of a million people we would at an administrative level have a meeting of minds, because we are all aware in the House of the increasing importance of the role being played by our affiliates and the need to rationalize this.

The fact that we don't want the universities to be introducing, say a Board and a Senate, could well introduce a course in Hellenistic Greek as could each affiliate, and this of course is something which we think must be underlined at this time. I think, in other words, the spirit with which these people are going about their task I think is excellent. We have had very frank discussions. I have not spoken to the council since shortly after they got under way. I have no idea just when a recommendation will be coming forward; whether there'll be interim re ports or not.

I know that a great deal of discussion is going on with the department concerning our role in technical training and post-secondary training of all kinds, the concept of junior community colleges and so on. I wanted to emphasize, as I said in introducing the Bill, representations have been made - especially as has been echoed in the House here - concerning Brandon College, and in the past year, frankly w� have worked with the Board of the College to bring them into fiscal alignment with the university. We used to receive their budget after they had started spending it really, and this has been brought into line.

As of this year, their current budget as passed this year will go into effect the 1st of April the same as the university. There's a Bill before the House concerning the Board of Governors on a college which has a non-denominational college re ceiving most of its budgets through public funds, and it was felt advisable to bring in such a Bill as a measure which could be done at this Session.

It was also, not knowing just when recommendations might be forthcoming from the Council of Higher Learning, it was felt it would be anticipating the Council to establish Brandon College a university if it had been so brought at this time. It was thought eminently desirable to await the hearing and the recommendations of the Council. They are not being influenced other than by public opinion, and of course are given copies of all resolutions which come to me and suggestions which have come to me. I pass copies on to the Secretary and to the Chairman of the Council.

The Council is being asked to examine these entire areas, and I would imagine that certainly it would be an intent of the government not to create any new universities without the plans from the Council of Higher Learning coming down. However, it was felt it might be desirable -it would be desirable to have enabling legis lation which would enable a start to be made in the founding of a university should the Council so suggest. Whether there would be one or two others, I do not know anymore than any of the members of the House. But as the Honourable Member from St.

John's said, it may well be that one can imagine different combinations or different recommendations which might be passed to the government for recommendation, and I would imagine, although I don't know - I have no way of knowing - that it might be very desirable, if there were more than one univer sity established, to have a continuing Council on Higher Learning, some central overseer •. This concept, I think, might well be something that we can entertain as the -- or the Council itself may give consideration to.

But the whole nature of the Bill was really an enabling piece of legislation which was lifted out of The University Act - the present University Act - which sets up the mechanism for the establishment of a Senate, Board of Governors, and so on, which might be a step which might be initiated should a report come to us recommending such a course. On the other hand, it may well be that the Council will decide to make a complete report to underline what they consider the future role of our affiliates and Brandon College.

Incidentally, the bill, as you are aware, only refers to -- it wouldn't allow the establishment of a new university unless it is one of our present affiliated colleges. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the

preamble in the present Act. I note, as a matter of interest, that Act was passed in 1881 and the

preamble of the present Act is sub stantially in the same form as it was in 1891 - 1881 or 1891. The Act says, as the Leader of

2020 April 19, 1966 (MR. JOHNSON cont'd) ••••••• the Opposition pointed out, ''There shall be only one university for the whole of Manitoba. " In point of fact, the

preamble states as it did in 1891, "Whereas it was desirable to establish and is desirable to continue one university for the whole of Manitoba ..••• • " The

preamble is merely a statement of belief and has, as we lmow, no force in law. It's a statement of philosophy at that time. The fact that it was desirable to have one university of course, as has been expressed by the honourable members, doesn't mean it is still desirable and there should only be one. It is desirable that there be at least one univer sity, but the existence of two or more would not be contrary to the purpose as stated in the

preamble, that is as it went on to say, "for the purpose of raising the standard of higher educa tion in the province and of enabling members of all classes and denominations to obtain the advantages which may be afforded by universities." So while I appreciate the remarks of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition and members who are not in favour of this method of doing things, it appeared to us that, on balance, it would be desirable at this time to have such enabling legislation which, should a report be rendered, a start could be made.

There's no doubt that the full report of the Council would be available to the honourable members and it may well be that further legislation would be required. I find from experience that from year to year legislation has to be changed quite often. However, I think the government believes it desirable to be able to act on a recommenda tion that might come forward without necessarily waiting until the next Session of the legisla ture.

I can assure the honourable members of the committee that I'll be happy to give any further explanations as to the nature of the bill in committee, but the whole matter has been brought forward, I can assure honourable members, in the best of faith. We have no desire to create instant universities, as it were. We have every desire to await the report of the Council of Higher Learning, but should a recommendation come to us with respect to, for example Brandon College, the necessary machinery would be on the Statutes to enable a start to be made in this area. MR.

CHERNIACK: Madam Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the Honourable Minister three questions? Firstly, has there been any written form of recommendation from the Council of Higher Learning.? MR. JOHNSON: The answer is no. MR. CHERNIACK: Secondly, is there any legislative control in this bill over any uni versity that is created from mushrooming? MR. JOHNSON: No, this bill would only apply to the existing affiliated colleges. MR. CHERNIACK: I mean any one of these affiliated colleges becoming a university and then growing in terms of graduate studies, higher degree of that type, is there any con trol in the bill?

MR. JOHNSON: There's no control in the bill, as I see it, other than that the institution as a university receiving public funds, would have to come to the administration for these moneys, but this is where I believe the Council of Higher Learning may have further recom mendations concerning this as we go on. MR. CHERNIACK: Third question, Madam Speaker. Is there any legislation to permit the creation of a central overseer, like a continuous Council of Higher Learning, that would be able to oversee all the universities that would be created? MR.

JOHNSON: Well I think this is something that will have to await the report of the Council of Higher Learning. All I can say at this time is I have only had informal discussions with the chairman when the Council was initiated, giving them the terms of reference as I have mentioned to the honourable member, and have just had informal discussions with the chairman with respect to the desirability, in his opinion, of such a continuing council when he has a chance to examine the whole area. MR. CHERNIACK: Madam Speaker, the Honourable Minister I think didn't hear my question.

I asked is there any existing legislation to permit a continuous council to have the overseeing powers. MR. JOHNSON: Not that I lmow of, but I could check that. MR. MOLGAT: I wonder if I might ask the Minister a question. If he has had no re commendations from the Council of Higher Learning recommending this, if I understood him correctly, and that when the recommendations arrive to him that he may have to introduce other legislation, could he tell me why he is introducing this legislation now?

April li}, 1966 2021 MR. JOHNSON: Well, it's a matter of government policy as my colleague says. But the poilnt is this, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. Everyone in this House and on this side, as laymen looking at the whole broad field of secondary education and looking at our geographic distribution of our people, are all giving vent to the desirability for a University of Brandon. We have an excellent facility there; we think it's maturing; we think it's ready to be given university status; but we don•' t want to anticipate the Council of Higher learning in this matter.

We were rationalizing their board and their fiscal arrangements with U8 last year, and we're bringing in enabling legislation, should we receive a report from the Council that it would be desirable to create this a university, we have the legislation to do so. If we didn't have this and the Council were to report that there was no problem in pro ceeding with this at this time, we would proceed. If we don't get the recommendation, I don't believe we'll proceed. MR. T.P. HILLHOUSE, Q.C. (Selkirk): Madam, would the Mini ster permit this ques tion?

Wouldn't it be much more logical to await the establishment of the Council of Higher Learning so that you could enact the legislation which they request? MR. SMERCHANSKI: Would the Minister permit two questions, please? MADAM SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. MOLGAT: Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: Call in the members. The question before the House, the adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill No. 71,

An Act respecting the establishment of Universities. A standing vote was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS: Messrs. Baizley, Beard, Bilton, Bjornson, Carron, Cherniack, Cowan, Evans, Froese, Groves, Hamilton, Harris, Harrison, Hutton, Jeann otte, Johnson, Klym, Lissaman, Lyon, McDonald, McKellar, Mcl.ean, Martin, Mills, Moeller, Paulley, Roblin, Shewman, Smellie, Stanes, Steinkopf, Strickland, Watt, Witney, Wright and Mrs. Morrison. NAYS: Messrs. Campbell, Desjardins, Guttormson, Hillhouse, Molgat, Patrick, Shoemaker, Smerchanski, Tanchak, and Vielfaure. 1\IIR. CLERK: Yeas, 36; Nays, 10.

MADAM SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried. The adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill No. 75. The Honourable the Member for Carillon. MR. GUTTORMSON: May we have this matter stand, please. MR. ROBLIN: Madam Speaker, may I just remind the House that this matter has been stan ding now for six of these Sessions -two days. I hope the honourable whip of the opposite side will give us some assurance that the member for Carillon will be here tomorrow, be cause I don't think we could let it stand any further. MR.

SMELLIE: Madam Speaker, on a point of Order, I understand that the Member for Carillon adjourned it for the Member for Selkirk. Perhaps he might like to proceed. MR. HILLHOUSE: The Honourable Minister seems to know more about it than I do, Madam. MADAM SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill No. 82. The Honourable the Member for Rhineland. MR. J. M. FROESE (Rhineland): Could I ask the indulgence of the House to have this matter stand . MR. ROBLIN: Madam Speaker, I hate to appear disobliging but this matter has been standing in my honourable friend's name for at least twice now.

It stood -perhaps it hasn't been called but certainly - adjourned once and stood once, I heard. We would appreciate it if he could make his views known on this matter now. MR. FROESE: Madam Speaker, I am not prepared to speak on it. I have been speaking on other bills and as a result I didn't do the necessary work on this one. MR. ROBLIN: Madam Speaker, we'll not insist on it being proceeded with tonight, but I would hope that my honourable friend would take this as a warning that we would not be pre pared to have it stand tomorrow. MADAM SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill No. 89.

The Hon ourable the Member for St. George. MR. GUTTORMSON: Madam Speaker, I adjourned the debate for the Member for La Verendrye. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. ALBERT VIELFAURE (La Verendrye): Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Honour able Member for adjourning the debate for me. I don't intend to oppose this bill. However, I

2022 April 19, 1966 (MR. VIELFAURE cont'd) ••.• .••• would like to draw to the attention of the committee that in my opinion this is taking some power away from the ann ual meeting and giving both the directors and the registrar a lot more power. I understand that we now have some credit unions that are fairly large and are operating in a rather big way and need more - elbow room maybe would be the word - on the part of the directors.

However, I think it is important that we remember that the credit unions and the Caisse Populaires, which in my case are the ones I'm more familiar with, have done a terrific job in the local communities, and I think one of the main reasons why they were able to do the good job that they have done was the fact that the shareholders and the annual meeting had pra ctically all the authority in the matters of administration.

Now, as I say, I understand that maybe the larger credit unions have to give the directors more power, but we should be very careful that we do not take all the powers of the ann ual meeting away. The credit unions and the Caisse. Populaires have served a good purpose in small communities in helping people who were operating in a rather smaller way and very often could not establish themselves as potential lenders with bigger organizati ons because of the lack of equity or similar matters.

However, in their own community they were able to enjoy the benefits of the credit union on the basis of their honesty and the fact that they were known, they had lived there, and so on. Also, the fact that these credit unions have operated, as I said, was in my opinion be cause of the fact that the people were really taking part. I think giving too much authority to the directors is going to remove some of this interest from the local people in their organiza tion and deteriorate their position.

We should remember, I think, that credit unions in most cases are really not in opposition to larger lending institutions but rather filling a need of, as I said, financing at the local level.

Another point that I notice is the changing of the share account to -- it's not actually changing the share account to the current account, however, the fact that one can withdraw his shares and benefit of the interest, even if he does so in less than a year period, which is usually the length of time that is established for one to benefit from the interest of its shares, if he wants to benefit of the higher interest on shares, be has to leave the money and deposits for a year. Now-these deposits are usually the capital of the credit union.

I think that making it so that people can draw the interest even it they withdraw within a year will have a tendency to discourage people to investing in shares, and that will certainly affect the credit union move ment. Also, I think the fact that most of the credit unions have a branch or a credit union that operates within the school has been very very important. Now this Bill is· not removing this possibility but I think it is due again to the fact that the people at the local level are really taking interest in the management of their affairs.

Another point I notice is the appointing of the credit committee and the supervisory com mittee by the directors. I think there again this will remove some of the interest of the ann ual meeting in the conducting of their affairs. And then again the fact that they will be named by the directors, I think , will make it so that they will not be in the position to remove them as easily as the annual meeting would do.

So these are some of the opinions that I have on this bill, and, as I say, I can understand that this might be beneficial to some of the larger ones, but I think we should make very sure that we do not remove completely all the powers of the annual meeting because this will have a tendency to simply make our credit unions more like banks. It's not that I'm saying that banks are not right, but the way the credit unions have operated, they have filled a need which was essential, I think, to small communities.

So really I do not oppose the bill as such, but I thought I'd make these views known, because in my opinion the interest of the local people in their organization is very important and removing too many of the powers of the annual meeting would deteriorate this way of organization. MADAM SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. MOLGAT: Madam Speaker, before the Minister closes the debate, I would just like to say a very few words on this bill. I do not rise to oppose the bill; I intend to support it. I think that the points made by my colleague the Member for La Verendrye constituency are im portant points.

The credit unions, particularly those in rural Manitoba where they are esta blished on a geographical basis, usually in some of our smaller centres where there is not any other banking institution, I think these credit unions have done a·particularly fine job of pro viding a service to the people in the area.

April 19, 1966 2023 (MR. MOLGAT cont'd) .••••• But over and above that, Madam Speaker, and I think I can speak here for all of the credit union movement, they have provided a means whereby people conduct their own affairs; where a group of people, whether they be from an employee group or from a geographical area, get together and set up a corporation which in effect is there to service themselves and other people. I think that these are very very important items in our type of society.

I think that participation in something like this is an essential element in our democratic system of govern ment and that we should at all times be very careful that we do not take steps that will reduce the interest of the regular participator in a credit union movement in the functioning of the credit union itself.

But the more that we can do to find the average individual who belongs to the credit union and puts some money into it, the more that we can do to make him part and parcel of the operation of that credit union, the better the credit union itself will be and the better job it will do for the people in the area. So I would hope that whatever recommendations are maclle in this bill, or whatever proposals are made here, will in effect keep that issue, which I think is essential in the credit union movement, very much in the foremost.

Now in the past we have had some bills on credit unions appearing before us and there has been controversy by what we might call two different views of the credit lDlion movement. I think it is important, insofar as the members of the House, that when this bill comes to committee, that the views of the people involved in credit union movement be heard. I think it is very useful to the committee members to have there the representative of the league and of the credit union movement to present to us their views on how this will affect the credit union movement.

So I would hope that when the Bill receives second reading that the Minister would be in a position to advise those groups who are interested in this legislation and ask them to appear before us so we can get the benefit of the·ir views, because I think that many members of the House are not in a position to know the det ails of the operation of the credit union movement and this would be very beneficial to passing a Bill that will in effect be doing the right thing for the credit unions. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture. MR.

HUTTON: Madam Speaker, I think that listening to the comments of two of the members in respect to this bill illustrates quite well the difference in the approach to this whole question of credit unions. The Honourable the Member for Rhineland is concerned in big strong credit unions; he wants to see them grow. The Honourable Member for La Verendrye is concerned that we preserve the traditional character and nature of the credit union, that is a group of people with a common bond, with a personal interest in one another as well as an interest in their own well-being, working together to the mutual benefit of all.

I think that there is an increasing difficulty as credit unions grow, as they become wealthy and their business grows and their organization - their internal organization grows, the relationships between the members in the organizati on become more impersonal, more detached. This is not to say that they don't provide a service to the members, but the character of those organizations changes.

Wben we draft legisb.tion to accommodate the credit unions, we have to take into account the different kinds of credit unions that we have, those that are organized where the common bond is quite strong, where the relationship of the members is quite personal; and then we have to provide for the big business organization.

If you will notice· in the bill where we pro vide for authority being given to the Board of Directors to appoint the credit committee and the supervisory committee, we also retain the right of the credit union to elect these commit tees where their by-laws provide for the election of such committees. I really don't have too much to say at this time. I tried to deal with the principles that were involved in it when I introduced tbe bill at second reading.

I might say to the Honourable Member for Rhineland, I think that he should note what the Honourable Member for La Verendrye had to say about the credit union movement. I think that it is difficult to reconcile the desire - or the apparent desire of the Honourable Member for Rhineland to have these strong financial organizations, and also with, at the same time, an unmistakable request that we extend to this kind of an organization the kind of supervision and service that we extended to tbe smaller organizations.

You see when this whole movement started and the government provided the supervisory service for these credit unions, they were not - these credit unions were not in a position to provide their own auditors, etc. , and because of the co-operative nature of the organization, the government was asked to see to it in a sense that everything was correct and

2024 April 19, 1966 (MR. HUT TON cont'd) ••••••• run properly, and not only just to audit the books but to provide a consultative service in respect to the financial matters of these credit unions. Well, the Honourable Member for Rhineland made quite a point of the fact that today some of the credit unions retain the services of auditors outside of the government and that in this case they should be forgiven the dues that they pay, that they should be forgiven at least 90 percent. Well this past year it cost about $72, 000 to supervise the affairs of the credit unions in Manitoba.

The Honourable Member for Rhineland pointed out the tremendous growth in the credit union movement, and he is absolutely correct. The credit unions contributed $4, 000 of the $72, 000 of the cost.

So I think there's still a substantial element of subsidy in the service that's been pro vided for them and I don't really think that the environment in which the credit unions are operating is too hostile, because their rate of growth and the way they have prospered must be an indication that the legislation and the supervision under which they operate has contributed to the growth rather than to inhibit it in any way.

So I think it's not unfair to ask the strong, the wealthy credit unions to subsidize the smaller credit unions, because after all this was the principle on which the government service was established in the first place. Now I'm not going to say any more, but to assist the members in their work in committee when they come to consider this bill, I have had prepared explanatory notes in more detail than what are available in the bill. I'm going to ask the Page Boy to distribute them to the members and you '11 be able to look it over and maybe be better prepared to deal with this when we come to the committee stage.

MR . MOLGAT: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I could ask a question of the Minister. Will he undertake to ask the people who are involved in the credit union movement to be at the com mittee meeting whenever it meets? MR . HUTTON: I expect that they will be notified and it would be of interest, I'm sure, to the Honourable Leader of the Opposition and other members to say that the provisions in this bill have been reviewed in principle by both the Caisse Populaires, the Federation, and the Credit Union League, and we believe we do have some consensus of opinion with respect to the provisions here.

MADAM SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MADAM SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill No. 92. The Honourable the Member for Selkirk. MR. HILLHOUSE: Madam, I adjourned this debate for the purpose of checking this bill to see whether or no there was anything in it that required attention.

I find that as far as the bill is concerned I have no objection to the principle involved in it, but I wish to take advantage of this opportunity, Madam, to again urge the government to do something with respect to those civil servants who were pensioned on salaries that arose out of the depression and whose pen sions today are nowhere near the pensions received by those other civil servants who served the Provirice of Manitoba in more prosperous times.

As I've said on previous occasions, Madam, I'm not asking that any change be made in � the principle of The Civil Service Superannuation Act, but I do urge the government to set aside a sum of money by way of a gratuity which would be used to supplement the present pension paid these pensioners and thus bring that pension more in line with the pension paid their more fortunate fellow workers who were pensioned on wages much above the wages that were paid civil servants of Manitoba during the depression.

I urge the government most sincerely to look into this matter with a view to setting aside a sum of money for that particular purpose. MADAM SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MADAM SPEAKER: T� adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill No. 97. The Honourable the Member for Emerson. MR . JOHN P. TANCHAK (Emerson): I suppose I can't adjourn it any more. Madam Speaker, Bill No. 97 - I think the purpose of this bill is to integrate the teachers pension with the new Canada Pension Plan.

Now I understand that the Manitoba Teachers Association have been able to reach some kind of an agreement among themselves, among the members on this integration, and I have no quarrel with this bill as of now. If it meets the approval of the teachers and other parties concerned, fine and dandy. They are the ones who are mostly con cerned in that. We would like to hear their comments when this bill shows up in committee. I listened to the Honourable Member for St. John's in his discussion this afternoon- or this morning it was -different points which he had brought up.

I agree with most of those points, but one of his contentions was that it may not be too fair to the different boards who

' ! April 19, 1966 202 5 (MR. TANCHAK cont'd) •.••••. have to bear further burdens - the taxpayers I mean - the burden of about $19 and some odd cents per teacher per year as their pontribution towards the Canada Pension Plan. But since this is the federal regulation I do not see what alternative means we can use to alleviate that unless teachers pay the full share, but I think that our teachers have earned this extra little bit of consideration and appreciation for the services rendered and I don't think we should begrudge them that too much because it isn't a very great sum.

The main thing, or the main - not exactly an objection but an omission that I note in this bill - I'm sure that ]['m right when I say or make this statement, that I've heard the Honourable Minister of Education previously telling us that he was in favour of portability of pensions, and I regret that in this bill, as far as I can see unless I don't interpret it right, this bill does not provide for portability of pensions. I think it would have been a desirable provision in this bill that teachers that travel from one province to another carry their pensions with them.

I know that we have been losing a goodly number of our teachers to other provinces and one may argue that if we make our pen sions portable that they can take it with them to another province, it may aggravate the situa tion, but I am sure that discussions could have been arranged with other provinces, neighbour ing provinces and in farther away provinces, to have some kind of reciprocal laws or regula tions whe reby other provinces would permit their teachers to carry their pensions or take their pensions with them or have portability of pensions too, and thus it would have become a two-way street.

If you lost some because this was an incentive for our teachers to go if they don't lose any part of their pension, it would be just as great an incentive for other teachers to come if they could take their pension with them, if the pensions were portable in other provinces, and to retain our teachers, I would suggest that we in Manitoba create a more proper, or a proper atmosphere here so that our teachers would stay in Manitoba and other teachers would be attracted from other provinces.

By this I mean that our working conditions, or the working conditions of our teachers in Manitoba could be improved - and there's a lot of room for improvement -I mentioned that before. In the estimates of the Department of Education, I gave them a few suggestions as to how it could be improved. Then as far as our salaries are concerned, I think that we could probably make our salaries more comparative or more in line with those paid by other provinces. We're not opposing this bill at this time.

Let it go forward to committee and then we'll hear what the teachers have to say about it, but in the meantime I would like the Minister to comment on the portability- the desirability of the portability of pensions. MR. FROESE: Madam Speaker, just a few words on this particular bill. I am happy that the bill makes allowance for teachers who will substitute, that in certain cases they will be allowed to contribute towards the pension fund, and as these times will add up during the year, that they will in this way gradually build up credits. Now the way ][ see it, the teacher may make the contributions.

I take it, Madam Speaker, that the onus is on the teacher then, is it, to have the contributions made or the deductions made and submitted to the pension fund; and that the Board, in a case where they probably , just get a substitute teacher for say two or three weeks, would not be responsible if the teacher did not indicate beforehand that she was going to contribute and that the deduction was made, because if the onus is on the school board itself, they would have to make sure that the deduc tion was made from the salary before they paid the teacher.

If the Minister can correct me on this, I would appreciate it. Other than that, I have no further comment to make. I will approve the Bill on second reading in order to hear representations from other organizations at the time of the committee meetings. MR.

MOLGAT: Madam Speaker, I regret that I did not hear the Minister's comments on the introduction of the Bill for second reading, but I would trust that at some stage or other he could give us some information as to how the pension plan now proposed in the Province of Manitoba for the teachers compares with that of our neighbouring provinces, particularly Saskatchewan and Ontario. We have had some discuss ions in the House here in the past about the loss of teachers to these areas and I hear regularly about our loss of teachers in particular to the Province of Ontario.

I know that areas like Kenora and Fort Frances, Red Lake, have a large number of Manitoba teachers. The appeal to go there, as I understand it, is largely the salary appeal.

2026 April 19, 1966 (MR. MOLGAT cont'd) ..•..• Similarly, every year we have people who come from the Province of Alberta to recruit, particularly in the Province of Manitoba, for teachers for those areas, and there are ads in our newspapers here from various school boards from the Province of Alberta. I believe they have at times sent people here to do some actual recruiting.

Once again, the information that we get is that the _main attraction is sal ary, and I would like to know from the Minister what are the comparisons of the pens ion plans between our own province and those others to whom we are losi ng teaching staff now. There are two groups - other than the House itself here, and by virture of the House the people of Manitoba - there are two other specific groups who are vitally concerned of course with the question of teachers pensions, and that is the teachers themselves and the school trus tee associations .

I would like to know from the Minister whether the two associations have been consulted; have they in fact made recommendations to the Minister as to what they would like to see done in this regard; and will they be present at Law Amendments to present their views on this Bill . MADAM SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question ? MR. JOHNSON: Madam Speaker, I'd like to close the debate, answering in the reverse order, if I may, some of the questions raised on the principle of the Bill.

Both associations - we had discus sions with the Manitoba Teachers Society going back to last November - October and November - and they agreed to this plan; and we have also had discus sions with the MAST and my information is that both groups are satisfied with this legisla tion . This pension plan in Manitoba in the last few years has been evolved to the point where it is as good, if not better, than other teacher pension plans across Canada. My understanding is that none pay more than 70 percent of the average annual salary over the last 10 years, which this has now reached.

I also point out with respect to the School Board's contributions to the pension plan, when I said it was 79. 20, this is for the 1. 8 percent on salary over $600 and up to $5000 per year. The maximum contribution made on behalf of any one teacher by a school board toward the CPP is 79. 20. For example, on a salary of $4, 000 the contribution by the Board would be 1. 8 percent of $4, 000 minus $600 which is $61. 20, so the contribution by the individual boards varies according to the salaries - $79. 20 on $5, 000 and over -- up to $5, 000. Over that there is no CPP contribution.

The other point I would just mention is that it is an evolutionary -I think this legis lation is on balance. The combined pension as I understand it of the CP P and TRAF will be slig htly higher to the individual teacher than previously, and I would hope to try and reach the organiza tions concerned to have them present at Law Amendments if they wish to make representations to it. MR. MOLGAT : Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister if I may.

If I understood him correctly, he said that the pension structure, the 70 percent of the last ten years, is similar to that of Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Is that so ? MR. JOHNSON: I said I know of no other jurisdi ctions where the pension exceeds for 35 years' service the maximum of 70 percent of the average annual salary over the last ten years, which is what our Act now reads. MR. MOLGAT: The salary schedules in those provinces are still somewhat higher than our own though, are they not, and in that case, 70 percent of a higher salary

schedule means actually more dollars. Is that not so ? MR. ROBLIN: That is clearly out of order, Madam Speaker. It's a statement not a question. MADAM SPEAKER : Are you ready for the question ? --(Interjection)-- I'm putting the motion on this question. MADAM SPEA KER put the question and after a voice vote deClared the motion carried. MR. ROBLIN: Madam Speaker, the Member for Selkirk was good enough to say that on consultation he now advises that Bill No.· 75 was reserved for him and that he would be willing to speak now if the House would be willing to hear him.

If that's the case, I would be glad to suggest that we do hear him no:w on Bill 75 if we have permission. MADAM SPEAKER : Have we permission of the House to hear him ? The Honourable the Member for Selkirk. MR. HILLHOUSE : T� you, Madam, and I thank the members of the House for allow ing me this concession. As a matter of fact, I understand that the Honourable Member, Mr. Barkman, he did adjourn this Bill for me, but unfortunately he never conveyed that information to me and I knew nothing about it.

April 19, 1966 2027 (MR. IDLLHOUSE con t'

d) o o •.. o o. I have gone into this Bill quite thorough ly. There are quite a number of amendments to The Municipal Act contained in this Bill which in my opinion are good amendments, particularly one amendment there dealing with appeals in respect of liability for taxation and appeals against the quantum of assessment. Particularly, the appeal dealing with liability for taxation is a good amendment. It clarifies an old

section in the Act which was a little difficult to enforce and gave the courts consid erable trouble due to the time limit that was allowed in the old section, but now there's a straight appeal to the court in respect of liability for assessment and there's no halfway step to the equalization assessment appeal board. You go straight to the court, and I think that's a good amendment. There is another amendment here in

Section 381 of the Act dealing with contri butions to the pension fund.

Now I understand that that amendment was requested by the Secretary Treasurers Associa tion which would increase the amount of co ntribution from five percent to six percent, but I presume the Minister is aware of the fact that by putting that amendment in, it w111 also increase the obligation of the municipality in respect of pensions payable to othe r employ ees, and I was wonde ring whether that question had been taken up with the municipalities and whether the municipalities were aware of the fact that there would be a liability of an addi tional one percent against them in respect of employ ees, other than secretary treasurers, who are not of ficers of the corpora tion.

I simply mention that because I think that it should be br o ught to the attention of the municipalities before the legislation is passed. Now there is that

section which I understand the Honourable Member for St. John's took exception to, that is the

section dealing with join t tenancy, and where a Judgment is registered and one of the jo int tenants dies, the Judgment attaches the interest of the survivor. I under stand he has raised an ob jection to that which would appear to be valid - and the Minister in forms me that there is an amendment coming in which will meet the situation. Still further obj ection I think was raised by the Honourable Member for St.

John's in respect of where a municipality acquired title to land by tax sale proceedi ngs, they could sell that land for a nominal amount and other consideration, to be used by any person for a purpose deemed by the council to be beneficial to the municipality. Now I think the example given by the Honour able Member for St.

John's was that the municipality might sell that land for a shopping centre or to some othe r comme rcial organization, and I think he felt that the right of a municipality to sell land for a nominal consideration shou ld be confined to charitable organi za tions and other organiza tions of a community nature • . The Minister advises me that there is an amendment coming in to this

section to clarify that po int, but I still would like to point out to the Minister that the Winnipeg Land Titles Office has taken exception to transfers being registered there where a no minal consideration of $1. 00 and other valuable considera tions shown, and where that transfer was part of a development scheme in a municipality where perhaps a company would be developing certain land and they would undertake to put in all the trunk sewers and all the laterals and all the local improve ments.

Now the land might have been sold to them say for $1. 00 a lot or for other nominal considera tion, and for some time the Land Titles Office would refuse to take these transfers if you simply stated for consideration of $1. 00 and other valuable consideration. Now I still think that we should have some type of amendment in The Municipal Act to cove r cases like that, although I can see the point of the Honourable Member for St.

John's in raising an obj ection to a municipality having the right to sell land for $1. 00 or other valuable considera tion, where they are the sole judges of what is beneficial to the community, and I can see that there should be some safeguard in respect of transfers of that nature. But on the other hand, I can also see that there is a need for giVing a municipality the right to describe the con sideration as $1. 00 and othe r valuable considera tion where the transfer is being made under a development agreement.

Outside of that, I think the amendments are good and I think they are timely, and it is my intention to support this Bill on second reading. MR. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, I would just like to get some clarification of one of the clauses from the Minister before he closes the debate. Referring to 42 (

b) and 43, where they are talking about - previously any building and land used for religious, educational, charitable and recreational purposes, were exempt, and now this would be limited to religious and charitable purposes only. I would like to get some clarification out of this - some information. For instance, where would the Legion Halls stand? Some of these people have been exempted in the past. I wonder if this is aimed at them and if

2028 April 19, 1966 (MR. DESJARDINS cont'd) , ••.••• it is the intention that now thfl municipality will tax the l.agion Hall. I wonder if the Minister would clarify this when he closes the debate. MADAM SPEAKER : Are you ready for the question? MR. SMELLIE: Madam Speaker, if no other members wish to speak, I would like to answer some of the questions that have been raised. I would like first of all tO thank the Honourable Member for St.

John's for the lucid way in which he drew to our attention the two sections - the one dealing with liens in joint tenancy, and the other one dealing with nominal consideration, Both of these se ctions were introduced to cover specific problems that certain municipal ities were facing, and I must confess that I hadn't taken the

interpretations from them that he did, but that I find that his criticism was valid in both cases and we have therefore sought amendments which we hope will clarify the situation, and it would be my intention to move these amendments in committee if the bill should reach committee.

The first one, the one dealing with joint tenancy, the situation has arisen where in one case that I think perhaps the honourable members may be familiar with, where a man and woman had been living together for some time and were deemed to be man and wife in that community, and a lien was registered against the husband for welfare services of one kind or another performed by the municipality. and some of the service had been actually on behalf . of the spouse - the wife. In any event, to make a long story short, the husband died anjl title was held jointly, but apparently the municipality hadn't understood this.

The lady in question was not the legal wife of her common law husband and the title stood in her legal name, and as a result she acquired title and the municipality could not collect on the lien. However, this can be cured, I believe, by an amendment in Subsection (2) in that same

Section 38, which would cover this point and we could eliminate the

Section 39 that the honourable member com plained about. The other point, the question of sales of land acquired through tax sale for nominal sums, has two applica tions . The Honourable Member for Selkirk has put his finger on the second one which was not intended to be covered by this amendment.

The amendment was introduced really to cover the cases where land is sold by the municipality to the school board, to a service club, to any one of a dozen different charitable or other organizations that are pro viding a benefit to the community and where the municipality did not want to charge to that organiza tion the price that it might charge to others who were performing no real service to the community. I would propose to amend that

section also by a reference to certain sections of

Section 984 of The Municipal Act which deals with persons or organizations that are en titled to exemption or partial exemption from taxation by reason of their community service. The Honourable Member for Gladstone asked some questions concerning the local im provement levies, and he raised the point that taxation is now possible on lands for local im provements, lands which do not enjoy the local improvements that they're paying for. The

section of the Act which deals with this provides that three-sevenths of the cost of a local improvement must be charged against lands in the local improvement district that benefit. The remaining four-sevenths of the cost of the local improvement may be charged over all of the rateable property in the municipality.

As a result, under this section, which is used by almost every municipality that's gone into a local improvement program, four-sevenths of the cost is going to appear as a local improvement charge agains t the assessm ent of proper ties in areas other than the local improvement area as well as properties in the local improve ment area. There is no change really in the division of responsibility of properties to pay for the cost of local improvements. The change is in the method of levying the local improvement against lands within the local improvement district.

In the past, it could be charged by a frontage tax or a mill rate on the assessed value of land only, or on a mill ra te on the assessed value of land and buildings. · The chief purpose of a levy on an acreage basis is in areas where for example you may undertake a drainage work in a local improvement district that benefits all of the lands in the district and yet some of the lands which benefit do not front directly on the work.

So you can't charge them with a frontage tax and it may not be a fair method even to charge them on an asses sment basis, but it may, in the opinion of the municipality, be a fair method of taxa tion in that area to charge them on an acreage basis for the lands that actually are in the local improvement district and benefit from the work.

April 19, 1966 2029 (MR. SMELLIE cont'd) ••. file then asked a question about senior citizens homes and the relief from taxation. It's not intended that the senior citizens homes would be in a different position than they were pre viously, but there was some difficulty with the definition of a senior citizens home.

The new definition is being added here to cover certain properties that were not covered under the pre vious wording, and where the dispute arose between what is in fact elderly persons housing and the municipality because of the wording of the previous section, so that we hope that this will clear it up and make certain that those people are entitled to their exemption.

I want to assure the honourable member that it's not going to affect the taxation of the senior citizens home in Neepawa. _ His third point had something to do with grants in lieu of taxes and I must confess that my notes are not clear to me at the moment as to what his question was. If he'd like to ask me privately, I'd be glad to give him any information he desires. The Honourable Member for Selkirk raised another point concerning the' pension plan for municipal employees. The previous

section of the Act provided for municipal employees pension contributions at the rate of five percent of earnings. When the Canada Pension Plan was introduced, the Secretary-Treasurers Association requested that this be stacked on top of their present five percent pension. It was felt by many that this was not desirable and that they should be in the same position as civil servants and the teachers retirement allowances ' fund.

So rather than allow stacking, we have increased the amount of the municipal employees pensions to six percent, the same percentage as the other two funds mentioned, and the provi sion now is that it would be six percent instead of the five percent it was previously. The Honourable Member for St. Boniface asked a question about the change in the word ing used of one of the sections -o f the subsections, allowing an exemption under

Section 984. The

section previously read that it included buildings and appurtenant lands up to two acres used for religious, educational, charitable and recreational purposes. This

section has caused us some difficulty because certain institutions - and to give you an example, I would think of one of the commercial schools in downtown Winnipeg who claimed that they were an educational institution and claimed the exemption. They were not one of the educational institutions that we re intended to be exempted and so we have had to amend this

section to make certain that it covered just those people that were intended. This is another

section that I would intend to amend in comniittee to make the wording more clear, so that it will be clear that this will be limited to buildings owned and used for charitable purposes. The other exemptions in that

section will come out because both the church properties, the religious connotation, is covered in another section, and so is the one for those educational institutions such as schools, and universities are also covered in another

section and will still be entitled to the exemptions that they have become accustomed to in the last year. As the member for Selkirk pointed out, some of these amendments are things that have been overdue for some time. They are matters that have come about as a result of experience in dealing with the Act and where problems have been encountered. I wonld recommend the Act to the House. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion car- ried. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill No. 10 5. The Honourable Member for Gladstone. MR. SHOEMAKER: Mr.

Speaker, I was one of the members that was on the Boundaries Commission during the recess and I am not opposed to the principle of the bill that is before us. However, I am a little bit concerned about certain remarks that were made by the Minister upon introduction of the Bill, and the remarks that he made and contained in Hansard No. 64. He is answering a number of questions that were put to him on April 4, and on Page 1491 he is answering the Honourable Member for Ethelbert Plains.

He says, "· •.. asked if this was the first step towards the establishment of larger municipal units and the reduction, at least in some areas, of local government districts. I would have to say that one of the things that will be referred to the commission will be the recommendations that were made by the Fisher and the Michener Commission, both of which recommended certain minimum standards that should be used in establishing municipal units that they felt would be desirable.

" In the next paragraph he repeats it again, and he says, "However, there are cer1a.ln practical problems involved in the criteria that will be established for the commission would

2030 April 19, 1966 (MR. SHOEMAKER cont'd) ..• be the recommendations that were laid down in the Fisher and Michener Commissions, and these would be referred to the Boundaries Commission. " And he repeats that several times, that the recommendations, and in fact more or less the terms of reference that will be handed to this Commis sion, will be the Fisher Report and this famous Michener Report.

Down on the bottom of the page my honourable friend says, "When the Michener Com mission made their report, they indicated that the matter was so far-reaching that they felt that they did not have the time to make the study and to give any accurate recommendations concerning boundaries, and they gave two proposed plans for municipal boundaries, both of which they indicated were in all probability subject to a great deal of argument and many many varieties of opinion. " Well I think that's an understatement. There certainly was a variety of opinions in the municipal men that met before us.

Now I don't know what the Fisher Report cost the taxpayers of this province, but I under stand that this one cost nearly a quarter of a million. I don't know how far I'm out - the Miche ner one - and according to my honourable friend, the Michener people didn't have nearly enough time to study the whole problem in depth - that's a term that my honourable friends like to use - so I'm wondering, in light of the large sums that we have already spent in this field, both with the Fisher Commission and the Michener Commission, what in the world is this new commis sion likely to cost us ?

Then in light of the proposals and recommendations and briefs that were made to us when we were touring around the province last fall, I wonder what the government will do with the recommendations of the newly appointed Commission when they table their report. That will make three reports in total, and what are we going to do with them when we do get them?

The recommendations, as I understand, in respect to boundaries and divisions made by Michener, he and his committee recommended that the 106 rural municipalities presently should be reduced to about 40 in number, and at the same time the report recommended that as a long-range objective the province be divided into 11 administrative regions with a view to decentralizing increasing provincial government services.

They proposed, I think, and suggested- and my honourable friend in answering a ques tion put to him by the member for Rhineland - they recommend that Metro, that Greater Winni peg be in fact one of the areas. My honourable friend says, "The Member for Rhineland asked if we were going to establish one big city in the Metropolitan area. I think that is not the inten tion of the legislation but certainly it would be a possibility, " he says here.

Now I hope -I hope -I hope that all of the recommendations contained in the Micherier Commission will not be the terms of reference that will be given to this new commission that is to be established because there are certainly a lot of things in the Michener Commission that I do not like. I suppose that what my honourable friend did intend to say was that the boundaries as recommended by Michener would be considered and recommended to the commis sion that he intends now to appoint.

I notice too that my honourable friend - some member of the House asked him - I think 1t was the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks, asked him 1f the chairman of the commission had been already established because he had read certain newspaper reports -I think 1t was my honourable friend - and Mr. Smellie says, "I gather from reading the newspapers that some of the reporters have already determined who the chairman is and I would have to advise this House that the government has not yet made that decision, but we will consult the reporters before any definite decision is made.

" Well, are they appointing the chairman or is my honourable friend appointing the chairman? That was on April 4, and probably by this date he has consu lted with the reporters and they have come up with a joint recommendation. However, these are some of the -- (Interjection) -- Well, that's the suggestion that my honourable friend made on Page 1492. He says that he will consult with the reporters before making any definite decision. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like. to have my honourable friend answer some of the questions that I have put to him. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR.

FROESE: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to give comments on Bill No. 105. I listened with a great deal of pleasure to some of the speakers this afternoon commenting on the Bill. I think the Lea der of the New Democratic Party made quite an extensive speech on the Bill. I would take exception to having the new commission that is going to be set up to have to take into consideration the recommendations of the two former commissions, the Manitoba Royal

April 19, 1966 2031 (MR. FROESE cont 'd. ) . , . . . Commission on Local Government and Organization and also the Municipal Inquiry Commission, because if they have to consider those and if it appears that the report is to be slanted - the new report is to be slanted according to that one, we already know what the flavour of the new report will be. I think

Section (

e) of

Part 7 should be deleted from this bill so that we would have something fresh and something new come forward. I find that in the

preamble or the second part of the bill that it lists a whole number of local government bodies which are supposed to be considered, and the boundaries of those established. But later on in

Section 8 (

a) we find that it is limited to a smaller number, to school areas, school divisions, school districts and vocational school regions. So I would like to hear from the Minister which is correct. Is

Section 8 (

a) the one that the commission is going to make its report on or are they going to report on all the government units listed under

Section 2? Then Clause 9 says that a separate report will be made on each of these various classes in 8 (a), and in a further

section it states that reports will be made to all these 'local bodies before a final report is drafted, The way I understand it, these bodies will all receive a re port before the Legislature ever sees a report. I just wonder whether -- is this a normal practice, a procedure that is being taken by such commissions? It seems strange to me that they would be reporting back to these smaller and local bodies and not report back to the Legislature first. These were some of the points that I thought I should question.

While I was a member of the committee that conducted hearings last summer and held hearings in Brandon, Swan River and Winnipeg, I already have indicated on a previous occasion that I differed from the report, especially in connection with making a recommendation for such an inquiry. I did not go along with that and I still have my reservations on it . However, I will not object to having this bill go to committee and pass second reading, but I certainly reserve my right to object to it on third reading if necessary. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR.

MOLGAT : I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Lakeside, that the debate be adjourned. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill No. 111. The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR. MOLGAT: May we have this matter stand? Mr. Speaker, I don't see the member in the House. I'll be prepared to speak on the matter in the morning myself. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: While they are looking for the Honourable Member for Assiniboia, the adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 16.

The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. TANCHAK: Mr. Speaker, I would like the indulgence of the House to have this matter stand. I just adjourned it at 5: 30 and there's some information that I could not get after 5: 30. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. John's. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I've sort of made it my ambition, .Mr. Chairman, not to adjourn debates for the rest of this session, so I want to stick to it .

I want to begin with a minor comment, There is a provision in this bill which purports to make one-third of the school trustees indemnity income tax free, and I want to point out to the Honourable Minister that this government does not yet have power to make declarations as to federal income tax, and I would suggest to him that the marginal comment is misleading and I am quite sure that there would have to be some sort of complementary legislation on the part of the Federal Government in order to create what is set out in the marginal comments.

So although I have no objection to the principle involved, it applies equally to a school trustee as it does to a member of this Legislature, but I don•t think it is correct to say that by the Legislature passing this bill that it will automatically make that one-third income tax free. I've had occasion to state definitely that it will not make it income tax free unless there is other legislation passed in the Federal Income Tax Act. I want to just ask the members of this House, Mr.

Chairman, to envision the description that will be written some day by somebody writing a thesis on this government •s historical development of the school division program. I remember when it was started as a result of the Royal Commission and the Honourable the Attorney-General, who was then the Minister of

2032 April 19, 1966 (MR. CHERNIACK cont 'd.) . . . . . Education, worked on this thing. I remember the enthusi asm with which he spoke about it and I don't remember how long ago, but it was so long ago that I barely remember when it was. It must have been about six years ago - maybe more - seven years ago? Eight years ago, he called out from across the way, so that it is a long time ago and this was a trem endous advance - and it was .

We 're still groping our way along to this objective which was set out these many years ago, and I want to suggest that when that history is written, they will say that the concept was a tremendous step forward but, that the execution was slow and tortuous and deliberate and - did I use the word "plodding ", because that word comes to mi nd again. It was not bold or dramatic except in content; The execution is just going along.

And again we find here another little forward advance, a forward one and yet a step back, because we find now that there is a proposal that the Minister may refuse to give his approval to a new consolidation of a school district. It reads that no consolidated school district shall be formed without the approval of the Minister. All right, so he is taking that and he is saying now, I'm going to hold this up. I assume he is saying that because I assume that he wants to be able to point in the direction of one school divisio n for both elem entary and secondary.

I'm not sure that he has actually said it, but I give him the credit for wanting it, and I give him the credit because I hope that •s what he wants . But what he is doing here is saying, well I can hold up this step which may not be a step desi gned to br ing about the greater good for the larger number of students in that area, and he goes .further and he even says that if there is a by-law passed to form or enlarge a consol idated school district, it may be referred to the Local Government Boundaries Commissi on which is not even required to hold a hearing. So it goes furt her.

He not only has the right to withhold his approval, he can also refer it to the Local Government Boundaries Commissi on which may ref use to hear the matter altogether . . Well this would seem to be a definite weapon which he has taken hold of. But then we find about three or four pages later that he is now asking for a right which he didn •t have, and that is to regulate respec ting the amount of additional grants to be paid to any consolidated school district or any division within the me aning of

Section 443, and terms and conditions of such grants . So first he freezes the situation by saying, well now, I'm not going to permi t these consolidated school districts to go along - at least I'm going to have the right to refuse to permit it; and then he says, but I am going to give myself the power to give them grants in spite of the fact that they may not qualify . I think that in one step forward to stiff en the res istance to this development, he then takes a step back in order to be able to appease them or to help them in some way and actually weaken the power which he has requested.

Now this is the way I read this, because I am still in the position where I'm not clear on the government •s clear- cut policy of what they want to do, not what they want to hear from the school distric ts that the school districts want to do.

I would like to hear what this govern- me nt wants ; and I would like to hear that this government, having deci ded what it wants to do, � will go ahead and do it and will not sit back and wait and en treat, as apparently it has done � for some eight years - with some success, for which I give them credit - to entreat the school districts and the electors to com e along and vote themsel ves into a situation which the govern- ment should have sole - or should have taken res ponsibility for at some time within the last eight years , but certainly not to be still tusslin g with this project which I assume it really wants.

I am only afraid that they•re going to take so long that when the final line is drawn and we can say the objective has been accom plished, it will not be that government that will be able to draw the final line and say so, because it has taken them so long that they may well not be. here for that purpose. So I would urge the Honourable Minister not to gamble on losing the control of his minis try before he is able to carry through this plan which, as I say, is taking a long eight years and has not yet developed.

So I would orily ask the Minister, when he has an opportunity to close debate, that he will indicate exactly where he stands and indicate whether he is pre pared to take hold and do the job, or whether he still wants to go on and attempt to seli it. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson - it stands in his name. Agreed? HON. GURNEY EVANS (Minister of Industry and Commerce) (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, I think we might - since the Honourable Member for Assi niboia is not available, I think we mi ght ask formally for agreement of the House to allow his item to stand - No. 111, I think.

April lE>, 1966 2033 MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Agreed that No. Ill stand in the name of the Honourable Member for Ass iniboia? -- Agreed. The second reading of Bill No. 108. The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture and Conservation. MR. HUTTON presented Bill No. 108,

an Act respecting The Establishment of The Manitoba Agricultural Productivity Council, for second reading. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. HUTTON : Mr. Speaker, the other day when we were considering this in committee, the Honourable the Leader of the NDP pressed me to the point where I think I said everything in comm ittee that I intended to say at this stage at second reading.

There is one tiring I would like to underline here, that I am not proposing to the Legis lature that the establishment of a board or a consultative board would be in itself a useful thing in achieving product! vity, but it is my belief that by retaining the services of people who have already proven themselves in leadership and in their contribution in their chosen field, to agriculture, whether it be in the production field or in marketing or in the university field or what have you, that by getting these people together I believe that they can make an even greater contribution by worldng together with the people from other sectors of the agri cultural. industry than they have indeed made to date working in their own chosen vocation.

I look to this board as being a catalystic agent which can weld the very considerable ability, the very considerable resources of the total agricultural industry in the province into a unit that will help the industry achieve its potential. In the Third Annual Report of the Manitoba Ec onomic Consultative Board, they called for such a body to be responsible for a continuing asses sment of Manitoba •s agricultural performance. I look for something more than just a continuing assessme nt or criticism .

I am looking to this board to more than analyze; I am looking to the board, as I said before in the committee stage, to determine the goals - the legitimate goals , and to contribute to a ground swell of attitude and action which will help us to achieve these goals. Again I say that it isn •t just the establishment of the board, it is my hope that the very many distinguished, able people who have been serving industry, the agricultural industry in Manitoba to this date, will be able to make an even greater contribution through the medium of the Agricultural Productivity Council. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable the Leader of the NDP. MR. PAU LLEY: Mr. Speaker, a thought occurred to me as I was listening to the Honourable Minister of Agriculture and Conservation in respect of this bill.

I certainly am not going to enter into any great debate with my honourable friend, but the thought that occurred to me a.s I listened to him, and then I read the contents of the bill, was that from time to time we of the New Democratic Party are chastized because of the fact that we want government to do everything and the government to take over everything, and that the government interferes with voluntary and private contributions by individuals in the conduct of the affairs of state and of the comm unity; and then when I take a look at the likes of Bill 10 8, it seems to me that the Tory Government of Manitoba is doing by legislation what they accused us of the New Demo cratic Party of doing, that is to curtail voluntary participation in the affairs of our province.

Here we are once again with a bill to establish a council, a council which will be paid remun eration as fixed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council ; a council whose objectives shall be a definition of the goals and objectives with respect to the agriculture industry and the means of achieving it. When we were in the resolution stage, I pointed out to the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture in the comm ittee that Hedlin and Menzies had in their booklet, which was available free as the result of the pool activities, outlined propositions and problems and goals for the agricultural industry in Manitoba.

I sometimes wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether or not the govemment, instead of establishing as they are by this bill another Council, might use their sweet persuasive invitations - I almost said power - invitations to men and women of goodwill to sit around the table and given them guidance without the necessity of legislation which directs that they shall meet at the call of the Chairman not less than once in three months and the like, such as is contained in this bill.

So I say to JrlY honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, in my opinion we have in the Province of Manitoba groups of individuals who voluntarily, or groups of individuals, for some financial consideration, would give to the Department of Agri culture in Manitoba what

2034 April 19, 1966 (MR. PAULLEY cont1d, ) the Minister has as his objective under the bill that we have for our consideration before us. Also, Mr . Speaker as I sai d during the Resolution stage of this bill, we have within our own Department of Agriculture, I am sure, qualified pers onnel who are capable of defining goals in respect of the agricultural industry.

We have in the University of Manitoba likewise, in the Faculty of Agriculture , with the Dean and members of his staff also qualified pers onnel which will or can give the guidance that the Honourable Minister is suggesting will ac crue as far as this bill is concerned.

So, Madam Speaker, I'm not going to oppose the second reading of the bill, I merely want to re-emp hasize what I said at the Resolution stage, that we have the qualified perso nnel who are, in my opinion, willing and prepared to give the guidance to the Minister, and he, by this bill, indicates that he needs guidance. lt1s the bill that says this , not me.

And I say, Madam Speaker, we have the personnel, the Faculty of Agriculture; the likes of, as I say, Hedlin and Menzies ; and others in the field of agriculture already,� that could give the advice to the Honourable the Minister if he would but ask them to set the goals for agriculture here in Manitoba . MR. FROE SE : Madam Speaker, I listened to the debate the other day before this bill was introduced, when we discussed the Resolution that preceded this bill, and as far as I am concerned, I have come to the conclusion that I will not support the bill at all.

I find that we have ample ways and means of providing this service that is contemplated here . We have the Ec onomic Consultative Board; we have our own Department of Agri culture; we have the Dominion Department of Agriculture who have an office here in Winnipeg; we have the Ag Reps ; we have the University of Manitoba; we have all these different aspects from where we can get help and consideration. There is too much overlapping already, I think, and further than that, we have other private firms who would be only too happy to help us.

We have the line elevators, the various grain companies, schools, UGG and all the other private grain companies who would be only too willing to help us in any case if we asked them , and I certainly don't see the need for what is contemplated in this bill. MR. CAMPBE LL: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Member for Selkirk, that the debate be adjourned. MADAM SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried , MR. SME LUE presented Bill No. 109,

An Act to am end The Metropolitan Winnipeg Act, for se cond reading. MADAM SPEAKER pres ented the motion. MR. SMELLIE: Madam Speaker, this again is one of those amending bills which contains not one principle but many. There are some that I think perhaps mi ght be advisable to bring to the attention of the House, and no doubt our purposes could be se rved better then by answer ing questions on other points that me mbers may wish to bring up. There is in this bill, at the reque st of Metro, included some sections on procedure for Metro Council.

This in the past has been done I understand by by-law of Metro Council, but they reque st that it be put right in the legislation and that is now being done. There is a change in the me thod of apportionment of the levy on the different municipal ities from the assessme nt of those municipalities to the equalized assess ment. Then follow several change!> that deal with planning, in an attempt to cut out some of the red tape that is involved in the planning process, particularly in Metro.

Now Metro has found themselves in a very awkward position in planning, particularly on applica tions for changes in land-use perm itted by reason of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case that most of us are familiar with, the property over at the corner of Maryland Street bridge, As a result of that Judgment, the law officers of Metro have advised them that they must hear anyone wishing to be heard and they must give notice of every time they intend to meet to discuss any particular change in land-use that affects the individual .

They have interpreted this to me an that they must hear represe ntations at each of the three readings of the by-law and at each comm ittee meeting that discusses that particular by law. They suggest that really it•s only necessa ry for a public hearing once by Metro itself, with the opportunity for the public to be heard in appeal at the Municipal Board. This in effect is the system that •s used in all other municipalities in Manitoba under The Planning Act, so these provisions are being introduced. You will find the first one in

Section 18 where it pro vides that Metro may amend a by-law after the public hear ing without further notice to the

April 19, 1966 2035 (MR. SMELL IE cont'd. ) . . . . . parties, provided that the amendment does not add additional land to the by-law or that it does not change the classi fication to a more restricted classi fica tion, or a less restricted class ification. In other words, if it's just removing some of the property that was intended to be re-zoned from the by-law, that can be done without any dif ficulty; or if it's a proposed change from R-1 to R-2 and they decide to leave part of it as R-1, they may do this. There is a

section here which may cause some concern because it says the Council may refuse to hear delegations. This is in the area dealing with land-use control and zoning. The proposal is that the delegations dealing with this matter should appear before the planning committee. In other words, they will be using the same procedure that we use in this House where delegations don •t appear before the House, they appear before a committee of the House where they are heard, and before final decisions are made as to the passa ge of the legislation.

There is also a provision that certain minor variations may be heard by the Board of Adjustment, and the procedure and the power that •s to be given to the Board of Adjustment to hear these minor variations is set out and prescribed. I think that this is necess ary because we are going through the actual procedure for the change in the land-use pattern in order to make very minor changes, and affecting in many cases only one piece of property.

This has worked to the detriment of Metro planning as a whole, and they have had to spend so much time on this sort of thing that they have not devoted the kind of time we would all have preferred to see on the development of the master development plan and the land-use control by-laws that would accompany it. I think it is really preferable that if changes are minor in nature that they should be handled by the Board of Adjustment rather than by taking up the whole time of the planning

section and Metro Council to the detriment of the master development plan. There is also a broadening of the

section dealing with Metro streets . In the past, the streets have been desc ribed by complicated and detailed plans. This amendment would allow the designation of a street merely as naming it by its name and referring to a map or plan of that area of the Metropolitan Corporation. It would be proposed that Metro could then deal with minor variations in that Metropolitan streets without coming for the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Those minor variations that I refer to are, in some cases, widening; in other cases, where there has been a yield right-of-way and a curve to ease traf fic, either past a stop light or a stop sign which has greatly facilitated the flow of traffic. At the present time, each one of these matters - if Metro wishes to put in one of those traffic easing curves, they have to come to get an Order-in-Co uncil to approve this addition to the Metropolitan street system. It was felt that for matters of this nature they should be permitted to do this without an Order-in- Council.

If there is any matter of a major nature, for example if it •s a street widening which might require the expropriation of additional property or matters of that category, it would still require a review by the government, be cause it does require the approval of the Minister of Highways before an expenditure of that nature can be undertaken. There are two other minor amendments, one dealing with the uses to which the corpora tion might put its parks and the other dealing with Dutch Elm disease, both of which are simi lar to other legislation that's been before us either this year or in previous years .

And now, Madam Speaker, I think that perhaps we could best look after this bill by having members ask questions that they want answered dealing with any of the other amend ments. . . . . . continued on next page

2036 April 19, 19 66 MADAM SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question ? The Honourable Member for St. John's. MR . CHERNIACK: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the explanation that was given by the Honourable Minister. I would ask him one question. When the change has been made from the assessment to equalized assessments, could he indicate -- I forget myself just what the impact is, but could he give us an example insofar as, let us say, the City of Winnipeg is con cerned.

What will this change do to the City of Winnipeg's percentage contribution to the Metropolitan tax base and to the levy it will make on the City of Winnipeg. Possibly the answer to that would clarify just what the change really will be .

Stepping to the question of the zoning changes, I certainly agree with the Minister that a very awkward, unwieldlymethod was devised by this Legislature, not in the first instance but in the changes which this government brought about, whereby -- I once kept a diary of one matter that I was looking after, and as the Minister indicates, it seemed to me I was in Metro often and I think it took either eight or ten months to get through a comparatively simple change which was never opposed at any time. And yet the red tape that he mentions existed; it existed at every level and before every step that had to be taken.

Now there had to be an application made to the commi ttee; the commi ttee reviewed it and made a recomm endation to council; the council reviewed it and you had a right to appear there and then agree to a public hearing which had to be advertised, and the pu blic hearing, as I recall it, was not by council but by comm ittee.

And after the public hearing representa tion was made, then it went back to council for second reading and representation could be made, and after second reading it then went to this Minister, and this Minister, if he learned that there was any objection at the public hearing, then referred it, I believe, to the Municipal Board which then had a hearing and then recomm ended back to the Minister, who then decided -- I presume that in every case he accepted the recomm endation or decision of the Municipal Board .

And if he did that, then I want to indicate a criticism which still applies with this change, and that is that the ultimate deci sion is left to an appointed board of, I was going to say civil servants - I don't mean that in any sense other than they are not elected people - and it seems to me that the whole work of the development plan and zoning should be decisions made in the final case by a body that is responsible to the people that elect it.

I would see greater value in an appeal to the Municipal Board before it goes to council in the final reading, say an apjJeal to the Municipal Board from the Board of Adjustment or from the committee and then to the Municipal Board and with the recomm endation by the Municipal Board to go back to the council of Metro whose ultimate and prime - that 's both ends of the responsibility - should be that of the council responsible - as I think it is - to the people who elect the council, so that I'm still not enthused about the present plan, or the proposed plan, except of course that it will shorten the proceedings.

To that extent it 's good. I don't see how council will be able to refuse to hear someone who appears before coun cil and says, 11 I want to speak. There are 11 members of council; the committee which I spoke to consisted of five people - the quorum was three; I made my application to three mem bers of City Council, and now I want the right to appear before all eleven. 11 It will be a very tough council that will take the position that they will refuse to hear . And if they do hear one then they will lay them selves open for not hearing other cases, and I'm aot sure that we •re really saving an awful lot .

But we are saving some, and especially where the Board of Adjust ment is involved, we are saving more. But I make the point again, that I think that the Municipal Board is a healthy step in the proceedings but that I think it should not report to the Minister which autom atically accepts its recomm endation, but should go back to council who should have the final responsibility . And now, Madam Speaker, I would like to say something about what is not in the bill.

I would like to suggest to the Minister wliat is, I believe, an oversight, and I think it has been clearly shown, one thing that 's wrong in principle in the Act, and that is the principle that a member of council may not offer his services to the public in any other elective capacity un less he has resigned from council. And I say that, and I'm in a better position to say it than most because I was, when I wanted to offer my services to the constituency of St.

John's to be elected here, I was compelled to resi gn from the Metropolitan Council before I filed nomina tion papers. here, and I say I•m in a position to say so because I was elected and enabled to make whatever contribution I can at this level . But there were two others, one who preceded me and one who followed me, who wanted to, or were called upon to offer their names for

April 19, 1966 2037 (MR. CHERNIACK cont'd. ) .. ... nomination for other elective offices, who resigned and were defeated, and those people were lost to council for the contribution which they could have continued to make . And I would suggest that it wouldn •t be contrary to the principle of the Act at all which says that a member of council should not sit on any other body.

It would not have been contrary to the principle if an amendment were brought in to this bill saying that a person .must resign if elected to another office, but need not res ign if he is nominated and runs and is defeated, and in that way we would not lose the services, and furthermore we would make it possible to have good people - and I must say that the Metropolitan Council consis ts of many, and most, I would say all of them , are good public servants in that sense - would make it possi ble for them to run for another office without having to give up this one and not know whether or not they would be elected to the other .

This would have been a simple change; I think it's one not contrary to the principle, and yet I think it would be a right one, and I hope it's not too late for the Minister to consider that and bring it to committee . I would also like to suggest now, Madam Speaker, that I believe it was the vast majority of this House at the time this original Act was passed creating the Metropolitan Corporation, that the vast majority supported the bill. I think it received the support of the majority of all members of the political parties that were repres ented in the House.

And it indicated that this was a real accomplishment, where this government took the responsibilitY in the face of opposition which it knew it would receive from area municipalities, to carry out this and create this new level of government - and I don1t like the word 11 level 11 because it seems to imply higher or lower, but this new field into which the Metropolitan Corporation was brought.

Now, this government should have had opportunities since that time to review what it did in terms of principle and policy - I'm not talking about the mechanics with which this bill deals - but I would like to suggest that now that the government must have had an opportunity to reflect and to read the report that was returned by a committee headed by Councillor Huband on police protection, I feel sure that the government members must have read it.

I read it and derived a great deal of respect for the work that went into it, and I would suggest that it made a very strong case for a metropolitan police force, and I would like to think that this government is thinking in terms of expanding, of developing the contribution that a metropoli tan form of government could make to Greater Winnipeg. I would like to hear from the Minister whether there has been thinking along these lines. Are they aware of Councillor Huband •s report and that of this committee?

Has it considered the whole fire protection problem for Greater Winnipeg and the duplication that exists today, or the different levels or qualities of service that are offered? Can we look forward to this government undertaking changes of this type instead of getting involved in these street transfers to and from Metro and involving itself with the problem of protecting the small right-of-way curves that are now being made possi ble to be done without this government •s intervention.

At first, when the MeUropolitan Corporation was created, it was given the power to de cide which streets it was willing to undertake as a metropolitan responsibility, and because of the pressures of certain area municipalities this government bowed and said, 11 All right, we'll take away this power and we will assume it to ourselves, " and this government, which has created the creature of the Metropolitan Corporation as indeed it does in all other muni cipal cases, fil still involving itself in prob lems which it should well leave to a municipal council on a local level which has the responsi bility and, I believe, the confidence of its elec tors, and I'm not now speaking of the area municipalities because the fact is that when the council did offer itself for re-election some little time ago at the end of the four-year period, I think there was only one change in the makeup of that council, so certainly the members of council received the support.

I believe that since they received the support and proved themselves to the people of Greater Winnipeg, that this government ought to recognize it and start strengthening the Metropolitan Council by active support and by considering with it those areas in which it can make an even greater contribution to the metropolitan area of Greater Winnipeg. And I want to add only, that the environment and the whole attitude has changed considerably, I believe, in terms of the support that the area municipalities give it.

I don•t think you'll find one of the area municipalities which now would say that the Metropolitan Corporation is redundant and unnecessary. I think that the time is right and that the government should take the lead once again as it did some years ago. MR. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, I'd like to move, seconded by the Honourable _, Member for Selkirk, that the debate be adjourned,

2038 April 19, 19 66 MADAM SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried . HON . J. B. CARROLL (Minister of Welfare) (The Pas) presented Bill No . 121,

An Act to amend The Social Allowances Act, for second reading. MADAM SPEAKER presented the motion . MR . CARRO LL: Madam Speaker, there was fairly full discuss ion at the resolution stage. However, I might just run over some of the important principles involved. To begin with, this bill contemplates the passage of the Canada Ass istance legislation that is supposed to be introduced to the House of Commons shortly and which we understand will be retroactive and become effective as of April 1s t of this year.

The Canada Assi stance plan is based on the needs principle, legislation very much like the one passed here in 1959. Now during the next fiscal year we're in the peculiar situation here in Manitoba where we will be sharing under the Canada Assistance Plan partly, and sharing under the old Un employment Ass istance agreement as well.

Most of the municipalities I think will be sharing under the Unemployment Ass istance agreement but some may wish to qualify for sharing under the Canada Assist ance Plan, because there are some additional benefits to municip alities, namely, the elgibility to receive certain administration costs for full-time personnel added to staff after the year 1964, and they can become eligible as well for cost-sharing of work activi ty programs.

The Canada Assistance Plan will also require that we remove the resi dent qualifications, which is one of the important features in this Act and which will be a requirem ent of all muni cipalities if they are to share under either of these programs. To share under the Canada Assis tance Plan, they must establish an appeal procedure and establish a

schedule of assist ance based on the cost of providing for the basic necessities of an individual or a family . I think these are the essential points under the bill, Madam Speaker. I will be very pleased to answer any questions that there may be. MR. SHOE MAKER : Madam Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Mem ber for Ass iniboia, that debate be adjourned. MADAM SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried . MR. JOHNSON presented Bill No. 103,

An Act to amend

an Act to incorporate 11B randon College Incorporated, " for second reading. MADAM SPEAKER presented the motion . MR. JOHNSON: Madam Speak er, this bill is a short bill but it is an imp ortant bill - I' m speaking to the principle C!f the two major items contained in this bill . The Act to incor porate Brandon College Incorporated was assented to· in April of 1939 and set up the Board of Directors from amongst the interested citizens and those who belonged to the corporation as spelled out in that bill.

This Board has served Brandon College of course, as we know, so well over the years and they have developed a budget which this year is close to $1 mi llion in total. For some time we have been working with the president and staff and board of Brandon College in bringing their fiscal arrangements into concert with that of the University, and at the same time have been discussing the advisability of an alteration in the structure of their Board.

In view of the non-demoninational college and receiving pretty well all their support through government funds, it was felt advisable that a Board be establi shed which recognizes that fact today. I can report to the House that I have met with the Board of Brandon College in Brandon and ou tlined the nature of the legislation which was being proposed, and I think they concurred in the concept that this was timely. You will note the bill makes provision for one member of the Board to be elected from the alumni, three from the corporation.

From its life members -- they have a long list of people who have contributed to the College over the years whom they would like to see represented on this Board, and the provision has been made as outlined in the bill. I can pay tribute to the excellent co-operation, the excellent job which the Board of Brandon College has done in recent years of course, and their trem endous co-operation in the past couple of years that we have been looking at the structure of their Board and contemplated that measure at this time. With respect to the last

section of the bill, there are agreements being negotiated between the Centennial Corporation, the City of Brandon and the College, concerning the creation of an auditorium on the Brandon College grounds where it was contemplated it could be made as an

April 19, 1966 2039 (MR. JOHN SON cont 'd.) adjunct not only to the City of Brandon and the people of that area but to the College itself, and the authority in the bill, the first

section which refers to "su bject to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council " was inserted because these agreements be tween the Centennial Corporation, the City and the College have not been completed. Largely it involves, so far as the Brandon College is concerned, the Board have requested that they be given the authority to enter into an agreement as they contemplate the erection of this building on the grounds of Brandon College. MR. CAMPBE LL: Madam Speaker, may I ask a question of my honourable friend the Minister who is sponsoring this bill.

I understood him to say that he had discussed the pro posed bill with the Board of Brandon College and that they seemed to be in general agreement. Would he tell me that the Board, in his opinion, is in agreement with the fact that they them selves will have only five representatives on this Board of Directors and the government will be in a position to appoint seven. Does that meet with their approval? MR.

JOHNSON: Well I outlined to them the suggestion that the Lieutenant-Governor in-Council have the power to appoint seven members out of twelve to this Board for the simple reason that this Brandon College has now grown to the point where practically the entire bud get comes from the Consolidated Revenue, and as a matter of principle and evolution, as a matter of government policy, it was felt that we should have, on behalf of the people of Mani toba, the majority number of appointments to the Board. In general, I gelt that in explaining this reason to the Board that they could recognize this fact at this time.

MR. CAMPBE LL: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Selkirk, that the debate be adjourned. MADAM SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. McLEAN· presented Bill No. 11 0,

An Act to amend Certain Provisions of the Statute Law and to correct certain Typographical Errors in the Statutes, for second reading. MADAM SPEAKER presented the motion . MR. McLEAN: Madam Speaker, this is a bill which comes in each year and which doesn't have any particular principle involved. I direct members ' attention, however, to three matters .

The first is that there is a provision in this bill which relates to the Centen nia1 Corporation and proposes to increase the membership of that board from 15 to 30, as there is provision with respect to the Insurance Act which makes it clear that a municipal corporation may impose a business tax in respect of an insurance business the same as in the case of other businesses - apparently there has been some question raised about that.

And I would like to inform the members of the House that in comm ittee we will propose a further amendment which was overlooked in drawing the bill, having to do with educational assi stance which is provided by the Province of Manitoba in co-operation with the Government of Canada and at the expense of the Government of Canada. There is presently authority for the province to enter into an arrangement with the Federal Government to give ass istance to educational institutions outside o

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	27-5-86
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	27th 5th hansardpdf 86.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	81425dbfa162490a044013d87dd0679e44dcab5b

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