Manitoba Hansard — 13 July 1972 (Sitting 159, 29th Legislature, 4th Session)

29-4-159

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2: 30 o'clock, Thursday, July 13, 1972 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. 41 69 MR . SPEAKER: Before we proceed I should like to direct the attention of the honourable members to the gallery where there are members of the Trout Festival. We have with us the Queen Mermaid Elaine MacCarthy of Lynn Lake. Princess Barbara Ann Smith of Yorkton, and Princess Rose Marie Lavalee of Cranberry Portage. They are accompanied by Eva Krassilowsky from Flin Flon as their chaperone. On behalf of all the honourable members of the Legislative Assembly I welcome you here today.

Presenting Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees; Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports; Notices of Motion; Introduction of Bills. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR . WARNER H. JORGENSON (Morris): I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege is simply an error that I note in today's Votes and Proceedings. Last night I moved that the name of Mr. Blake be substituted for that of Mr.

McKenzie on the Standing Committee of Industrial Relations and in today's Votes and Proceedings it is listed as the Standing Com mittee on Economic Development. I would like to have that changed so the record is clear. MR . SPEAKER: (Agreed) The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR . SIDNEY SPIVAK, Q. C. (Leader of the Opposition )(River Heights): Yes, Mr .Speaker my question will relate to the Standing Committee in Economic Development and it will be to the House Leader or the First Minister.

Will the committee, the Standing Committee on Economic Development meet shortly to be able to hear the information from Dr. Briant so that the ques tions that have been asked and unanswered in this House, can be answered by him with respect to Tantalum. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. HON. R USSELL PA ULLEY (Minister of Labour) (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Honourable First Minister answered the Leader of the Opposition yesterday.

I might say however that some representations have been made to me as to the possibility of the committee meeting inbetween sessions and consideration is being given to those requests. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR . SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Industry and Commerce has any answers to the questions that were asked yesterday, the day before and the day before that remained unanswered with respect to Tantalum. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. HON. LEONARD S. EVANS (Minister of Industry and Commerce) (Brandon East): Mr.

Speaker, as indicated, I believe yesterday, many of the questions were repetitive in nature. We have nedeavoured to provide answers to the questions asked as quickly as possible, and as accurately and as efficiently as possible, and when I have further information to report I will be up on my feet reporting to the House. MR . SPIVAK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry and Com merce. I wonder if he's in a position to indicate how much of the cash reserve of Tantalum were used for development cost for the Goldrim properties in Australia. MR . EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, I have made a comment on that previous; I don't know whether I need to make further comment. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR . DONALD W, CRAIK (Riel): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources. Can he indicate why we have not received Volume 1 of the transcripts from the Manitoba Water Commission meetings. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of ..• MR . EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, as I have indicated on previous occasions in this House I'm as anxious as any member to obtain the reports of the Manitoba Water Commission, However, I can advise my honourable friend from Riel that Volume 1, which is the report of the Manitoba Water Commission, is now in the hands of the Queen's Printer and if all goes well we hope that

4170 July 13, 1972 (MR. EVANS cont'd) •...• it will be printed and available for public distribution in approxi mately two weeks, maybe three weeks, but it's dependent upon the Queen's Printer and the ability, technical ability, of that organization to produce it. I •d like to have it tomorrow morn ing if it was available but that is the circumstances. MR . CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, can I direct a subsequent question to the Minister?

Can he advise whether he's familiar with the contents of Volume 1, and whether or not there are not some statements in that that is very damaging to the government's position in Hydro Power Development. MR . SPEAKER: The question is argumentative. The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. MR. EVANS: I agree with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to take the oppor tunity to answer a question posed by the Honourable Member from Birtle-Russell yesterday on the operations at the Shellmouth Dam with respect to the volume of water presently being dis charged. I'm advised, Mr.

Speaker, by the officials of the Water Control Branch that the dis charge at the Shellmouth Dam was maintained by 150 CFS during the period June 27th to July 12th, 1972 and on July 12th it was reduced to 50 CFS. The discharge will remain at this level, at 50 CFS, until the end of October unless heavy rains cause the inflow into the reservoir to increase. Mr. Speaker, I was asked a supplementary question: Is the volume presently being dis charged by the Shellmouth Dam sufficient to meet the needs of the communities downstream?

I am advised by the engineers in the branch that the 50 CFS outflow from Shellmouth is more than sufficient to meet the needs of the communities downstream along the Assiniboine River. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to rephrase my question to the Minister of Mines and Resources. Can he indicate whether he has read the contents of Volume 1 referred to. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a supplementary question then.

Can the Minister advise whether the transcripts which we have received are direct transcript or whether there has been editing ? MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. MR . EVANS: Mr. Speaker, to make it quite clear with respect to the transcripts I saw the transcripts about the same time the honourable member saw them, that is I brought into the House the day that they were received in my office - in printed form - I had not seen them be fore. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. HARRY J. ENNS (Lakeside): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, I direct a question to the Honourable the Minister of Universities and Colleges. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the res ponse the Minister gave me yesterday, can the Minister tell me today whether or not the Provincial Government is participating in a press conference tomorrow announcing the decision to proceed with the Seven Oaks Hospital Development. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Universities and Colleges. HON. SAUL A. MILLER (Minister of Colleges and Universities)(Seven Oaks): Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. I.

H. (IZZY) ASPER (Leader of the Liberal Party)(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Universities and Colleges Affairs. Can the Minister advise the House whether the financing of the Northern Manitoba Post Secondary Education night school program has been transferred from the Planning and Research Division of his department to the University Grants Commission? MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, this was covered during my estimates. The member will find them in Hansard if he reads the Hansard going back to those dates.

I would tell him the program, a pilot program which was started and ran for two years, and was proved successful and turned over to the University Grants Commission because the programs are now run by the universities. MR. ASPER: Mr. Speaker, to the same Minister. Can the Minister advise whether the move of the program from Planning and Research to the Grants Commission was due in part to an internal conflict between the administrators of the program? MR: MILLER: Mr. Speaker, the assumption is entirely incorrect, it was a ministerial

July 13, 1972 4171 (MR. MILLER cont'd) .•... decision. It was a pilot program that worked out well, and it's the sensible way to do it when a pilot program has proved itself out, you then transfer it to become a normal program. MR , ASPER: Can the Minister confirm whether the co-ordinator of the program has resigned and will he advise whether a replacement has been hired if that is the case. MR . MILLER: Mr. Speaker, the co-ordinator was up north didn't resign; he was taken on for a two year period only, the term expired. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR.

L, R, (BUD) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Honourable the Attorney-General, and I would like to ask him whether he has received any indication that American interests controlling the National Hockey League will attempt to restrain Bobby Hull, a Canadian, from applying his trade in Manitoba next winter. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. A. H. MACKLING, Q.C. (Attorney-General)(St. James): I have received no formal notice other than the rumours that have been made public in the media that there may be some difficulties ensuing.

I don't know whether it's a matter of restraint of trade that any individual citizen can bring in the courts through the normal action. MR . fHERMAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, would the same conditions and the same situation apply with respect to the possible restraint imposed against Hull for playing for Canada against Russia in the international series. MR . MACKLING: I'm sorry, the honourable member's question I didn't quite understand. I wonder if he would repeat it. MR . SHERMAN: I'll re-phrase it, Mr. Speaker.

Has the Attorney-General received any indication that interests controlling the National Hockey LP-ague will restrain Hull from playing for Canada against Russia? MR. MACKLING: No, Mr. Speaker, again only what I am given to understand is the concern evidenced by some in respect to this that has been reported in the media. And again I say that I'm not sure whether this matter is one where governmental action is appropriate or action on the part of those persons most closely concerned with the development of this sport confrontation. MR . SHERMAN: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Would the Manitoba Human Rights Commission be likely to intercede in a situation of this kind? MR. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Speaker, if it is a violation of any

section of our Human Rights Act I think it would be appropriate. I doubt whether it falls under the ambit of the act. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR . SPEAKER: Before we proceed I have information that we have two former MLAs in our lodge to the left of me, Mr. Jim Mills and Mr. Fred Groves. On behalf of the honourable members of the Assembly I welcome you here. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR . JACOB M. FROESE (R hineland): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Honourable Attorney-General.

Could he provide explanatory notes to the amendments on Bill 110, The Statute Law Amendments Act, because I think it's essential that we have them? MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the second reading on this bill, I indicated that the explanatory notes had been prepared for every member of the House and I had an assurance that a copy of the explanatory notes were distributed in the House.

Now if the honourable member was not in his seat when the distribution took place it could well be that it's either in his desk or someone, his neighbour perhaps, might have appropriated his copy - and that wouldn't be a deliberate act I'm sure, but every member did receive a copy on his desk. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. HENRY J. EINARSON (Rock Lake): Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. My question pertains to the Senior Citizens Home at Cartwright. Could the Minister indicate whether this project has received board approval? MR .

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. HOWARD R. PAWLEY (Minister of Municipal Affairs)(Transcona): Yes, the board of the Housing Corporation has approved the purchase of land for the Senior Citizens Develop ment at Cartwright for I believe it is 12 units. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

4172 July 13, 1972 MR . SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister. I wonder if he could indicate to the House whether any of the brokerage firms who do the underwriting for the pro vince were consulted with respect to the purchase by the government of 25 percent of Tantalum. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. SAUL CHERN IACK, Q,C. (Minister of Finance)(St. Johns): Mr.

Speaker, may I rise to respond to the question by saying that we are in close contact with our brokerage firms, very close and constant, and that as of this morning for example we had meetings with the lead partner of the syndicate which is in charge of our American borrowing. This question was not raised and indeed would not have to be raised, because the credit and the prestige and the standing of the Province of Manitoba is sufficiently high that we have the confidence of all investors, and any suggestions to the contrary are not even damaging because they are not believable. MR . SPIVAK: Mr.

Speaker, I'll then address a question to the Minister of Finance. My question is, were the brokerage firms who do the underwriting in the province, were any of them consulted by the government to be able to give them the benefit of their expertise before the purchase was made of 25 percent of Tantalum. MR . SPEAKER: The question is repetitive. MR . SPIVAK: No, Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR . SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The question was asked of the First Minister, the Minister of Finance replied.

His reply indicated a misunderstanding on a part of the question. The purpose of the question was . . • MR . SPEAKER: Order please. That is not a point of order. The honourable member received a reply; if he's not satisfied with it, I'm sorry, the rules don't call for satisfaction they only call for reply or non reply. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. MR . ASPER: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Education. When will the Minister table in the House the inspectoral report that he commissioned on education and financing in the Midland school division? MR .

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. BEN HANUSCHAK (Minister of Educ ation)(Burrows): Never, Mr. Speaker. MR . AS PER: Mr. Speaker, to the same Minister. Can the Minister in any event explain the purpose and the cost of the report and advise whether it represents a move by the province to exercise greater control of education programs at the local level? MR . HANUSCHAK: Mr. Speaker, whatever transpired in the Midland school division was in the course of regular administrative duties and functions of my department. MR . ASPER: To the same Minister, Mr. Speaker.

Can he confirm that the commission ing of this report has resulted in a protest to him by the executive of the Superintendents Association in the province ? MR . HANUSCHAK: Mr. Speaker, from day to day there are various reports reaching my office from school inspectors, from others within my department, some of the reports with which some people agree and others disagree, MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR . ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I direct the question to the Minister of Universities and Colleges. I wonder, Mr.

Speaker, if the Minister could tell me, are there any specific pro grams at our universities for which funds were approved by University Grants Commission that the government is holding back on or delaying payment of same pending further discussions at the Prairie Economic Council re possible duplication etc. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Universities and Colleges. MR . MILLER: Mr. Speaker, there are no funds being held back for the reasons indicat ed by the member. I'd have to be given more information as to what the member's really wanting to find out. MR . ENNS: A supplementary question then, Mr.

Speaker. If there are no actual funds being held back, are there any actual programs that have gained approval of the University Grants Commission being delayed for the same reason as I expect •.• MR . MILLER: Mr. Speaker, again no funds are being held back pending the meeting of the Prairie Economic Council, and if the member wishes to give me information as to the specific program that he thinks funds are being held back from, I'll look into it. I am not aware of any funds being held back.

July 13, 1972 4173 MR . ENNS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I recognize the Minister doesn't have to answer my question if he doesn't choose to •.. MR , SPEAKER: Question please, MR , ENNS: I'll ask the question once more. Are there any programs which were granted approval by the University Grants Commission that are being in any way delayed or blocked as a result of the possible further discussions by the government at the Prairie Economic Council. MR . MILLER: Well, I could repeat exactly what I said as the member has repeated his question three times.

I'll answer this way - I'm not aware of any funds being held back from any approved program, because once the program is approved the university gets the money, they spend it, The money is granted to them for programs approved and they spend it; if they are not spending it that's simply within their own authority to do so, MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. MR . ASPER: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Education, because he's so communicative, Can the Minister advise the House ofthe purpose and the cost of a program instituted by the department known as Confluent Education? MR .

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education, MR . HANUSCHAK: Insofar as the purpose of the program is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it's part of a development, an expansion, an enrichment of the native education program which we are developing in the Province of Manitoba. And going beyond this, it's also designed to develop a two-way appreciation between the white community and our native community and vice versa. Insofar as the cost of the program is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall the figure offhand, I'll take that under advisement. MR . AS PER: Mr.

Speaker, to the same Minister - will he advise the House whether the program is being administered in Minnedosa and that it involves teachers in only three or four centers of the province - is that the scope of the program? MR . HANUSCHAK: It's a pilot project, a demonstration project, Mr. Speaker, and it is conducted not only in Minnedosa which is in the Rolling River School Division, but also in Frontier School Division and in Kelsey. MR . ASP ER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Minister advise the House what is the purpose of certain trips that have been made in connection with this program to and from California - that would be between Manitoba and California ? MR . HANUSCHAK: I believe the honourable member has been in this House long enough to know which questions are proper to be asked before Orders of the Day and which by way of Order for Return. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR . FROESE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Honourable the Minister of Universities.

Do the members of the senate of the University of Manitoba other than the stu dent members approve of increasing the number of students to be elected to the senate from 6 to 26 or from 8 to 26, no from 6 to 28? MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Universities and Colleges. MR . MILLER: Mr. Speaker, the request was made by the senate of the University of Manitoba and by the Board of Governors of the University of Manitoba. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR . SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance.

It relates to a statement by the Finance Minister of Ontario with respect to the Federal Minister's discussions with him which I believe were similar or followed the pattern of discussions with the Minister of Finance of Manitoba - with respect to asking the government to stop or at least restrain off shore borrowing. I believe there were comments made as well by various officials from the Maritime governments.

I wonder if the Minister of Finance can indicate whether he has corresponded or been in contact with the Minister of Finance in Ontario or the other Ministers of Finance in the Maritime area to determine whether there will be a course of action taken by the Ministers with respect to the restraints asked by the Federal Minister of Finance with res pect to offshore borrowing. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR . CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I have already reported to this House in connection with my meeting with the Honourable Mr. Turner.

I indicared then, and I gave figures that supported my contention which the Federal Minister of Finance accepted, and that is that Manitoba was certainly not amongst those provinces which he could have included in the group that were borrowing extensively on the foreign market to the detriment of the value of the

4174 July 13, 1972 (MR. CHERNIACK cont'd) ..•.• Canadian dollar. He made it absolutely clear and I think he made it public although I'm not certain about that; certainly I did, with his knowledge. As to my communications with others, I have discussed the matter with one of the other Ministers of Finance -I don't know that I'm free to reveal with whom it was - and the indica tion was that he felt that they will conduct themselves as responsible Canadians in the light that they felt was a responsibility.

May I repeat that I was not the only one of the Ministers of Finance who indicated to the Federal Minister that the desire which we shared should be supported by the kind of action that is now carried on by the Bank of Canada in assisting the Federal Government.

And I think I reported to the House, I suggested that there should be a method by which the Bank of Canada and the Federal Government should be involved in borrow ing so that there could be a more - I'm trying to remember the word used by the Federal Minister, he had a word related to, how to relate the borrowing across the provinces in order to create some form of order amongst them. I think that answers the question. MR . SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, my question on this is to the Minister of Finance.

Was the there an indication given to him by the Federal Minister that if the provinces who he held res ponsible with respect to the borrowing were not to discontinue their offshore borrowing, that there was a possibility that the Federal Government would take very direct action rather than the job only effect of conversation? MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Speaker, the exact converse is true, and I would also wonder at the extent to which the Federal Government could control the autonomous right of the provinces to borrow where and as they please, but certainly the Minister indicated that it was a request for a voluntary restraint and no threat of any kind was implied or stated. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. MR . HANUSCHAK: Mr.

Speaker, if I may - the question last put to me by the Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party, although I would still indicate that I do feel that it's a proper matter for an Order for Return, but it is related to a previous question that he put to me and perhaps a word or two in explanation is warranted. The Confluent Education Program, or experimentation in it, is conducted across the North American Continent and there is very close co-operation and liaison interprovincially and also internationally in research work in educaLion at the ministerial level and at staff level. And this is one experiment, Mr.

Speaker, that is also underway in the State of California dealing with the Indian and the Mexican com munity there and hence there is close liaison- exchange of notes, and in fact the manner in which this experiment is conducted in the Province of Manitoba is closely related to the one in California, and it is conducted in such a way as to avoid duplication and thus enable us to benefit from the experience of the educators in California and vice versa. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Thompson. JOSE PH P. BOROWSKI (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health.

Could he indicate why it takes up to two weeks to have bodies returned to isolated areas after a post mort em has been done here in the City of Winnipeg? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health and Social Development. HON. RENE E. TOUPIN (Minister of Health)(Springfield): No, Mr. Speaker, not unless I get the details of the case. MR. BOROWSKI: I wonder if it's the policy of the department- I assume it is the proper department - to put bodies in ordinary cardboard boxes when they ship them out, and in one case it was left at the airport for ten days because of improper marking at Norway House. MR.

TOUPIN: Well again, Mr. Speaker, not having been given advance notice on the case in question I cannot comment on this. I would appreciate the Honourable Member for Thompson to be more specific personally, and I could obtain the reasons why it took so long. MR. BOROWSKI: I have a question for the Attorney-General, Mr.

Speaker_ Is the Attorney-General now in a position to advise the House as to whether any investigation is planned by his dC)partment being initiated on behalf of another department on the allegations that drugs have been issued by the Mount Carmel Clinic without a doctor's prescription, and in view of the fact that previous investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons dealt only with the conduct of the Mount Carmel's Medical Director. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think these questions were asked earlier.

I indicated to the House then that I had referred the questions raised to the department, I believe the department has been made aware of the investigation conducted by the College of Physicians

July 13, 1972 4175 (MR. MACKLING cont'd) •..•• and Surgeons and I haven't received a report back as to whether the opinion of the attorneys is that any charges ought to be laid. MR . BOROWSKI: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health, Could he indicate how the case at Brandon is progressing, where a guard was attacked over last week end? A guard was attacked by one of the prisoners last weekend, MR .• SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health and Social Development, MR. TOUPIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I haven't got the specifics on that case. MR .

SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party, MR. AS PER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Health, Has he now completed his investigation into the case in his department where confidential medical informa tion on a woman patient was given out to attorneys for the Mount Carmel defense in the in vestigation of the drug case? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health and Social Development, MR . TOUPIN: Mr. Speaker, not having received the information that I called for, I cannot accept the assumption made by the Leader of the Liberal Party. MR . ASPER: To the Minister of Health, Mr.

Speaker - has the Minister of Health con ducted and received a report from people in his department as to how information relating to the medical affairs of an individual came into the hands of, from one source or another, the defense lawyers of the Mount Carmel Clinic. MR . SPEAKE R: Order please. Order please, the question is repetitive, an answer has been given, Would the Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party state his point of order. MR. ASPER: The point of order is that the Minister made an undertaking to this House, I simply asked ••• MR . SPEAKER: Order please.

In due course it probably will be undertaken, The Honourable First Minister. HON, EDWARD SCHREYER (Premier) (Rossmere): Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, the Minister just two minutes ago indicated to the Member for Wolseley that he has not yet received the report, so therefore what possible point of order could the Member for Wolseley have? Well, Mr. Speaker, unless it's a problem of accoustics, I on this side heard the Minister say very clearly, not having yet received the report I cannot accept the assumption the question of my honourable friend, MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR .

BOROWSKI: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the Minister of Health. wonder if he could report further to the House regarding the statements made by this informer that there were three drug pushers on his payroll, MR. SPEAKER; The Honourable Minister of Health. MR . TOUPIN: Mr. Speaker, a similar question was asked by the Honourai:Jle Member for Thompson I believe at the beginning of the week, I hadn't had the opportunity to speak or receive correspondence from the informer pertaining to the case the Honourable Member is making reference to, so I am not in a position to comment. MR .

SPEAKER: Orders of the Day - Orders for Return. The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. ASPER: Mr. Speaker, I move that an Order of the House do issue for a return showing the following information: 1. The number of aircraft presently owned by the Manitoba Government or any of its Boards Commissions or Agencies; 2. Where each of the above l.s located; 3. The purchase pi-ice and purchase date of each aircraft; 4. The name of the conipariy or individual from whom each was purchased and whether each was new or used when purchased; 5.

In the case of used aircraft so purchased, information on the number of flying hours each had on its log at the time of purchase; 6. A list of those aircraft which were purchased by tender and those which were purchased through other means; 7. A description of the type of each aircraft (make, single-engine, twin-engine, fixed-wing, helicopter, etc. );

41 76 July 13, 1972 8. A log of all flights of such aircraft and the names of passen gers and their positions and/or occupations, carried thereon during the 12-month period ended June 30, 1972; 9. A list of all Manitoba Government Air Services offices throughout the province as of June 30, 1972. 1\ffi. SPEAKER: Would the member indicate his seconder. 1\ffi. ASPER: I beg you pardon? MR . SPEAKER: Would the honourable member indicate who seconded the motion? 1\ffi. ASPER: Seconded by the Honourable Member from Portage la Prairie. MR . SPEAKER: Thank you. 1\ffi.

SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. 1\ffi. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR . SCH REYER: Mr. Speaker, I merely want to indicate to the Leader of the Liberal Party that we will accept the Order for Return really without any caveat or condition, other than to express to the Member for Wolseley the point that with respect to question No. 8, it is not clear whether he wishes the actual log or whether he would be content with the information which would be a listing of the information from the log.

And I should also advise my honour able friend that there will be quite a bit of detail that would have to be amassed here and I suppose - it's all manageable, I just want him to be aware that it will take a good time. MR . SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable House Leader. MR . PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, if I may just briefly give an indication of what is suggest ed at this particular moment in time for procedure for the balance of the week. This evening as members will remember there will be the meeting of the Industrial Relations Committee at 8 o'clock to continue hearing briefs.

It will be intended to have a meeting called of the House tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. There is the possibility of the calling of the committee on Law Amendments and maybe one or two others at 2:30 or thereabouts on Friday afternoon. I'm sorry I can't give any indication as of this particular time as to whether or not we will be meet ing Friday night or on Saturday. It all will depend on the conduct and procedures within the House.

It is my thought at the present time, Sir, that after we meet tomorrow morning at 10:00 o'clock, depending on how the business of the House is proceeded with, you may be re quested to leave the Chair in the morning until recalled some time afterwards. I'm sorry I cannot be more precise but I'm sure that honourable members will realize the difficulty of being precise at this stage in the proceedings of the session. So, Mr. Speaker, I wonder . . . MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR . BOROWSKI: I wonder, Mr.

Speaker, if the Minister could give us some indication tonight since the Minister of Tourism and the Member for Churchill and myself have to be in Thompson for the big miners' day affair for three days. Could he give us some indication tonight? We don •t like to miss the votes that will be taken in case there is a sitting on Saturday. MR . PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm very sorry that I'm not able to, as I indicated a moment or two ago.

There is a meeting of the Industrial Relations Committee tonight, and of course while I realize and appreciate the desire of involvement of honourable members in ex ternal affairs functions, I have my responsibility to the conduct of this House, and that is the only thing I can say to my honourable friend and he'll have to act accordingly. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for Rhine land indicated that he would speak on 109, but he's away at the present moment - I'm wondering if the Honourable Member for Emerson . • • oh.

I wonder if the Honourable Member for Rhineland is within hearing distance and wouid he like to make the contribution that we're most anxious to hear from him, in respect, Mr. Speaker, of Bill109. I'm sure it will be a worthwhile contribution. MR . SPEAKER: Proposed motion, the Honourable Minister of Finance. Bill 109. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR . FROESE: Mr. Speaker, Bill 109 is the City of Winnipeg Act with numerous amend ments before us. I wish to thank the Minister of Finance for giving us the explanatory notes which certainly do assist us.

I would like to say at the outset that part of the bill - I've certainly not completed my work, but not wanting to delay the proceedings of the House I will make my contribution now, but I'd like to put a caveat on whatever I have to say on the bill as such that if I find something later on which I couldn't agree with I'd certainly want to have those reservations stand. In general I think the amendments are good. I think they're taking care of a number of

July 13 , 1972 41 77 (MR.

FROESE cont'd) ..•.• things that need to be done and I in general don't have too much to say or take exception to, The matter of the financial arrangement , the reviews and the changes that are being made, I think are to the good; that the Community Committees shall review capital and current budgets , certainly this is democratic, It may in certain respects delay proceedings but on the overall I think this gives the local people more rights , more jurisdiction and certainly they can indicate to the members of council what they would like to see done and whether provision is made for the things that they have requested.

I also see that the members of the Policy Committee is increased by one to eleven now, and making provision for a deputy mayor. I think this is a good provision too , because I feel that the deputy mayor should certainly be in on the committee and should be knowledgeable as to what goes on.

If something should happen that the mayor can •t be present, then certainly he would be called on to sit in, and if he wasn't conversant with what was going on before I think this could prove embarass ing many a time, and certainly this addition will augur well for the executive policy committee, The identifiable costs - and maybe the Minister on introducing the bill did touch on it, Hansard is late and therefore we are unable to check back on many of the things that we would like to do, But if the Minister has anything further to elaborate on the identifiable costs section, I would like him to do so. That •s in

Section 27 (1) . I know there is an amendment made to exclude the members of Executive Policy Com mittee from appointment on a subcommittee. Maybe this is a valid point. I haven't heard the arguments on this particular matter , but I also at the same time wondered why the limitation was being put on. Perhaps the Minister can also in closing debate comment on that very matter . The matter of the Executive Policy Committee comes into consideration again in another

section where I think reports or recommendations are to be submitted, and I just wondered why in some cases they shouldn't be submitted to Council. Is there something secretive about this, or what are the reasons for this ? Because as you know, Mr. Speaker, we've set up the Com missioner system and I personally really didn •t like the kind of system that we brought in, naming the Commissioners.

An d certainly we know that the Commiss ioners' Committee, in cluding the Mayor who's ex officio on it, are a very powerful group; and sometimes I wondered when the Council first got going, and also probably it still may be the case, just how much work.does the City Council really do and how much power do the Commissioners exercise ?

I rather have the feeling that the Commissioners are the ones that are dealing daily with all the subject matters; they are most likely to formulate policies and have them presented for acceptance , and in this way I just wonder how much power the elected people really exercise; whether the Commissioners are not running the show and that those matters that are really not so important are referred to council to be dealt with.

This was the big concern I had last year when the bill was introduced and when the system was brought in, I notice that there is tighter control being put on, and the Chief Commissioner in my opinion is being given more power in certain cases , especially where powers are being delegated by a Commissioner, this now by any of the Commiss ioners, this now is subject to the Chief Commissioner, so that the Chief Commissioner really has full control and probably too much control. I'm just wondering about this, This is

Section 54 (3) about the delegation of powers when other Commissioners desire to make appointments or delegate powers to certain people, that it's subject to the Chief Commissioner now, There is one matter having to do with the auditing, We are deleting certain words from certain sections which no longer require the auditor to check or examine every ac count and requisition for payment. Does this mean now, Mr. Speaker, that we are just going to have spot checks , that complete audits will not be made ? Tha t in many cases we will just have spot audits too , that not everything necessarily will be examined ?

Is that the purpose of the change that we are making in the act ? I think this is something that I certainly would like to have clarification on, There were some other sections that I examined , others I didn't examine as closely, One has to do with the matter of making clear that personal property taxing is permissive within the city.

I discussed the item with the Minister briefly yesterday and, upon checking the act, I can see the point that he made in the discussion that we had, Certainly I approve of what is being done here, This particular provision doesn't mean that council has to tax personal property, and there are a number of exclusions in the act itself. I think the exclusions are very large indeed, When I first saw the item in the newspaper about this I figured well, are

4178 July 13, 1972 (MR, FROESE cont'd) •.••. we giving the City of Winnipeg the right to tax personal property such as has been done in the States about personal items ? But I find in the exemptions that this is definitely not the case and therefore that provision is very restrictive. On the whole matter of providing the revenue for the City of Winnipeg, we heard the Leader of the Liberal Party speak yesterday and the way I heard him, and if I heard him correctly, he would be willing to share certain tax fields with the City of Winnipeg, I certainly wouldn't go that far or I wouldn't want to do that.

I think we have the tax fields set out and I wouldn't want to share any of those areas with the City, because what could happen very readily then is that the city might tax very heavily and the province would get the blame, and for that reason I think it much fairer if the tax fields are left to the individual government concerned, There is no reason why if needed we could not as a province tax to a greater extent in certain areas and provide grants. This can be done, this has been done and is being done in fact this year.

And I would like to see this particular area probably enlarged, because as stated on other occasions certainly as far as educational costs are concerned I'd like to see them taken off, especially on farmlands, and transferred to the Consolidated Revenue Fund so that all the money would come in that way. But I would certainly take exception to some of the suggestions made by the Leader of the Liberal Party yesterday in connection with this whole matter. The suggestion or the amendments where we are going to change or repeal a certain section, when it comes to the mattPr of the city borrowing, I notice

Section 10 is being removed from that particular clause or section, and we still require the Municipal Board to give their approval. I think this is quite in order. If we are not going to have money by-laws submitted to the people in general to approve, if you're going to deny them that right certainly it doesn't hurt to have some regulatory body set up who at least will check from an independent point of view on matters of this type.

And I certainly take the position, I would rather see it the other way round; I would still go for money by-laws to be voted on by the people as was the case originally by the City of Winnipeg, and I never really subscribed to having that changed when the new act was brought in. But since it has been changed, I certainly wouldn't want to relieve it any further and that I feel it's quite proper that the Municipal Board does have to give their approval. There are a number of other sections that I had marked out and that I could have com mented on, but I don't want to take the time to do so.

And then there is also quite a number of sections that I haven't really checked out, because on so many occasions it would indicate that this is the recommendation of either City Council or of the Law Society Committee recom mendations, and I haven't had the time to check them out, Mr. Speaker, so that I cannot really make sensible comments on them, whether I approve of them or not, and this is why I am placing a caveat on the overall approval, giving approval to the bill on second reading.

As I see it, I think it's a good bill and I could give approval to most of the provisions that are con tained therein, but as I said, I wouldn't want to make a complete commitment without having fully examined all the sections. Thank you. MR, SPEAK ER: Pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? The Honourable Minister of Finance shall be closing debate. The Honourable Minister. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Honourable Member for Rhineland. When he is asked if he can speak at a certain time he is usually co-operative, and when he says he will he does.

And he also does his homework even though he carries the whole party on his shoulders, at least as he said before, he doesn't have any problems with his caucus. But he does do his homework and one can note from the comments he made today that he did do his homework, and I don't know when he did it, but he certainly didn't have much time from the time he adjourned debate yesterday. And he's asked some very pertinent questions.

I don't want to deal with all the questions he asked, because some of them are detailed matters which could be dealt with in committee; I'm sure he'll raise them in committee and I'll try to respond in relation to them. He makes a caveat, and I think that's fair and I think that we all do.

And I think that I should indicate that the government is not insistent that everything in the bill is absolutely right; and we ourselves have the knowledge that the Reviewing Committee can be helpful to government and may in itself expose certain problems which could be further reme died and clarified, He mentioned certain questions though that I think are a little more im portant that I'd like to respond to before I deal with the comments made by the others. And may I say again, Mr.

Speaker, in recognizing that the fact that the honourable member did his home work, I also recognize the fact that he did it himself and didn't have it done for him, and that was helpful to him no doubt, because he understands those matters with which he dealt,

July 13, 1972 4179 (MR. CHERNIACK cont'

d) He asked about the exclusion of committee members from being on the Executive Policy Committee and I would remind him that last year we explained that our reasoning was that the Executive Policy Committee is a sort of a check and balance against committee work. One of the dangers that we thought existed in many municipal councils was that the members of a com mittee become somehow vested with a real interest in what their committee is doing, and then they can often start bargaining back and forth - I'll make a concession for your committee and you accept the thinking in our committee.

And we felt that it was important that the Executive Policy Committee which actually insists that all the recommendations from the committees should be made up of a group of people who don't have a prior knowledge and a prior briefing and a prior lobby on all problems so that they can look objectively at everything that comes in and set priorities on behalf of council - and recommend priorities I mean, on behalf of council with that outside view.

So we felt that out of the 10 people, one would be the Mayor and three would be the chairmen of the committees and they could present all the arguments , and that the other six should really be people who represent the council generally and therefore can give the overview that would create a check and a balance and level off any strong arguments that are too strong and too unbala nced. And that 's our reason there. The reason for the inclusion of the Deputy Mayor is, frankly, that the Mayor is away a good deal and the Deputy Mayor should be knowledgeable of what's going on.

He could take his place and come to the meetings but if he were a member of the committee he would attend committee meetings and would therefore be able to fit in the place as chairman much more readily with the knowledge of it. The question of submission to council of committee reports - and I think that it was recognized that there are occasions that committee reports should be sent back to committee or should be sent to another committee for review to see how the other committees' res ponsibilities are affected by that , and that 's why it was felt it shouldn't be necessary to send all matters to committee.

Which brings me to the questwn asked by the honourable member , what does City Council do and what do Commissioners do ? And I can tell the honourable mem ber that in my humble opinion based on newspaper reports, reviews of city council agendas and one meeting which I attended at which time I was able to consider all the mater ial presented to the council, is that I received the impression that council is getting too involved in many details and we're not really dealing with matters of principle and policy.

And ra ther than set policies I found that they were getting bogged down on many occasions on detailed matters which in my opinion, and may I say in the opinion of other councillors, were not really important enough to be dealt with at the council level and could have been cleared through committees.

Now there have been suggestions made that City Council ought to meet not more often than every two months , except on special occasions, and when they do meet they should meet for two days and go right through the whole agenda rather than meet as I believe they do every two weeks - but that's their decision, they have the power to make those decisions.

But I'm bringing this up because I believe that there is a feeling taking place as a result of some six months of exper ience, that council should rearrange the procedures it has - and it has full power to do so - in order to enable members of council to deal with policy issues and matters of principle and not with detail , and of course that is the desirable use of a Board of Commissioners to deal with deta il.

Right now, frankly, it is again my opinion that council deals with details and doesn't let the Commissioners actually get on with the work they should be doing, but that 's a matter for them to review as they go along.

The item dealing with the Chief Commiss ioner supervising the budgets, we thought it should be clear that the Chief Commissioner should be responsible directly for those depart ments in the municipal government which serve the other committees; that it would be wrong for, say, the budget committee to be under the Commissioner of Finance , because the budget committee has to again create an overview of all the requirements of all the departments and shouldn't be under any one specific Commissioner but ra ther should be, should report direct to the chief who too is responsible for the overall operation, and that 's the purpose there.

The question about the auditor, yes , we•re informed that there's a great deal of duplica tion of work, because if the accounting department does something and the auditor walks be hind him checking everything he does then really it is a very expensive procedure and that the auditor should be enabled to have complete power as he has to investigate anything, to take all And let me now interrupt myself to respond a little more directly to the Honourable the Leader of the Liberal party who was talking about the auditor not having powers. I don't think

41 80 July 13, 1972 (MR. CHERNIAC K cont'd) ...•. he's read the original act, because the auditor has tre mendous powers. He has the right to walk into any department and see any files and see any acc ount and do anything that he thinks is necessary for him to give an honest report, And I reject out of hand completely the suggestions made by the Leader of the Liberal Party that the auditor is hamstru ng in any way, as I did reject the thought that the provincial auditor is.

Again, if the Leader of the Liberal Party read the original bill or the original act he would see no doubt that the auditor can only be dis charged by a two-third vote of the members of council, and that would have to be done in the open after notice and in such a way that he would know that his independence is secured unless two-thirds of the council feel that he has done an inadequate job.

And in the end they are the ones who have to decide ju st as in the legislature here in the Parliament of Canada a majority and a substantial majority can make that decis ion, Finally, one point mentioned by the honourable member dealing with personal property and his fear about the taxation of personal property, I want to summarize only the existing law. It starts out by sa ying all personal property is liable to taxation subject to the following ex emptions, Apparently there is an

interpretation made that if the words say all personal proper ty is liable to taxation, therefore it means that personal properties shall be taxed, My inter pretation is not that at all , it means that it can be taxed, but because there was this other

interpretation made we thought we'd better spell that the city council has the power to tax but need not, That is the point .of the amendment , But the important question that the honourable member raised was are they going to tax personal property, therefore the exemption is the important aspe ct, and I•ll summarize them for you ra ther than refer him to the

section of the act, It's all produce from land occupied as a farm or garden - all farm stock, implements etc. used by farmers, All grains, cereals, flour, live or dead stock, cordwood in store or warehouses , and it goes - it's lengthier than that - household effects and furniture, books and wearing appar el, public libraries , libraries of the court , ships and steamboats , minera ls , pipeline of a pipeline company taxed under

section 162, railway, roadway and superstructure thereon, The limitations are very great and I'm told but I haven't checked it , but I'm told that they are very similar to what the Municipal Act has had for quite a while and that there's not much change there, So I hope I've reassu red the honourable member in that respect. Now, Mr.

Speaker , I want to deal with other comments that were made by other members of the House who of course I thank for having done some work in prepar ing their comments with whom I do not necessarily agree , but may I say I welcome the Member for Rhineland•s outright statement that he will support the bill at second reading, I expect all members will because the criticism I've heard is about the act and what is not in the bill, and I have not heard any criticism of what is actually in the bill.

I'm sort of expecting that honourable members will vote in favour of second reading , but if they don't that's the chance I take , if I fail to con vince them, Now the Member for Sturgeon Creek in his usual strong, effective, stentorian, bellicose - that's my word - manner delivered himself of a speech which was interesting to hear but was so confused with his sense of - what's the word?

I was interrupted, so I lost the word I was seeking for - having not found it, I couldn't really lose it , but I should say the Honourable Member for Charleswood interrupted me, His style this time was so much unlike the manner of the Member for Sturgeon Creek that it was a pleasure for a change to hear the manner in which, and the problems raised by the honourable member which I do wish to deal with. Now the Member for Sturgeon Creek, I tried to write as quickly as I could some of the comments he made; I gather he said that the official delegation never met with the Minister; if he said that it's untrue.

I don't know how he knows that , but if he said it I have to tell it's untrue. I must tell him that there have been at various levels on various occasions consider able opportunities to discuss the proposed amendment s with the City of Winnipeg, An d I have a sort of a chronological list, sort of , of certain occasions that we either met or tried to meet, Let me say that on Apr il 11th, I wrote to the City of Wi nnipeg and I forwarded to him the City draft amendment s -I forwarded to the city draft amendments to the City of Win nipeg Act deal ing with subdivision control and neighbourhood improvement areas.

The letter requested specific comments on those amendment s, No reply was received until June 15, 1972 at which time the letter requested the province to proceed with the subdivision control and neighbour hood improvement provisions. So the letter was sent by me on April 11th , the reply came on Ju ne 15, 1972.

July 13 , 1972 (MR. CHERNIACK cont'd) .. . 4181 Now there were several meetings that were held to discuss these provisions , they in cluded meetings with the Director of Planning, the Assistant Dhector of Planning, the Registrar General of the Land Titles office, the C'ity Solicitor and the Board of Commissioners; Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation were involved, There were extensive discussions on that portion, and the honourable member I believe said that he endorses and approves o£ them in any event.

But I want to indicate clearly that there was a great deal of discussion with city officials at different levels on the subject . On April 20 , 197 2 the City of Winnipeg represen ted by the chairman of the Finance Committee and accompanied by the City Solicitor attended uix>n the Deputy Minister for Urban Affairs , the legal consultant Professor Hefferort who members will recall has had a great deal to do with the drafting of the bill and with the Attorney-General solicitor assigned to our department.

The �ity delegation submitted a report which contained recommendations for amendments to the City of Winnipeg Act. That report and those amend ments had not yet been approved by the council itself, but yet they came as early as they could which was April 20th, in order to discuss it and they discussed each of the 41 recommen dations.

The city•·s representatives explained the city's reasons for each of these amendmenfs; On the same day the City Solicitor met with the two solicitors acting for the province to discuss technical amendments to the City of Winnipeg Act and received proposed ame·ndments from the City Solicitor and reviewed them, On May 11, 1972 - and this· now relates to a very large issue to which I may refer again because if was referred to several times. The Law Reform Commission - and let this be clear - on May 11, 1972 three copies of the Law Reform Commission report were delivered to the City of Winnipeg.

The letter accompanying the copies set out those of the commissions's recommendations which were being drafted as amendments to the act ; and set out those recommendations which were considered by the provincial advisers as being unworkable; and set out those recommendations which required scrutiny by the city; And it was made clear then that certain items were so obvious we were going to go ahead with them; certain needed discussions with the city in order to get the city's comments on whether or not one should really make a change which might appear on the surfac e and be recom mended by the Law Reform Committee as being advisable, but the city by it 's experience might well have had some problems in relation thereto.

Others we suggested were not really work able or practical. That was sent on May 11th. May 18th, a letter - well a letter dated May 18 , 1972 was received by the province from the City Clerk advising that the Law Reform Com mission report had been considered by the Committee on Finance and the report had been for warded to the subcommittee on legislation. Mr. Speaker , that was a letter dated May 18, 1972 . No communication of any kind was received from the city dealing with the letter or the pro posed amendments -t o date.

And I think that it's importan t that we stop for a moment and review some of the speeches made by the Member for Sturgeon Creek , the Leader of the Liberal Party , about the Law Reform Commission getting - violent, reading that report.

At the same time these honourable members were talking about involvement with the City , dealing with the city, liason with the city; doing things without the city's concurrence , doing things without consultation with the city and they are the ones who attack this government for not bringing in certain amendments suggested by the Law Reform Commission at a time where even today, even today we have not heard from the City of Winnipeg on these various suggestions of the Law Reform Committee where we felt we ought to have a response. Now I'm not blaming the city, Mr.

Speaker, I am not blaming the council, because council has had a busy time, they meet frequently , they meet extensively and they meet to deal with many problems and they have I suppose in their own sense of priorities felt that these matters were not urgent. And are they urgent, Mr. Speaker ? We people who have lived in the City of Winnipeg and the sub urban areas outside of the former city have lived with these kind of matters that are referred to the Law Reform Commission for years , for decades, and for those younger people present here all their lives. And what suffering was there ? MR .

SPEAKER: Order , please, The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek . MR. FRANK JOHN STON (Sturgeon Creek): Will the Honourable Minister answer a ques tion then. If that is the area of thinking the Minister has now, what was the big rush to pass 36 last year ? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: If the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek cannot differentiate between a by-law or the Winnipeg Charter that was 40 years old, that had some archaic both

41 82 Ju ly 13 , 1972 (MR. CHERNI ACK cont'd) ....• language and thought which was not acted upon by the city for all those years , if he can't distinguish that from the drama tic change that we brought in under Bill 36, then the honourable member I think really is so blinded by the blood in front of his eyes that he cannot even understand one of the most dramatic changes that has taken place on this North Amer ican continent.

He should know, he should know that the legislation that we brought in last year is being considered a model and is being studied by many other juris dictions on this continent , and indeed outside, and he may not agree with it. But to compare the two is stupidity, Mr. Speaker. To talk about not havin g passed it last year that's fine, he can debate that, but to do it in relation to the law reform commission report is ju st complete ignorance, or as I say complete blindness by the red that appears in front of his eyes whenever you mention Bill 36. Now did the honourable member wish to ask a question? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON : Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member will ac cept a question on this. Why then, if you are writing new legislation in a new city would you not now consider to have everything not archaic as you mention it ? MR. CHERNIAC K : Mr. Speaker, I am sure in addit ion to being ignorant - and I used the word stupid - that he's also deaf, Mr.

Speaker, because I told him exactly that I sent the Law Reform Report on May 11th to the city, I indicated the province's view that certain sections should be removed, they're automatic, that other sections , and most of them are the seize and search provisions , the health provisions, and we said to them these are recommendat ions, we would like to have the city's view on them.

We had the courtesy , which the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek may not have had , the courtesy to say to the city, you have lived with this this long, you must have some experience with it, these are the recommendations what are your comments . And, Mr. Speaker , I make no apology for not pushing the city to get a res ponse to proposed changes that we have lived with for so many years and that none of us were aware of because they weren't being used .

And they were archaic and yet we had the courtesy of waiting for the city, and we are still waiting to meet with the city to discuss these matters in order that after next session hopefully the city will be ready to talk to us about the suggested changes and we'll bring them in. But what's all that rush about if the honourable member is so concerned about the interests of the City Council, if he's so concerned that they be consulted. The fact is they were consulted. But you know, Mr.

Speaker , I suspect that whoever is his informant may not have known that , and that 's possible; because certainly he had an informant and certainly he would not just ask any man on the street for information, he must have asked somebody in whom he had confidence. Well let him check it out. I gave him the information. As far as I know, the information I have given is correct. I know the date we sent the letter, I am advised by my department that no response was received and therefore that is an explanation.

To me it is one that makes sense and one which could have been criticized had we proceeded without notice to the City of Wi nnipeg. By letter dated April 27th, 1972 the city recommended a further amendment to the City of Wi nnipeg Act by defining the word "resident". By letter dated May 5, 1972 the city delivered to the Deputy Minister a list of amendment s respecting local improvements, and may I say that all except one were ac cepted by our ad visors . By letter dated May 17th, 1972 the draft amend ments to the City of Winnipeg Act were delivered to the City Clerk. How long ago is that ?

That's almost two months ago I believe; May 17 , 1972 the draft amendment s were delivered almost two months. The amendment s were prepared in several parts so as to clearly indicate those amend ments which were proposed by the province, those of the city's recommendat ions which were being implemented, those recommendations of the Law Reform Commission which were being implemented.

The letter adv ised the city that the province had drafted amendments for those city recommendat ions which the province proposed to ac cept; the city's recommendat ions which had not been drafted as amendments and which the province was not planning to introduce, and in that letter we set a date of May 26th within which we asked for comments on the amend ments. So May 17th we sent the mater ial , we asked for a reply by May 26th.

Well on June 5th the Cabinet Committee on Urban Affairs met with the Chairman of the Committee on En vironment with a member of the City Legal Department and we discussed certain amend ments which the Committee of En vironment were suggesting; we accepted some of their

July 13 , 1972 418 3 (MR . CHE RNIACK cont 'd .) .... � recommendations and they are in as amendments . That 's the Co mmittee on Enviro nment� on its own, came and we discussed it . By letter of June 13th - now that 's about four weeks after my first letter -I sent a letter to the city referring to that previous letter of May 17th wherein I request comments by May 26th and indicated that subject to urgent reque sts from the city for further amendment s, I had then to proceed wi th the draft bill , and I did .

Well by letter dated June 23 rd, 1972 the city commen ted on the proposed amendments, and it requested that the reference to boards and commissions be deleted from the propo sed definition of the word "supervi se" because they didn 't want to wipe out the authority of the Bo ards and Co mmissio ns . I make that point because that 's somewhat different to the violent reactio n of the Member for Sturgeon Creek on that definition of the word "supervi se" .

They also requested the amendment adding the Deputy Mayor to the Executive Policy Co mmittee and as honourable members know , we accepted that even at that late date . They al so requested that -the amendment prohibiting the Budget Bureau from being transferred from the supervision of the Chief Co mmis sioner be deleted .

I want to say that throughout all of thi s, there were discussions frequently between the Deputy Minister and the solicitor assigned to the Urba n Affairs Co mmittee by the Attorney General with city staff, with the bo ard of commi ssioner s, wi th the legal people there in order to at least understand the different points of vie w . I believe that we have given the city a great deal of opportunity, which doesn 't mean that by next year the city will not have come along with further suggestions, further proposal s.

I don 't know a year when the City of Winnipeg Charter in the past was not amended , and in all that time - even when the Co nserva tive s were in gov ernment -t hose archaic 30 , 40 year old sections were not deleted . --(Interjectio n)-- Well the Ho nourable Member for Inkster questions my statement so I will have to tell him , check the recor ds, see if I 'm wro ng . Mr .

Chairma n , the Leader of the Libera l Party did comment, oh with equal violenc e, equal indignation on civil liberties and civil ri ghts, a man who has practi sed law in this city for a number of yea rs, who must have been working wit h the Ci ty of Winnipeg Act, who never, as far as I know, raised the question until last year when he came before the Municipal Co mmittee to deal with this Act . He read, he read it ; you know the Act has been in existence for many years but he finally read it .

And wi th indignation he came last year and we said, hold your horses, it 's waited that long, we will refer it to Law Reform Co mmissio n and we did . When we got the report we did the responsible thing, we sent it to the city . We'r e wa iting for their res ponse . That I think is responsi ble , and that I believe is right .

Now the honourable the Leader of the Liberal Party who has a great deal of municipal experience I know as solicitor for some suburban municipality I belie ve , I don't wa nt to stack his great experience against mine or other members of government, but wi th his great experi ence , has come along and stated the city is abandoned in practice and in law by the provin ce . Well, Mr .

Speaker , some of us who have lived through the lifetime of municipal councils and the Metropolitan Co rporatio n of Greater Winnipe g, know what it is to be abando ned, know what it is to have to try and knock on the door of the Provinc ial Government to discuss a matter . I remember that in Metro Co uncil we would sit and think and scheme how do we get to the door of a Minister in the Provincial Government .

How are we able to present a point of view in a manner which will be li stened to without going on the public arena and inviting the news papers to report with indig nation, wi thout having to write letters and to wait for replies . I know that's happened . I don 't know how Charle swood had access to the Province of Manitoba in the past, or St .

Jame s-As siniboia had access to the province in the pa st, but usually in my experi ence , and I don 't know about those are as, in my experience someone would say well you know the honourable mister so and so, how about your phoning him and seeing that he arrange a meet ing . And to the shame of the Metropolitan Co rporatio n of Greater Winnipeg I know that there were occa sions when a member of council who was prominent in the Co nservative Party was delegated to get to see the premier in order to get something discus sed .

Not because of his competence in any other field but beca use he was a known member of the Co nservative Party . And that happened, and that happened, because I was there and can report it . And the Hono ur able Member for Charleswood seems to accept the fact that it happened . You see , Mr. Speaker , the Honourable Member for Charleswood said he would sooner send a member of the ND P to the government than go himself. Is that correct ? --(Interjectio n)- A question ? Yes . MR . SPEAKE R: The Honourable Member for Charle swood .

41 84 July 13 , 1972 MR . ARTHUR MOUG (Charleswoo d): I wonder if the Minister could aclmowledge whether the Vice-Pre sident of the Charlesw ood constituency for the New Democratic Party came in and dealt with this government of today over phone s in the municipality and was shunned at every door of every Mini ster ? Would you agree wi th that ? MR . SPEAKER : Order , please . I should indicate questions . . . MR . CH ERNIACK: Not wi thin the !mow ledge of the . . . MR . SPEAKER: . . . a re not pertinent that are not of clarificatio n , they open up a new area . The Honourable Minist er of Finance . MR .

CHERNIA CK: Throughout last year's debate on Bill 36 , throughout the administration of the Mini stry for Urban Affairs, both when it was in my charge and that of the Honourable the Member for Inkster, there had been co nstant efforts made by the province to meet with the city on a regular basis and in order to discuss any and all problems that the city had .

And it wasn 't done pu blicly and it wasn't done with a great roar or signal of trumpets; it was done by phone call , by letters and by actual meeting s, and if anybody wants to check the expenditures of the province at the Fort Garry Ho tel they may well find a couple of luncheons there where we asked the Executive Policy Co mmittee to come , have lunch at a time when they were free and we were availa ble , in order to discuss iss ues and problems - not specific burning issues but general iss ues and problems in additio n to burning iss ues .

We have not only made the effort, we 've succeeded to a large extent in establi shing an ongoing liaiso n to the extent now where only in the last few days the city had a problem dealing - not a problem , a proposal involving one of the other departments of government , the letter came to me and I think within a matter of a day or two it was alre ady on the desk of the Minister involved in order to be dealt wi th. I think that they are getting actio n .

And let me say at thi s stage that I resent it very much when the Mayor of the Ci ty of Winnipeg or his Executive Policy Co mmittee deemed it a proper way to communi cate with me by sending a fake telegram delivered by a City of Winnipeg police man to inform me of something that I had alre ady dealt with the same day . I think that that was not a healthy way; that I think we have established healthy relations and although I resented that being done I still feel that we have a good ongoing rel ations hip with people in the city dealing with problems that ari se .

Now bo th the enthusiastic Member for Sturgeon Creek and the Leader of the Liberal Party talked about the community committee will be stripped of any substantial input, the genuine power is being remov ed . The honourable , ye s - well , Mr . Speaker , you !mow I don 't think that the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek ever really understood what was proposed in re la tion to the use and function and the liai son with the community and the electors that the com munity committee concept involv ed .

Let me tell him that they are not stripped and they are not sidewalk superintendents; they are the architects and the builder s; they participate in the con ceptualiz ati on of the overall structure and at the council level they are the actual builders of the ci ty and they supervise what goes on at the community committee level . But more important than that , they are the liaiso n between the council and the community and they are able to hear , to li sten to reports to and from the community itse lf.

They are not stripped of power s, they are clo thed, not only wi th a right of examining the fabric of the society but measuring the local needs and particip ating in the making of policy to meet the needs of the whole of the community and then followed by direct observance of the program .

And let 's not pretend that last year when we discussed the purpose and function of the community committees we always made it clea r that there was one legal authority centered in the Ci ty of Winnipeg , that there was one employer , there was one negotiator , there was one lJody responsible for the delivery of services and somehow or other we got hung up on the word supervision . There is no change in intent , there is no change in program , there is a discussio n on the definition of the word "supervis e" .

Beca use it's inconceivable that the legal authority of the Ci ty of Winnipeg to hire, to fire , to negotiate , to direc tly wo rk for us is not that again of the Cit y of Winnipe g. If they delegate it they are still re sponsible for it . And somehow or other again there came to be some interpretatio n that would suggest that "supervi se" in thi s context meant the dicti onary definition that related to control ,

whereas it is clear I believe in all the debates we have that the word "supervise" in the context of the bill and the intent of the bill was the dictio nary definition which is now being proposed as an amendment in order to clarify . That is, to watch, observe and make qualitative assess ment of . That was the intent and it doesn 't change in any way the intent from last year . Now , both members that I referred to made some reference to fiscal base . The Member

July 13, 1972 4185 (MR . CHE RNIACK cont' d.) ..... for the Liberal Party , the Leader , said, we 're not ready, the Ci ty is not ready to meet the challenge of the future. And he 's ri ght. There is a real fiscal burden on the real property tax base . And to this day in spite of a number of invi tations - and again I say it without accusation -t he Ci ty Co uncil has not been in a posit ion and has not been available to start discussing fiscal capacity , fiscal needs, budget requirements , because they've been busy, and because this too has been something going on all along, but we didn 't wa it .

Members of this House know very well we didn 't wait . We did substantial shifting of the burden off the real property tax, we did substantial inputs of provincial revenue money into the cost of education . We also did some substantial changes in the rev enue of the Ci ty of Winnipe g, which I've had occasio n to describe in the pa st. So we di dn't wait, we found sources of revenue and methods to lift the burden off the real property taxpayer . We did it; though we have not yet , not yet, had a meeting with city represen tatives to discuss fiscal capacity and other budgetary requireme nts .

And I 'm not saying that accusingly, we have not had time - at least the Ci ty Co uncil has not had time to do it . But you know it 's all very well to talk the way the Leader of the Liberal Party di d, it 's all very well to say , give them fiscal room; share the costs . Well we are cost-s haring; we 're cost- sharing in educatio n , we 're co st-sharing in welfare , we 're cost-s haring in health, to a very substantial degree ; so co st-sharing is what has been going on . But we want to start talking about fiscal capacity, tax room . Doe s the City of Winnipeg want the right to income tax ? I don 't know .

Do they want the right to impose a sale s tax ? I don 't know . Do they want the right to increase their licences? I don't know . Do they want the right to increase busine ss tax - and again the Leader of the Liberal Party in his apparent ignorance thought that this wa s some thing new , that the business tax rates were set in the act as if we had introduced something. This has been traditio nal , it 's in the Municipal Act, it 's been in the Metro Act all along, and it can be changed - the Ci ty only has to ask. We don't know what the City thinks about fiscal capacity and tax room . Should we do it for them?

Which member opposite would say that we should do it for them without co nsultatio n , without discussio n ? And should we raise income taxes for Cit y of Winnipeg dwellers and not for those outside of the City of Winnipe g, or should we increase sales taxe s for them so that there's competition between them and Selkirk, and them and Morr is, and them and Portage la Prairie ? Is that what should be done, wi thout co nsultation ? Settle ·down gentlemen of the Oppositio n who think that way, and think in terms of a rational approach and a rational discus sion; and that is what we 've been inviting all along .

Now there is talk - oh, I should inform the Ho nourable Member for Sturgeon Creek that when he uses the cons olidated act which he has in loose -leaf form , it 's not the official legis lation of the city, for the official legi slation one has to lo ok at the statutes. And he referred to some

section which speaks of 48 councillo rs, and I have to tell him that it 's an error in print . The original bill was passed referring to 50 councillors . I' m told that the revised statutes, which is a red bound volume , which is the offic ial act, refers to 50 councilio rs, but this con solidated version that he and I were referring to does say 48 . I've drawn it to the attention of the Minister responsible and it will be corrected . So there is not that contradiction that he thought there was . And I certainly don 't blame him for thinking it was because it 's there in black and white .

He approves the subdivision control and I'm glad he does beca use he studied it and he does have informatio n about it . He speaks of the electio n of the mayor at large , and the reaso n I have written down here is that it would bring out a large turnout . -- (Interjectio n)-- No ? Oh , I'm glad . I 'm glad he didn't. I have it written down ; it must be one of the newspapers, Free Press, that gave that as a reaso n . --(Interjectio n)-- Pardon ? --(Interjectio n)-- Oh, it did , but that is n't the rea son for it ? Well , Mr .

Speaker , we 've had considerable debate last year on this question and we will have considerable debate again . Let me inform honourable members that I do not know the reasons given by council for their motion that they passed rec ently , and until we have an oppor tunity to talk to them and see what the history has been, see how it devel ops, see the effective ness of the mayor elected popularly and the mayor elected from amongst his peer s, who does represent a constituency and was elected as designed in the original bill; till we do that we really shouldn't be rushing ahead again .

The honourable member will say , "Don't rush . Take your time. Do things right . 11 And if there is no rush we shouldn't be bulldozed into rushing ahead .

4186 July 13, 1972 (MR . CHE RNIACK cont' d.) Now the Municipal Bo ard, the Member for Sturgeon Cr eek referred to it that it is used as a tool to carry out the provincial will . I suppose it doesn't bother him at all that he is casting a reflection on the boa rd . I suppose he 's not one bit concerned about the people on the Municipal Bo ard who do the job that was assig ned to them, I pre sume to the best of their ability , I pre sume wi th integrity , I presume with a sense of independence .

But the Member for Sturgeon Creek doesn't hesitate for one moment to say , they are the tools of the Provincial Government. Well ; he has his style and he can keep his style , if he is prepared to talk in that manner . I don't share that and I don 't share it because I' ve had a little experience. My experience is that I have never , as Minister of Urban Affairs or in any other capacity , never discussed a Municipal Bo ard matter with-a member of a Municipal Boa rd . Now, of course , maybe I'm exceptional . Maybe other governments have done that .

Maybe the Member for Sturgeon Creek is so sus picio us about what goes on in government because he has other kinds of experience; but I can say that as far as I am concerned, and I believe I can speak for the Member for Inkster, that the Municipal Board did not receive direction . So how are they tools ? They are tools - well , the honourable member is amused by the way I twist things , but the fact is he is the one , he is the one who ca st reflection on the Municipal Bo ard .

He is the one who called them a tool , and I can speak for the time that I was personally involve d, and speak for their integri ty, and speak for the fact that never has pre ssure been put on them to iny knowledge or in my presence . So it 's not true .

But I do understa nd that the Municipal Bo ard has made the practi ce, in previous years and under previous governments as they did now , that when the City of Winnipe g, or Metro or whatever suburb , would pres ent a proposed capital budget and request for authority , showing that half the money would be received from the provincial source, the Municipal Boa rd would say , "Are you assured that you're getting that half money from the proVincial source ?" And until you could show that you are, they held up the item .

Now my understanding is that if the application was for lOO percent funding, the Municipal Board would have proceeded with it on the basis of its normal instruction s. But in the ca se of my own experience with the latest re quest by the Ci ty of Winnipeg, the holdup was that the Ci ty of W {i:mipeg had not complied with the regular proced ure and had not asked the Province of Manitoba to indicate whether or not it wo uld accept the share of cost which the City had stated would be paid. And until they got that indicatio n the board would not approve those particular items but it approved others.

The Municipal Boa rd was not used as a tool , and the question of the use of the Municipal Bo ard is still a matter - where you heard the Member for Rhineland speak on it - many members here have had experience wi th the Municipal Bo ard and have deemed it advisable that there should be that kind of restraint, review re straint , and I'm not aware of any refusal that the City of Winnipeg has had . Delay , ye s. What 's wro ng with some delay in making impo rtant decisions as long as it 's not unreaso nable ?

And to that extent I would accept it and I would think that it is something wo rkable but something that has to be reviewed from time to time . The Member for Charlesw ood made some very important comments dealing with a tax impac t, and he did mention the

section of the act, I think

Section 25 7, which does give the Ci ty power to remit taxes - I forget the exact wording but I think he 's right about that

section . That section, Mr . Speaker , which says that "E xcept for local improvement charges, a council may by by-law cancel in whole or in part any taxes or any debit or moneys owing to the Cit y." That

section was drawn to the attention of the City of Winnipeg at the time when there was a news paper report of the fear that people in the Charleswood area and other farm ers in the City of Winnipeg, that they had that they would not get the remis sion that the Metro Co rporatio n pro vided for them .

And at that time it was drawn to the attention of the City of Winnipeg, because the City of Winnipeg does have the right , did have the rig ht , could have carried out the ri ght and still can make the proper adjustment ; and the Ho nourable Member for Charleswood recog nized it but he spoke about a serious pro blem , and you know, I fully agree . When he talked about the assess ment problem , that is another problem . The problem of the assessment of land in the outer perim eter , the outer area of Winnipeg is a serious one . We made a proposal to the reeves of the additional zone area .

We said to them, we will be prepared to pass legis latio n to roll back the difference between the use for agricultural purposes and the assess ment so that when you sell , at that time , when you make a gain , if you make a gain based on the de sire to buy your land not for farm purp oses but for development subdivision and for speculation , at that time you pay the difference between what you would have paid and what you did pay , pro Viding it is not so much as to cut into the value of your land as agricultural . I believe that that

July 13 , 1972 4187 (MR . CH ERNIACK cont'd .) . . . . . is the nature of the proposal we made . They rejected it . They had a right to reject it, but at least we made a proposal and we brought forward the for mula . So we don 't really feel that we haven 't made an effort . Now the other effort , and I know I've asked the Member for Charles wood several times in the course of thi s ses"Sion, what does he think about whether or not the areas of Charleswood and Hea dingley and other areas beyond the Perimeter ought to remain in the Ci ty of Winnipeg .

And I still don't think that I got an answer from him . -- (Interjection) -- Oh . The Member for Inkster, I 'm glad he corrected me , beca use - the Member for Charleswood said it . I don't think the Member for Assinib oia answered me . I don 't believe he said, he gave an opini on . We ll, he 's not saying that he did so I as sume he didn't . That 's my memory , that he didn' t, but my memory was faulty wi th the Member for Charles wood . But the fact is, I think it ought to be revie wed, and shall I tell honourable members some thing ?

I asked the Ci ty informally , I asked them formally to revie w it and they're still review ing it, but informally I spoke to some councillors who I thought had some influence in council , I asked them about it , and you know I had a response , and I'm not quoting anybody because this was so informal , I had a re sponse which made me think that some people within the Cit y of Winnipeg structure would like the boundaries of the Ci ty of Winnipeg to be so wide and so exten sive that they could control more and more in order to prevent sprawl and in order to nrevent devel opment other than within the Ci ty of Winnipe g.

And I don 't really think that that is ri ght. But again , I don't think we should force our will without co nsultation . The result is that we are meeting -w ell , we 're planning to meet wi th the area, I forget their formal name , but it's the reeves of the suburban areas around the Ci ty of Winnipe g, it 's the people who are affected in that area and the Ci ty of Winnipeg, so we can discuss a rational approach to what you do about green belt control , what you do about zoning, what you do to prevent proliferatio n of growth and how to confine it . And may I say , Mr .

Speaker , again speaking for myself and not for govern ment , I don 't think that there 's a great rush for the Ci ty of Winnipeg to grow . I think that some people have an idea that growth is a great thing, that if the Ci ty of Winnipeg grows from 500 ,0 00 to 600, 000 in the next two years it 's a great thing .

I think that one of the great values of the Ci ty of Winnipeg - and I 'm speaking of the new Cit y of Winnipeg - is the slow growth pattern which has permit ted adjustment, permitted de vel opment at an orderly rate , and that there should not be a rush to build building s, to expand the populatio n , to try and get the people from outside areas of Manitoba to come running in to live in the Cit y of Winnipeg. There are many , I know , many people who enjoy rural life, and I wouldn't like to try and force them economically or persuade them to come rushing into the City of Winnipeg in a hurry .

So I say that the question of boundarie s, which does affect the tax matter , is something that we really have to study and we want to . We want to, Mr . Speaker , we 've in vited others to do so . They're not ready and I don 't criticize them because the fact is that they are wo rking hard . But that's what we want to do . Meanwhil e,

Section 25 7 of the act gives the power to the city to do it . If they don 't do it, don 't bla me the provin ce . It 's their re sponsibility; they should do it; as Metro did it while Metro was around . Metro had the power to cancel out the taxation for its levy ; it did it . The Ci ty of Winnipeg has the same right . I should mention to the Ho nourable Member for Charleswood that what I've been able to see about Char leswood is that the growth pattern there is tremendous . I think it 's greater than possibly any other area in Winnipe g.

I honestly would like him not to say anything about it here but to go home and think about what the municipality ofCharles wood would have to face in the next year , the next five years , by way of demands for services to a growing community. provi sion of sewer s, provision of wa ter , pro visio n of all the amenities, garbage collec tion , police, fire protectio n . Do n' t tell us; just think your self about the future growth in Charles wo od and what it will cost all those people who pay taxes in the Ci ty of Winnipeg outside of the area of the former Municipality of Charles wood . Well , Mr .

Chai rman , I know I'v e spoken a little too lengthily maybe because I get a little exer cis e , as other members do on occasio n . I do have a list of proposals made by the Ci ty ofWinnipeg for amendments which we did not proceed wit h . I can review them, although! think probably they will be at the committee bringing their proposals in . I think it would save time ifl po stponed that item until we actually meet in committee in order to be able to hear bo th points of view . There is not much point in my saying they asked for a change to

section so and so, and we thought itw asn 't desirable for whatever reaso n . Pos sibly bywa y of a dial ogue in committee we could explore it more fully . I think in the main that this bill has to be acceptable mainly because as I said earli er , the criticism of it is not what it con tains but what it doesn 't contain . Therefore, Mr . Chairman, I solicit the support of all members to have this bill proceed into committee and be dealt with at that level . MR . DEP UTY SPE AKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motio n carri ed .

4188 July 13, 1972 MR. SP EAKER: The Honourable Member for Radisson. MR. HARRY SHAFRANSKY (Radisson) : Mr. Speaker,. by leave I would like to make some changes in the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs , The Member for - put the name of the Member for Gimli in substitution for the Member for .Flin. Flon, and the Honourable Minister of Hi ghways in substitution for the Member for Radisson; the Honoura ble Minister of Fi nance . and Urban Affairs for the Member for Osborne; also add the name of the Member for Ass iniboia which inadvertently had been omitted when the list was first prepared.

The,re is a total com pos ition of the Municipal Affairs Co mmittee of 17, there were only 16 lif?ted. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: (Agreed) The Honour able Fi:r-st Minist .er. MR. SCHREYER: ..• notice the Member for Fort Garry, and therefo re I would ask you to eaU Bill 108. MR. DEPUTY SP EAKER: The proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Colleges and Universities. The Honoura ble Member for Fort Garry. . . · MR. SH ERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, Bill 108 of course comes as no surprise to us or to any body in this Chamber, because just � few weeks ago the First Minister announced that a merger would be fo rthcoming , would be developed among four of the major health inst itutions in Winnipeg, namely, the Winnipeg General Hospital, the Winnipeg Children 's Hospi tal, the Manitoba Rehabil itation Hospi tal and the Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Centre.

And this legis lation now gives real ity and ac tuali ty to that announcement by the First Minister, so we were prepared for it and we approach it from the point of view of an interesting but a so mewhat controversial government experim ent in the health sc iences and health services field. Mr. Speaker, there are two or three things about the legisl ation that I want to say, and basic ally I want to make the

preamble stateme nt that the jury is still out on the kind of compact, centr alized health sc iences centre envisioned in this legis lation, and the jury may be out on it for some time.

It is yet to be demonstrated in my opin ion that ti:J.is kind of centra liz ation im plicit in this legis lation is either a good thing for the profess ions involved in the health sc iences field; fo r the patients involved, the public, the consu mers ; and most important of all, for those people in our community and in .our socie ty who work in a voluntary capacity and who have developed and written a long and a noble tradition of volunta ry se rvice in the health sc iences and health se rvices field.

So we'll be watching it with a particularly critical and a particularl y cons cie ntious eye in the weeks and months ahead, Mr. Speaker, and we would ho pe that the Minister will be doing the same thing - and we can assure the Minister that we will be dogging his heels at every turn to make sure that the kind of direction that he's taking here in this legisl ation ac hieves the goals that he feels so confident about. The bill got a lofty se nd-off or a lofty launching from the Minister last evening, Mr.

Speaker, and one can only ho pe in the interests of those who consume the health services made available here in Winnipeg and in Manitoba by our profess ional people in the field that those attainments, those objectives which the Minister outlined, really and truly are possible, really and truly will be realized. In his remarks last night the Minister pronounced the ceremonial bless ing and cut the ceremonial ribbon and in fact, Mr. Speaker, smas hed the figurative bottle of champagne against the prow and this legis lation like a ship bei ng launched, now slips down the way.

One can only hope that the whole project and the wh ole concept and the whole centre doesn't capsize, doesn't capsize, Mr. Speaker, when it's put to the test of health services consum ption. Last evening the Minister in opening debate on sec ond reading said that this legisl ation will create a si ngle board that will supervise and oversee the administration of four health •mits, that is the Winnipeg General Hospital, the Winnipeg Childre n's Hospital, the Rehab Hospi tal and the Cancer Treatment and Researc h Centre. He said that it repres ents a more systematic approach to planning and administration.

He says that it involves and implies inte grated plans rather than comp etitive plans, and he said, Sir, that it will provide a more effect ive and effici ent service to the people of Manito ba. That's a paraphrase es sentially of what the Minister said about the legisl ation, at least what he said in terms of what he felt the legisl ation promised, and the potential of the legis lation - and I can assu re him that all of us on this si de of the House earnestly ho pe that his hopes and his ambitions in this respect come true.

But we cannot si mply ac cept the kind of health sc iences cen tre proposed in the legis lation and the kind of concept in terms of delivery of health sc iences implicit in this legis lation at face value, Mr. Speaker, without rais ing one or two constructively critical perspec tives that we think the Minister and his colleagues and the First Minister must keep in mind in this field.

July 13 , 1972 4189 (MR. SHERMAN cont'

d) In the first place, on a philosop hical level, the legislation really reflects a trend that we are by experience somewhat suspicious of, Mr. Speaker. We don't necessarily altogether de plore the trend implicit in this bill, but it does represent a direction that we have learned through experience, deserves some suspicion and some careful scrutiny, and that is the trend towards centralization.

We don't believe that centralization necessarily is always a good thing, and I think that the concept from which the government and the Minister in particular approached this legislation, and put it together is the philosophical position that says the reverse.

I feel that the Minister has started here from the concept that centralization is a good thing in itself, and therefore in order to achieve the kinds of objectives that he would like to see, in other words more efficient and better professional health service for Manitobans, we centralize, because that's the solution when you have this kind of diffuse society and diffuse apparatus of services that exists at the present time. I don't accept the philosophical argument on face value that centralization is going to solve the problems necessar ily, but I say as I said at the outset of my remarks, Mr.

Speaker, that the jury is out on this question and the jury is this opposition; and the jury is the people of Manitoba, and in time we'll know whether centralization in this case has achieved the necessary results, the desired results. But certainly one can't answer in the affirmative at this point, and I find it difficult to share the enthusiasm of the Minister for the objectives that he feels are at hand as a consequence of this legislation. I want the same objectives but I don't share his enthusiasm that this is the route through which we will obtain them.

What happens in the kind of apparatus being put together here, is that you get a hugeness, Mr. Speaker, that can be equated in human terms all too often with a remoteness.

And we have had in the past examples of - not necessarily in the health sciences field, but in our society at large, in Canadian society at large - of a remoteness through huge bureaucratic top-heavy apparatus that has led to an alienation, an alienation and a demoralization on the part of the general public, And if we have an alienation and a demoralization and a cynicism on the part of the general public where their health services are concerned that is a problem, a situation that can be extremely serious and_ critical for our society and is devoutely to be avoided in my view.

I fear that the kind of centralization conceptualized here is that kind of development that can lead to a remoteness and a feeling of removal on the part of the consumer, on the part of the public fromt:he institution itself with which the public wants to identify. In this case the institution is some form, some facet, some expression of medical service, whether it be a hospital, whether it be a rehabili tation centre, whether it be a treatment institution of some kind, whether it be a doctor.

The institution is medical service, and if the public feels removed and remote and distant from that medical service then half the battle that medicine is supposed to perform for people is already lost because the confidence in the communication so necessary to proper and vital medical service is absent right at the outset. So I ask the Minister whether the centralization that is involved in this kind of legislation is necessarily a good thing, and I think a strong case can be made for the opposite.

The trouble with centralization and the trouble with the kind of hugeness that is reflected in the consolidation of the sort that is involved in this bill, is that it leads to as I have said, a loss of a s ense of communication, but it leads also to a loss of independence on the part of those indi vidual units that have been consolidated. It leads to a loss of autonomy on the part of those individual units that have been consolidated and it leads to a loss of identity, and I'm not so much concerned with the individual units themselves when I speak of those losses, Mr.

Speaker, but I am concerned with the people who work for them and in particular, those who work for them in a voluntary capacity and do what is generally referred to as a labour of love.

We have here in this legislation four particular centres of excellence that have been developed in Manitoba and in Winnipeg, which are now at the administrative level, being con solidated really into one huge massive apparatus - gone will be the individual administrative identity of the Winnipeg General Hospital - gone will be that individual unique identity of the Winnipeg Childrens Hospital, gone will be that individual identity of the Rehab Centre and similarly the individual identity of the Cancer Treatment Centre.

Now there are some obvious advantages in terms of streamlining of office work and clerical work to be achieved through consolidation and unification, but there are obvious dis advantages, Mr. Speaker, and I would hope that the Minister and the First Minister and the government in general have not lost sight of some of the more recent lessons we have had in Canada in this vein. I think we need look no further than the unification program introduced

41 90 Ju ly 13 , 1972 (MR, SH ERMAN cont'd) • • . • • in the Armed Forces in the past few years to identify some of the difficulties that cannot be surmounted easily and quickly if in fact, they can be surmounted at all in these areas that I've talked about, namely the areas of morale and identity and autonomy.

The individual unit involved in the consolidation here are units that have looked in the past for the most part to se lfless service on the part of volunteer boards and affiliated guilds , and tho se volunteers have been motivated by a sense of pride in the identity they have with that individual medical institution, whether it's the General Hospi tal or the Childre n's Hospital or whatever.

They have been encouraged by the kind of response that they have had from the administrators of those institutions and they have been heartened by the kind of responsibili ty of leadership that's been given them by the administrators of those institutions. The result has been that in a competitively healthy manner, the guilds and volunteer boards and other agencies and workers asso ciated with th ose individual inst itut ions have strive n to achieve heights for the respective institutions with which they have bee n associ ated that I don 't think could be equalled in a different working framewo rk.

They are ac hievements that have been ac hievements of the heart and the spirit.

They have not been pursued, and they have not been ac complished fo r moneta ry gain; they have not bee n pursued and they have not been ac com plish ed for social prestige; they have not been pur sued and they have not been acc omplish ed as a result of any partic ular vested interest; they have been pursued, and acc omplished through the heart and the spirit of the individual vo lun teers who have found that the kind of thing that they can do in socie ty, from which they derive a sense of contribution , is work for inst itutions of this kind, give of their time and their effo rts and their talents freely for institutions of this kind and compete healthfully with each other, and among each other, to achieve the best and the most successf ul records.

That's the kind of motivation that money can't buy and it's a kind of motivation that government, no governo r, government by any party can not ac hieve through legis lation or through will. It's a kind of motivation that is very precious , Mr. Speaker, and that is to be encouraged and nourished wherever pos si ble and is to be protected against the dangers of bureaucracy and the dangers of government ali zation which I think tend to dis courage people all too often from givi ng freely of their time.

I think when institutions become bureaucratized and too heavily government alized there is a cyni cism that sets in that dis courages people from givi ng freely of their time and their talents and their efforts and their energies. There's an attitude of on well it's a government propos ition now and it's a huge amorphous kind of board that runs this centre. We have no identity, we have no place in it we really don't have the heart or the feeling or the spirit any: more to do the kind of work that we used to do in that environment because that environment no longer exists.

We'll go and give our time somewhere else, to some other organizatio ns , to some other agency. I know there's a se ction in the bill that says that the volunt eers associ ated with the institutions going into this cons olid ation will be encouraged to continue, but, Sir, that at this point represe nts mere lip service to an ideal in my view and is no guarantee that concrete effo rts will be made to maintain the kind of atmosphere that volun teer work flourishes in.

On the contra ry, I'm afraid that when we mo ve into these areas of concentrated centralization and sort of over government control the dis enchantment of the volunteer worker is inevitab le and I would think that the Minister and his colleagues are going to have their hands full if they expect that the motivation and the morale of volunt eer workers can be maintained under this kind of mechanism and this kind of apparatus , at any where near the level that it has flourished and existed in the past where these institutions oper ated relatively independently.

Most of our health services institutions as I've said, Mr. Speaker, have survived and prospered as a con flequence of volunteer work over the years and the Minister has got to be concerned with the retention and the maintenan ce of the kind of atmo sphere that will continue to motivate people to do volunteer work. There are other sec tions in the legis lation that equally demand careful sc rutiny and atten tion both from us and from the public and from the Minister, Mr. Speaker.

There's se ctions pertaining speci fically to the four inst itutions that I've mentioned which raised the question as to whether the capital construction desired by some of tho se institutions can now go ahead.

Whether the building progr ams that the Winnipeg General Hosp ital and the Manitoba Cancer Treatment and the Research Foundation Centre in particular have desired and have been waiting for for sometime can now go ahead, and whether those institutions can fulfill their desires to develop the facilities and the capa cities that they've got to the degree to which the public now demands the services offered therein.

July 13, 1972 4191 (MR. SH ERMAN cont'

d) Mr. Speaker, another

section deals with individual standing committees of the board that will have specific responsibili ties and it opens up a whole further area of concern. And that is the concern that I have and that many members of the public have and that certainly the mem bers of the existing Board of Directors of the Winnipeg Children 's Hospital have as to the con tinuation of a high level of interest and professionalism in the field of child health care.

There is a deep concern and it's been expressed publicly and through the press, and I know the Minis ter is aware of it, that in the kind of consolidation and merger that's taking place here in this legislation, the requirements and the needs in the Child Health Care field will be subordinated and will be downgraded, and will be pigeonholed in a relative sense compared to those things that will be done at the level of the adult services to be provided.

It was not long ago that the chairman of the Winnipeg Childre n's Hospi tal spoke to the press and was reported in the press as having made an urgent appeal to the government and to the Minister for some assurance that the requirements and the obj ectives in the field of child health care would be protected in any kind of consolid ation that was going to take place, and in a report which I saw that I think was carried in the Winnipeg Tribune, that board chairman went on to say that she was so mewhat disappointed in the fact that she had not received any such assu rance and she was still extremely anxious with respect to the fate of the Children 's Hospital and the who le field of child health care if the legisl ation that we now have before us was enacted.

That board chairman pointed out that in her view and the view of some of her colleagues on the board, a grave danger exists that the special requirements of children, the special requirements in the field of child health care, will not receive the proper emphasis and the prop�r attention that they had been getting in the past under any such merger as is en ac ted here.

She feels that the only solution would be a separate board or at least some kind of separate administrative unit that would make sure that child health care needs, services and requirements were continually maintained at an equal level of importance and emphasis on the agenda of the administration of this new Health Sciences Centre. She called in fact for a Child Health Council and she felt it could serve as a part of the new super-board of directors for this entire new Centre. Those safeguards have not been forthcoming in a sati sfactory manner, Mr. Speaker. There is a

section in the bill, and no doubt the Minister will refer to it when he closes debate, that says that standing committees of the board will be set up to deal with specific subjects, specific fields, one of which is commtmity health care and related research, and the other of which is child health care and related research. The only diffi culty is, Mr. Speaker, that that

section - and I can't deal with it specifically I know - that

section is ambiguous in i ts pres ent wording, and I would ask the Minister to have another look at it. The

section do.es not guarantee or ensure that either one of those standing committees will specifically be charged with the responsib ility for looking after child health care, because the wording of the

section is ambiva lent and ambigu ous, but more than that, the

section really only repres ents a kind of a tokenism, a kind of a lip service to the demands that I've referred to, th ose demands of the chairman of the Winnipeg Child ren's Hospital board, Mrs. Mary Grierson, as reported in the press a few weeks ago and to which I referred a few minutes ago. It seems to me that what's happened here is that in response to the things that Mrs. Grierson has said, the gover nment has inserted a

section in the bill which purportedly will take care of the problem, but it doesn't nail down the kind of specific responsibilities that the whole board, the whole administrative setup for this new Health Sciences Centre is going to have for acting on the needs and requir ements of the Children's Hospi tal unit, for acting on the needs and requirem ents for services and develop ments in the child health care field. Even if the

section was clear - and as I say the way it 's presently worded it isn't clear - even if it were clear, Mr. Speaker, it would not have any teeth in it. The bill as pres ently written does not say that the administrative apparatus for this new centre has to be responsive or has to act on needs and requirements in the child health care field that are reported to it at a regular pres cribed scheduled time.

It writes the whole thing off as a subject that can be pigeonholed with a standing committee, and presumably that standing committee can sit as often or as infrequently as it likes and can sweep as many problems as it likes under the tab le. So the worry and the concern of the people in the child health care field has not been met by the legislation, and I think it's incumbent upon the Minister to add ress himself to that ques tion, be cause surely the goals and the obj ectives which he specified last night are goals and

41 92 Ju ly 13, 1972 (MR. SH ERMAN cont 'd) .•.•• obj ec tives which he would wish to be applie d to the whole spec trum of consumerism in the field of Manitoba health services. The Minister is not just concerned with services in the adult health field and he's not just concerned with services in the cancer treatment field, he's no more restri cted or restri cted in his view on that subject than Mrs. Grierson is or than I am or than anybody in this Chamber is. He is interested in deliveri ng effic iently and effectively the best health care services that he can to the whole spec trum of Manitoba socie ty.

I know that, and I'm sure that the chairman of the Winnipeg Childre n's Hospital knows that. The trou ble is that philosophy and abstract ideals are one thing, the facts are anothe r; and the fact is that the way the legisl ation is pres ently worded, under a centr alized apparatus such as will be establis hed by this bill, there is a very definite danger that certain fields of interest and professionalism that have received devout attention from volunteers in the past will be subordinated and will be give n sec ond best or third best treatment under the kind of mechanism we have here. And, Mr.

Speaker, the legis lation does not answer those fears, does not solve that problem; and so this is an area that I think the Minister and the government must address them se lves to before they ask for the support of the oppos ition on this particular bill. Othe rwise, Mr. Speaker, the legis lation is an interesting experiment, as I have said. We'll be watching it and watching the Minister's appli cation of it very keenly in the months ahead.

We believe that if he can solve the problem of equal treatment and equal attention fo r all se ctors of the co=unity and answer the worries and the concerns of those interested in child health care, for example, and if he can devise a system that will enable Manitobans somehow not to feel removed and remote from this huge apparatus that's being establis hed in the health care field, and if he can devise a system -nhereby he can some how maintain the morale necessary to get the best from the best volunteers who 've always worked in this field in the past, then he'll have so mething here. But, Mr.

Speaker, that's a tall order. MR. SP EAKER: The Honourab le Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. INEZ TRUEMAN (Fort Rouge) : Mr. Speaker, I move, sec onded by the Member from Rock Lake, that the debate be adjourned. MR. SPE AKER pres ented the motion and after a vo ice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Honourable Member for Thompson, who has the adjournment on Bill 70, the six month ho ist, expressed earlier today the poss ibil ity of his absence for a day or two .

I'm prepared to acc o=odate my honoura ble friend, to call Bill 70, if he has enough time to do so between now and 5:30, and if that meets with the agree ment of my ho noura ble friend, and I do want to acc o mmo date him, knowing his interest in this, I'm prepared, Mr. Speaker, to ask you to call the amendment to Bill 70. MR. SP EAKER: The Honour able Member for Thompson. MR. BOROWSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I'm not looking forwa rd to speaking on this bill again because it's an unpleasa nt and distas teful bill to deal with and I'm put in a pos ition where once again I have to take a few strips off the New Babelonian government for bringing in this bill. I want to first of all say I'm going to relu ctantly vote for the hoist. I say reluctantly be cause I really would prefer if we dealt with the bill; a clean kill defeated and no government would have the courage to attempt to impose their skid row morality on Manitoba again for perhaps four years.

The hoist will kill it for this year but I think it will probably be brought back next year, and I certainly don 't want to put the House through the same heart-rending decis ion that some of us have to make here in dealing with it. Before I start, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a couple of news items, and this is from the "Morality in Media", April 1971 issue "Man and Wife" ruled obs cene. Tampa Florida. Late in January Judge Hodges held a film "Man and Wife" to be obs cene and made permanent an order prohib iting anyone in Hillsbury County from showing it in a place where the public is permi tted.

Judge Hodges said there must be real concern to protect our citize ns from exposure to the pollution of filth, indecency, pornogr aphy and obs cenity, which defile and desecrace and add to the increas ing bes tiality of the mo ral asp ects of our so ciety and rob it of dignity , refine ment, and sens itive capacity for civilized enri chment. " The sec ond quote is from Washington, "A Clerk in downtown Washington, D. C. 's adult book store was sentenced early in March to one year in prison and a $3, 000 fine by Superior Court Judge Charles Hallock.

Noting that bus iness men and citize ns are complaining about the filth and corruption of the downtown area, the Judge said, 'Sir, in my view you are a polluter

July 13, 1972 41 93 (MR, BOROWSKI cont'd ) .••.. of the morality and decency of the city, now making your livi ng in the sale of filt h'. The sentence was the harshest ever impo sed in a mis demeanour obs cenity case in Washingto n. " Mr, Speaker, if I wanted or if anyone wanted to capit alize in

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-4-159
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 4th hansardpdf 159.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	91aae30a20f1d702f546d304fdc342ba7018200f

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