Manitoba Hansard — 24 July 1971 (Sitting 136, 29th Legislature, 3rd Session)

29-3-136

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 7:00 o'clock, Saturday, July 24, 1971 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. 3111 MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees; Ministerial Statements; Tabling of Reports; Notices of Motion; Introduction of Bills; Oral Questions. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. GEGRGE HENDERSON (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the First Minister. Has this government done away with the Censor Board? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON.

EDWARD SCHREYER (Premier) (Rossmere): The Honourable Member for Pembina, did I hear him correctly, the Censor Board? No, there's been no abolition of the Censor Board, there's been a report brought in recommending certain change in the function of the Censor Board, more emphasis on classification but not an abolition of the Board as such. MR. HENDERSON: Has the number on the Censor Board been reduced? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, the number on the Board has not been reduced in any "", deliberate way; however, there has been a reduction in the Board's numbers simply by attrition, that is to say, one or two have resigned for personal reasons and we intend to take some action to fill the vacancies. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable House Leader. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SIDNEY SPIVAK, Q.C. (Leader of the Opposition) (River Heights): Mr.

Speaker, before we proceed, I wonder if the House Leader would indicate what the government's intention is today, this evening insofar as the procedures are concerned. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. HON. SIDNEY GREEN, Q.C. (Minister of Mines, Resources and EnVironmental Manage ment) (Inkster): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I thought we would proceed with the bills on the Order Page at the third reading stage, as many as we can. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, one of the committee's just completed their deliberations at 7:00 o'clock; many of our members were present.

They have worked through since 2:30 to 7, they have not eaten. I gather the other committee did not finish until quarter to 6. I gather as well that the delegations that were present in the Agricultural Committee were not completed in their presentation and they've been asked to come back for 2:30 Monday. I wonder again, we intend to debate and to do the things that are required, but at the same � time, of the members who are present here I think there are only possibly two who have had I their supper already. I'm not sure on the government side because I'm not sure who on the government --(Interjection) -- what?

I'm not sure who on the government side were present at the other meetings, and I don't know what committees they belong to and what committees they've been on. I think it's a bit unfair. I have to suggest that, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. GREEN: If we're going to talk about unfairness, I just want to have the record clear, that it was not our stated intention that we would call the House in session tonight.

I approached the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition earlier in the day; I explained to him exactly what we intended to do, I asked him whether he would agree that we sat till 1:30 in the morning. I asked him whether he would agree that we then reconvened at 2:30, and the two committees. I asked him whether he would be willing to sit tonight and his words were," yes, I'd like to sit tonight, I'd like to get done with the work. "Those were his words. Now on that basis, Mr.

Speaker, we called a session for tonight, so I don't mind the statements being made, but I don't want it to be alleged that there is some unfairness on our side. What we have done tonight was with full concurrence and agreement of the Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, on the same point. I'm not quarreling with the statements -- (Interjection) -- let me say this to the House Leader. I'm not quarreling with the statement

311 2 July 24, 1971 (MR. SPIVAK cont'd.) • • or the chronological order of what he. suggested, but at the time there was consent given or an e,greement arrived at with respect to 7:00 o'clock, there was no consideration that one of the committees would sit right until 7:00; and I can understand what took_ place. I'm not quarreling the fact that there were delegations that were present that had to be heard. But the truth of the matter is that members were present at the committee who have not eaten, and some of them are in the House, some of them are not in the House.

We're intended to deal with the bills and finish and proceed with them. We have not -- and I repeat again, and I want to repeat this once more so there won •t be any question on the record -- we have not been obstructionist in the manner in which we have handled ourselves_ in trying to deal and facilitate the government handling their matters.

I want to suggest at this particular time, because I believe the decision would be to debate the Unicity bill now, as an example, and to proceed with the other bills and I think it is rather unfortunate that at least there is not a period of time for those who wanted to have sup per, to have supper and to provide some kind of arrangement.

At the same time, if the House Leader is going to indicate to us that we're going to sit until 9:00 o'clock or 9:30 then the ju�gment would have to be arrived at at this point as to whether we want to proceed on that basis and then kllow that those who have not eaten will at least be able to eat at a :reasonable time. Now that's the decision we just have to arrive at and we need some information from the government. . "MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition need not fear that we are regarding their actions as having been obstructionist in recent days. No one sug' gested that, and I thirik the Honourable Leader of the Opposition is being overly ·sensitive for no purpose. The other point that the Honourable Leader of the Opposition seems to rely on for his argument is that the Agricultural Committee :rriet right up until 7:00 o'clock, that is true.

The reason for that was because there were out-of-town presentations which the committee, by agreement, decided to extend the courtesy to hear the out-of-town presentations so they could be completed, and they have been completed. l'[ow my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition I think realizes that it's precisely those members who were on the Agriculturar Committee who are inconvenienced, but if we proceed now with the unicity bill it seems to me that there is a minimum of -conflict in as much as most of the members, if not all, on the Agricultural Committee are those who do not have as direct an interest in the unicity bill as other members, so I think that there can be an accommodation here reached by proceeding with Bill 36 right from the start here.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR. STEVE PATRICK (Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. I was not .aware that we're going to sit on Saturday night, I don't think my colleagues were aware, the Member for Rhineland was not aware that we 're going to sit tonight, neither the Member for Churchill and I -- (Interjection) -- not for tonight. f MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable the House Leader. - MR. GREEN: We could not be here tonight without the unanimous consent of everybody in the House.

We are sitting at 7:00 o'clock instead of at 8:00 --'therefore every member, and I asked the question, any member could have said we would not sit tonight and if the Leader of the Opposition would have said let's not have a tonight sitting, there would not be a sitting here tonight. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR. PATRICK: .Mr.

Speaker, would it not be reasonable for the First Minister to con sider that we adjourn now or adjourn in an hour's time from now, because we still have to come back on Monday and I'm_ sure we'll finish the session in good time on Monday or if not Monday it will J:e Tuesday. I can't see the reason for sitting tonight till Midnight or 10:00 or 11:00 o'clock. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR •. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, I can advise the Honourable Member for Assiniboia that the House Leader has already indicated that the· adjournment time this evening is one that we will be quite agreeable to a relatively earlier adjournment hour; rather than adjourning now till 8:00 o'clock, let us carry on as we agreed this afternoon and then we will be that much more likely to adjourn at a relatively earlier adjournment hour.· I I

July 24, 1971 3113 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable.Member for Pembina. MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transportation volunteered a sandwich for us and I'm willing to accept. MR. GRE£N: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you call Bill No. 36 at the report stage . . THIRD READINGS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface on the report stage of Bill No. 36. MR. LAURENT L. DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I would like to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose, that

Section 3 of Bill No. 36 The City of Greater Winnipeg Act be amended by striking out the words - "The City of Winnipeg" in the third line thereof as amended in the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs and substituting therefor the words - "The City of Winnipeg-St. Boniface." MR. SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that everything is calm again and I'm sure that both sides of the House intend to co-operate. Seeing that I am the first speaker tonight, I'll try to show the example.

I have a working agreement with my honourable friend from Sturgeon Creek that we will be short, but that should not indicate, Mr. Speaker, that I don't consider the amendment that I am proposing now to be important. A few members, including the Member for Fort Rouge, thinking no doubt that I was trying to be parochial when I proposed this amendment in committee made half serious proposals themselves. I can assure you, Sir, that I am quite serious and that I'm not con cerned with retaining the name_ of my constituency only; it's much more than that.

Now it's been expressed the fear that it would be difficult because you have the name of Greater Winnipeg or Metro Winnipeg on phone books, on maps and so on. I don't think that this is very impor tant, the name will have to be changed anyway. The maps and phone maps come in every year and they're modified1the change7so I don't think that this should be an obstacle even at this late date to change the name. Another thing, Sir, is that we just felt that maybe a name, a hyphenated name might be a little difficult but the last city amalgamation - the cities I should say, St. James-Assiniboia, did just that.

We've had countries like Czechoslovakia that have a name forming only one name now. We have - Fargo...,Moorhead is often used, or Minneapolis-St. Paul. I am not saying that this is the legal name of the city, Sir, I'm only saying that it is used without too much difficulty. I, as you know, Sir, supported this bill without conditions. I tried to deal with the mechanics of this bill to see if it could improve the lot of the people of this area, and I'm satisfied that this bill will.

It's not perfect, no bills are perfectibut I placed no conditions on that once I saw the bill, because I was satisfied that no doubt representing St. Boniface and being true to the priorities that I've had in this House for the last 13 years, I was interested in some of the safeguards that would protect, that would help not only the official languages but the cultures of the different people forming our mosaic, the people of Manitoba.

I now must admit that the change of name will not change the mechanics; it won't make it any easier or more difficult as far as that goes, but it is certainly something that deals with the emotions, recognition, symbolic security of many people of this province and I think that this is important, although it's not the mechanics of the bill. As I said while speaking on second reading, Sir, I don't feel that I would like to say here that I'm a separatist or that the people that I represent are separatists; I don't want to see a wall built around St. Boniface, this is why I certainly went along with this bill.

I felt that certain safeguards would make it easier now to be ourselves, we're all Manitobans, to enjoy living in Manitoba without resorting to trying to build a little Quebec, a little Paris or even a little Vatican here in Manitoba, because I certainly would object to that, Sir. But, I feel that we have a chance now if we were to give support to my amendment, to do something that would be highly symbolic for Manitoba. First of all let me say that the name St. Boniface is not a French name, it's a German name, but I think that St. Boniface would be acceptable by all the people first of all that are living in St.

Boniface, and I think that we have a real cosmopolitan district in St. Boniface. We have people of French, British, Irish, Ukrainian, Polish, Belgian, Italian, Icelandic, Jewish, German, Metis and Indian people living in St. Boniface and I think that they've lived

3114 July 24, 1971 (MR. DESJARDINS cont'd.) . pretty well in peace and I think that this could be car:- ried on in the spirit of what we want to see here in the Greater Winnipeg area. The hyphenated name would be symbolic right here in western Canada with the two official languages of our country but it would also bring to mind the many cultures of our province and our country. It would, I'm sure, Sir, show that the people stand united, the people of Manitoba stand united although they might be the first city and I think that this is our strength.

Contrary to the melt ing pot idea that is not working in the United States, our neighbour south of us, .I think that what this government and what the people have been doing, we can see this in the political atmosphere, the climate has changed here in Manitoba and I think that most of us now we could see by the different resolutions that were unanimously approved by the members of this House, I think that we are accepting now the - and I think that the Minister of Mines and Natural Re sources explained it much better, gave a definition much better than I could ever hope to do and I think this is acceptable, that the fact that we recognize the two official languages is the safeguard of all the other cultures.

I, for one1never believe in bi-culture but always multi cultures. Now, I think that maybe the reason why I say this, I know, as I said, that other members made some half serious attempt to include their constituency in there, that to me was sad. in itself .. -that it was they, I think Mr. Speaker, that were being parochial, just because I sug gested something, they felt that they had to do exactly the same, and I certainly can assure you, Sir, that this is not what I was looking for; as I said, I'm looking for much more than that. St.

Boniface is probably one of the first names in the west, it was never changed, it was Lord Selkirk that requested from Bishop Plessis of Quebec that they send some missionaries here, he felt that this would be something good for the territory especially after Governor· Semple was killed in 1816 at tlie uprising. Now I think, Sir, that if we remember that it was Jean-Baptiste Lagimodiere the first white man who settled on the side of the Red River who walked 1800 miles to tell Lord Selkirk that there was trouble in the territory.

He and his wife Madame Marie Anne Gaboury gave birth to the first white child here in western Canada. The name St. Boniface dates prior to the name of Winnipeg. I think that it represents something good, the missionary down here in western Canada, the name St. Boniface dates prior to the name of Winnipeg. I think that it represents something good. · The missionary -- of course I'm not trying to introduce religion into this, but as I say it was Lord Selkirk himself that requested this help and I think that it would help, it shows that the people were very loyal. Unfortunately we lost the St.

Boniface Cathedral a few years back, the Cathedral made i=ortal by Whittier, and now if we lose this name I think it would be sad indeed, Mr. Speaker. I'm not talking about, I'm not worried about that st. Boniface had a charter and so on; this could be replaced and things can go just as smoothly, but again I promised that I wouldn't be too long and I must live up to this so my honourable friend can do the same thing.

Sir, I think that this hyphenated name would be indeed a symbol for western Canada, the centre of Canada actually, recognizing the two official languages, but also the multi cultures of our people and I certainly hope that I will have some support in this resolution, Mr. Speaker. Thank you . . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, this was talked about in com mittee, and I'd like to make our position clear on this. There's no question, first of all, Mr. Speaker, that I wouldn't like the name Winnipeg-St. Boniface, St.

James-Assiniboia, Sturgeon Creek and the whole works, and I don't intend to be joking about that either; but let's be prac tical. We have had experience in the amalgamations where there are names. The hang-up with an amalgamation between St. James and Assiniboia was on the name and both names were brought into being, and since that time lt's pretty obvious that when people are registering even in hotels, your letterheads and what-have-you, you're going into an unwieldy thing.

The name has to be one name and the City of Winnipeg is the logical name .,-there is no question that we would argue with that - and to start adding hyphenated names is not the proper thing to do, Mr. Speaker. I.have no question of St. Boniface history. I have no question about Assiniboine 's history because it's one of the oldest communities in this area, but the question is we do the right thing when we do it and I think the name should be the City of Winnipeg. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for.the question? The Honourable Member for Charleswood.

July 24, 1971 311 5 MR. ARTHUR MOUG (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to make a brief state ment on the proposal by the Member for St. Boniface. He's one of three members that repre sent the City of St. Boniface in this House. I don't see any panic by any one of the others to come in here with a suggestion. I think that if the member was all proud of St. Boniface and was anxious to have their name involved within the City of Winnipeg and had all this great respect for the City of St. Boniface, I don't think he would have done what he did. He left the City of St.

Boniface down by being a floor-walker, a defector. He's not the type of person that's concerned about the City of St. Boniface. He gets elected as a Liberal. He changes his politics to Liberal-Democrat shortly after . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. MR. WALLY JOHANNSON (St. Matthews): Point of privilege. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Matthews. MR. JOHANNSON: The honourable member's been using unparliamentary language and I would ask him to withdraw it. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR.

MOUG: Well, so there's no mistake, Sir, I said a floor-walker and a defector and I believe that this is not unparliamentary. I think if you look back in the records of any parliament in the British Commonwealth you'll see that the words have been used before. I only say them because I believe them. I don't think it's wrong. I think that the Member for St. Boniface would not deny or say that I was wrong with what I say. He was elected as a Liberal, changed to a Liberal-Democrat and finally thought that he was really and truly a socialist. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

I would suggest the honourable member apply himself to the amendment and not to the Honourable Member for St. Boniface. The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR. MOUG: I only speak, Sir, in the tone I speak and the words that I speak because the Member for St. Boniface did bring in the amendment; I'm speaking towards the relevancy this man has as an individual, a resident of, a businessman of, and a representative - (Interjection) -- MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR.

DESJARDINS: .. . advise that I don't care if this continues on this but I intend to answer before we close debate on Bill 36. If this is allowed, it certainly will be allowed when I speak. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR. MOUG: There's nothing I hate worse, Sir, than repetition - although the Premier of this Province says repetition is the mother of learning - when I have to get up and be broken up half-way through a sentence, be shot down and have to start over again. As I mentioned, I don't think it was unparliamentary to say that the man is a floor-walker and a defector.

I think that if he's so interested in the City of St. Boniface that he wants there to create a city of a half million people with a hyphenated name of, The City of Winnipeg- St. Boniface, I think he should have more respect for the place he lives in and does business in, and represents in the Legislature, in this fine province we have, in this fine city we're trying to set up. And for that reason I say that we're concerned that a man would bring this in. I don't see the Ukrainian people of Manitoba coming in tonight saying that they want it named Poland.

They don't, and there's more Ukrainian people -- (Interjection) -- more Ukrainian people that would like the name Poland, they would far sooner have the name Poland because they're more closely connected than they are with the French. And for that reason, Sir, I think that he's asking exactly as bad a thing as if the Ukrainian people came in here and said, "No - wipe out the name 'Winnipeg', call it 'Poland', because it's my next door neighbour." And I say that the German people - I don't see the German people here tonight.

Jake Froese is not here with this Dutch-German attitude wanting to name it the name of his country. He says this is a bilingual country and we'll use it for that reason - bring St. Boniface in be cause it's long-standing French. Mayor Juba says that there's more Frenchmen in Winnipeg than there is in St. Boniface and I don't see any of the French people out of City of Winnipeg attending the Committee in Room 254 saying they want it named St. Boniface. They seem to like living in Charleswood - living in the City of Winnipeg. There's more people in the City of St.

Boniface that aren't French, than what there are French. This man, he didn't stand up and fight in committee; didn't stand up in this House and fight to say he didn't want to see

3116 July 24, 1971 . (MR.-MOUG cont'd.) .•••. St. Boniface disappear out of the Province of Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I should like to once again remind the honourable mem ber to discuss the amendment and not the Honourable Member for St. Boniface. The Honour able Member for Charleswood. MR. MOUG: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can get pretty annoyed, you know1with the type of thing that happens in committee by the Chairman and in this House by the Speaker, and I hate, Sir .•• MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

I should like to remind the honourable member that one of our rules is that one does not reflect upon the Speaker's rulings. Now if the honourable member wishes, I can use the privilege of this House and have him removed. The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR.

MOUG: I would have to say, Sir, that the only way that I can speak towards the amendment that's in front of us is to make reference to the mover -- the only way, the absolute only way is I have to make reference to the mover, and the fact that he moved the amendment; and if the government side of the House -- (Interjection) -- It's not relevant to the motion1he said.

The fact, Sir, that he comes in with an amendment like this and say that the people should stand united, when the mover was speaking to it said, people stand united; and I would wonder how they can stand united with a representative that changes as fast as he does. · MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. SAULCHERNIACK, Q.C. (Minister of Finance) (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, !had intended only to mention that the decision on the question of a name of the new city was left entirely to the committee.

There was a clear indication which became apparent rapidly during discussion, that none of the caucuses, as far as I can tell, had agreed on what the name should be; there was an open discussion-in committee; members of the committee may recall that for some time during the briefs I asked the direct question as to what the person presenting the brie:f thought the name of the new city should be and I kept a record just for a beginning portion and 2,4, 6 - out of the first eight or nine occasions when I had replies there was one favouring Greater Winnipeg, there was one favouring St.

Boniface; all the rest favoured Winnipeg. I think the discussion at the co=ittee level on the name was of a decent level, a decent charac ter, an honest exchange of opinion -- there wasn't that much discussion, the name of the City of Wi i::tnipeg was agreed upon by the co=ittee; it was neither the govern:m.ent nor any members of the opposition as a group that fostered or promoted any particular name. Members were free to suggest Redboine, Fort Rouge, other names.

I intended only to get up only to say that, but I can't help but feel that the person who preceded my rising, delivered himself of a dirty, cheap, self-demeaning type of address which doesn't help anybody in this Legislature, least of all him and to a lesser extent his party. I regret very much that he found it necessary to speak in the tone he did, not related to the amendment at all but just as I say in a sort of vindictive, cheap manner. I regret it; I hope MR. SPEAKER: Order. The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR. MOUG: I say that the Minister of Finance spoke up in an ungentlemanlike manner .•. MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please. I'd like to hear the point of order. I haven't heard one. -- (Interjection) -- That's no point of order. The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I regret that he found it necessary to do it. I don't regret, but I'm sorry that I felt it necessary for me to respond as I have. I hope that the tone has not been set for the balance of the evening, but if it has then so be it; I hope it will not carry on in this way. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. JACOB M. FROESE (Rhineland): Mr. Chairman, I did sit in the committee when there was a disuussion.

I was not a member of the co=ittee so I had no

part in the actual decision that was made, and now we're confronted with a motion to have the city named the City of Winnipeg-St. Boniface. There was also discussion in the committee of having several of the wards in the St. Boniface area named St. Boniface east, west, south and north; I don't know whether this materialized, I don't think it did. I think there was also a suggestion m!lde that the Community Committee, that area should carry the name St. Boniface; whether this will be the case I'm not sure at this time either. However, I, too, believe that while I share the concern.of the honourable member and also with the people in St .. Boniface that the name

July 24, 1971 3117 (MR. FROESE cont'd. ) .•.•. should be discarded or not carry on, that I feel that the name would be too long and that I could not vote for it because of that reason. Certainly if this hadn't come about the City of St. Boniface would still be there, and I certainly wasn't the one that engineered this bill or even supported it on second reading so that this should come about. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. JAMES H. BILTON (Swan River): Mr.

Speaker, I rise for a moment or two, I feel this is a very important moment and I must say that this is the time that the question should be brought before the House as has been brought before the House by the Member for St. Boniface; but I did notice earlier in his remarks, Mr. Speaker, that he said he didn't consider the matter important, and I wonder if he didn't consider it important why he's asking for this special consideration. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. Point of order? MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not too sure what the member said. I wonder if he'd repeat that again. MR.

SPEAKER: That's no point of order. The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. BILTON: I took from the honourable member's remarks, Mr. Speaker, when he introduced the amendment that he did make that remark that he didn't consider it altogether important. -- (Interjection) -- MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would suggest to the Honourable Member for St. Boniface that he can ask for an explanation at the end, but he didn't have a point of order the second time. The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. BILTON: Mr.

Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence and I regret if I have mis interpreted the words of the Honourable Member for St. Boniface, but there are other remarks that I did not interpret. He supported this bill, so he said, Mr. Speaker, to improve conditions for the people of this area, the area as a whole; I take it, the intercity as a whole; but I wonder why he wants this hyphenated name, Winnipeg- St. Boniface. I noticed in making his remarks, Mr.

Speaker, they dragged out the old red herring -- culture, culture, culture; the people of Canada have had that stuffed down their throats for so long now at the cost of millions of dol lars that they're getting a little fed up with it, and I don't see how it fits into this particular situation that's being discussed. He mentioned a wall around St. Boniface. Mr. Speaker, if anybody's going to build a wall around St. Boniface, I say the Member for St. Boniface has already done it, not we the people� and I'm surprised that he should have made that suggestion in his remarks.

It's not those of us, of other ethnic g<roups that have any darts to shoot at the people of French tongue, but rather we've grown up together this last 100 years and it is this sort of language that creates the dissension between us. He called for the ·people to stand united. They were never more united than they are today, Mr. Speaker, and never will be any more united, unless this sort of lan guage and this approach to subjects such as this stops by people in authority who use their position and authority to do the things that create this dissension. It doesn't seem to me, Mr.

Speaker, that there's any reason in the world why this unicity, or the city we're talking about, should not be called the City of Winnipeg and known throughout the world as such. MR. SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. SPEAKER: Amendment by the Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Rhineland, that

Section 23, after clause (

b) the following

section should be added, (c): "Have the power to receive from the Central City Council its per capita share of taxes collected and administer the monies received for (

i) community clubs, parks, social and recreational centres; (ii) local street and boulevards not on the present Metro system, and (iii) local snow removal and garbage collection. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few brief remarks.

I want to say at the present time that of all the delegations that appeared before our committee, almost every single one zeroed on the question of community committees, I would say the majority of the delega tions expressed their concern that the community committees have no purpose almost, because they have no power, with the exception I believe -- maybe one or two of the delegations expressed they would want to see that there would be no committees in existence at all. But almost everyone else agreed that there should be community committees and expressed desire

3118 July 24, 1971 (MR. PATRICK cont'd.) ..• •. that they should have some more power, and more authority, to deal with local municipal things such as I mentioned and, in fact, I would like to see the local community committees have some more power in respect to local planning. At one time I thought it would be quite feasible for the. local community committees to have the taxation power to raise the finances for the purpose that they need, meaning the community clubs, snow removal and perhaps even local police and fire.

But this did not find too reasonable with the government members; they said that the rich communities will be able to have better services than the rest of the communities, and for this reason I put in my amendment that the commun ity committees should receive their per capita share whatever the basic minimum requirements are for the local services, the pe.r capita share, so that no community would receive more than - for instance, the have-not communities should not be at the disadvantage because the rich communities would have more taxing ability to have better services.

So for this reason I changed my thinking and thought that perhaps it would be much better if the community com mittees would receive their per capita share for such services as I mentioned, the snow removal, community clubs, and even some of the local streets - and I wish to draw to your attention there are many streets, or some streets, in my constituency where people do not have a sidewalk, they prefer to use the street. They have a wide boulevard, and this is what they prefer to have. Now in some other areas perhaps they wish to have the sidewalks.

In Charleswood they. may want to have hardtopped streets instead of paved streets, so I think that once the basic minimum is established for these services, and if any area wishes to improve that standard, well then surely that improvement should come from the areas that people wish to have those extra services, and the money should be raised in that area. So for this reason I am proposing this amendment to the House and I'm sure that it should find much .favour with many of the members, particularly the members in St. James Assiniboia, because this is what was requested in the brief from the St.

James-Assiniboia; this is. what was requested by almost every council, or every alderman that appeared before our committee, with the exception that there were some independent members, and I wish to state Mr. Charles Huband who said that he would like to see community committees. disbanded completely. But aside from, I think, his brief, and perhaps to some extent maybe the last one, Professor Lloyd Axworthy, all the others have had a considerable amount of experience on council.

The mayors and aldermen themselves, they all requested and wanted more fiscal powers for the local communities so that they would have some direct connection with their constituents, so they would be able to do something. So as I mentioned, I thought at one time that they. should have power to levy taxes on residential property for the purpose of financing ' these local services, but it did not find favour with the government members because they said well the .rich communities will have better services, the others will not have as good services.

So I am proposing something that's most reasonable to them in saying, giva it to us on a per capita basis for whatever the minimum requirement is established by the regional council, and I'm sure that this should find favour with the Member for St. James, the Member for Sturgeon Creek, a11d perhaps some of the other members. So I would hope that aH members would be able to support this amendment.

I may also point out - I know that it has been brought to the committee's attention - that some areas would like to have snow removal on a much better basis than somti of the other parts of the city; some areas want their garbage removed twice a week, or three times a week, and some areas want their garbage picked up from the garage, or behind the House. Well if that's the case., then I f eel that they should pay extra for that service and there should be a basic minimum established.

So once. the basic minimum service has been established for your regional council, there is no reason why per capita grant or money allowed for those services should be given to your local community committee so they can supervise the services; and if there are areas that wish to improve upon the basic services they have the power, and they have the power to tax the local area to do so. So I hope that I will get support on this amendment.

I was quite happy that there were some changes that were recommended by our group, such as electing the mayor at large; and that the bill will be going.before the Law Reform Committee to deal with some of the offensive clauses that were in the bill. But I think with the amendment.the way it is drafted, I am sure that. there's no reason why the members cannot support it, because it's almost, of all the debates that have taken place - and the debates in the committee and the hearings are drafted or couched in such a way, that it would be almost difficult for the. members not to accept.

I think it is most reasonable and I hope they'll vote for it.

July 24, 1971 3119 MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words of support for the motion brought forward by the Member for Assiniboia. Repeatedly we were told in committee, those that attended the meetings, in addition to the members, that there should be powers given to these committees in order that they could function properly, and also to give them some pur pose.

I feel that these committees will not be successful unless they do have power to receive funds and to administer, and to spend certain monies as they see fit for the various purposes mentioned in the resolution. Certainly I think most members should agree that a standard of service will be met by the council, and in addition to that I feel that in the various areas if they want improved services, they should be entitled to receive them. If they want to pay for it, why not?

I think this freedom should be given to the various communities as is proposed here and I fail to see why the government will not go along and give them some finances in this way, give them power to receive monies for the purpose; otherwise they will not perform a useful function and I don't think they can be a success, they will fall by the wayside, and within a few years we'll probably have amendments placed before this House in connection with this Act that they be done away with completely.

I think this is what will happen if we do not provide them with some funds, some wherewithal with which to progress in their effort and in their endeavour. The resolution calls to support community clubs, parks, social and recreational centres.

Certainly these are matters that committees of this type will be concerned with and in order to maintain the community spirit, because I think it will be very hard for some of the commun ities to get a community spirit going because they will be brought together from different areas, different from what they have been in the past, and therefore I also feel that it is essential that we do what is being proposed here in this amendment. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, my comments would be very brief, because nearly everything that has been said, I agree with. I stated in committee, and I would like to S"!lY that this is a formula by which the identification of the community council s would remain. It is a formula in which they would be able to continue to have some of the things they want by paying for them themselves. It's a formula that would guarantee that in the future that the community committee will just not die. And as I said in the committee, Mr.

Speaker, I said that the community committees a�e going to have to find a way, or there will have to be a way found for community committees, to have some things that they want other than the standard of the city or you'll find that people will move elsewhere -- they'll even start other communities because they will have the things that they want. You.are not going to stop people from doing that, and I believe this is a formula by which it could be done. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR. MOUG: Mr.

Speaker, I have to say a few words very briefly because Charleswood of course, and particularly Tuxedo, is involved in what goes on and what this amendment tries to do to Bill 36. I think that if the community committees can have their several dollars that is allocated to them to spend in the way that is right, that they feel is right, rather than what the central city core figures is right; I know that Tuxedo, for instance, enjoys a bi-weekly garbage pickup and the balance of the city doesn't have that.

I think in the west end of the constituency that I represent, the .union of Charleswood, we have several features there much like what happened in the constituency of Assiniboia. There are areas there that they don't have the concrete, and they don't have the storm sewer in that area. I think the people might, and the council representing that area might want to spend its money in a different fashion from what would be suggested by the top echelon down town.

I think for that reason if the money can be allocated to the community area from the central city powers, I think it will be better spent and certainly spent more wisely. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member fo:r Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I have, as I am sure you have before you, several amendments. Would you like me to pick the order I'd like to put them in, Sir, or would you like • . . ? All right, Sir.

312.0 July 24, 1971 (MR. F. JOHNSTON cont'd.) Mr. Speaker, I think we'll just take the first one. I would move, that

Section 8 be amended by striking out subsection (

a) and (

b) and (c), and substituting therefor the following subsections: (a) .Prepare capital and current estimates for the year 1972 and; (

b) between January lst, 1972 and December 31st, 1972, make arrange ments for the organization of the council and the administration of the city, the assumption of the jurisdiction over municipal services, and the employment of such persons as it deems necessary, and generally to do all things necessary to assume on the lst day of January, 1972 all responsibilities and power now exercised by the Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg and the City of Winnipeg respecting its Hydro Electric system, the Winnipeg Enter prises Corporation, the Pan-Am Pool. Seconded by the Honourable Member for Swan River, Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, this amendment we have introduced has been referred to by the Minister in committee, as an amendment which would be a one-year-hoist on the bill. We don't put that amendment in with that thinking at all. We do not quarrel with the fact that there is going to be an election in September. If there is going to be an election in September, we believe that the councillors that are elected in the community committees can carry on the duties of the cities in these areas very much the same as they are being carried on at the present time, Sir.

There is no question that the councils could refer their budgets to the 50- man council, just as they refer them to the municipal board at the present time. The councillors would have to do a yeoman job in handling their community committee and also working on the main council to see that the cities are operating properly. But in the meantime, Sir, the organization of the new city would be able to be done by bringing in the experienced people in all areas, by using the treasurers and the engineers that are available to them, and, Sir, as I have said in my arguments on this bill, this has not been done.

The· people Who are working in the area in the civil governments have not been contacted to that degree. I believe that the administration would go much smoother if we have to have this Bill; and I'm also very sure much less costly. These people are already being paid by the cities and they can be used by the new council to have an orderly integration of this city in 1972.

We are not saying, don't have your elections if the bill goes through; we are saying that it can allow the 50-man council to give the community committees much the same authority they have at the present time reporting to the 50-man council, this can be done. And in 1972 because you have used experienced people, you will have an orderly takeover, and, Sir, you will have much less expense for the people of this province by doing it that way.

The Task Force and the committee that the Honourable Minister has working at the present time is costly and nobody can tell you any different; and this could be avoided if you took the orderly changeover by using the year of 1972 and having an orderly takeover at the end of that year. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the honourable member said and there's hardly anything I disagree with what he said.

I do disagree with the amend ment, however, because the Act is so designed that all that he describes is exactly what could happen, because the takeover is one which leaves with the community committees their present responsibilities. He didn't say anything about taxation; I therefore have to assume that he agrees that taxation should be equalized over all. If he doesn't agree with that then, of course, there's a basic disagreement. Other than that there's nothing in what he said, nor even in the amendment that prevents the council from doing exactly what he thinks it ought to do the way he describes it.

The only thing I disagree with in the amendment is that it appears to me to be a prohibi tion from the coJncil from moving in any way during the year 1972. I think that's wrong. I think council should have the right to make changes if and when it feels ready to do so. And that's the only difference.

Other than that, other than the prohibition -a nd frankly, Mr.· Speaker, that's why I did call the 12-months hoist in takeover jurisdiction - but other than the prohibition which this amendment states1 'that council shall busy itself for a whole year pre paring itself, then everything that he says is something council can do; it doesn't have to take over any service, anything else. So that I must reject the attempt to thwart the decision or desire of council if in its wisdom it decides during 1972 to make changes in the structure.

July 24, 1971 3121 (MR. CHERNIACK cont'd. ) .... Clearly council can do it but I don't want to stop it. Just one other thing, and that is I thought I made it absolutely clear, we have a number of task forces that are now working and are now starting to work. There are four are at work, there are two more about to start, which will by the end of this year and earlier, by the time a new council is elected, be able to present the council with all kinds of information and guidance such as the honourable member suggested will take a long time to gather.

And the fact is that as of yesterday, I have received replies from nine of the thirteen municipal authorities to whom I wrote requesting assistance and the loan of their personnel to the extent that they could assist us in preparing for an organizational system to present to the new council and for budgeting preparation for 1972. Let me make it clear, somebody used the word in committee that we intend to spoonfeed them.

We intend to tell them nothing, give them no instructions; we intend to give them all the information we can accumulate, make it available to them; we intend to gather that kind of material which they can use; the extent to which they want to use it will be up to the new council. But these task forces are doing exactly what the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek suggested ought to be done and will have to be done and I tell him it is being done. And I will also say, Mr. Speaker, that as of yesterday, we received nine replies to the 13 letters sent out.

I'm told that all 13 have already at their administrative level indicated support or concur rence in our appeal to them for this kind of assistance, this kind of input. Of the nine, the ninth letter was the first one that became somewhat legalistic in its decision as to the manner in which it would release its secretary-treasurer, for example, to advise the task forces in its work. That one came from the Mayor of West Kildonan who is a lawyer and maybe that's why it was legalistic in its

interpretation. The first eight responded, I haven't got the letters, I'm informed by my staff, responded saying - by all means we've instructed our senior personnel to make themselves available; they'll be ready to discuss with your Task Force all kinds. of information that may be required. I don't think there will be a problem, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. SPEAKER: The.Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNST ON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move, seconded by the Member from Brandon West, that the following subsection be inserted after subsection 6 of

Section 27: "27(7). If any community committee incurs a surplus as a consequence of its operation, in any particular year, the community committee may with approval of the central council apply all or any part of that surplus towards payment of the implementation of any program it chooses to implement during a subsequent period of time. " MR. SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, we have just heard a request from the Member for Assiniboia for more power for the community councils and the principle of the bill and the government does apparently not believe that that should happen. I believe the amendment here is something that is very very logical. Under the community councils they refer their budgets for cultural, recreational, public works and operation, protection of persons and property, health and socia l d �velopment.

In this field they can spend in cultural and recreation, if they want to move the money from community clubs to tennis playing they can, and we have request ed previously that they could move it from one

section to the other but the government does not feel that that should be done. Mr. Speaker, there is such a thing called "equipment reserves" - I'm sure the Attorney General will recognize the statement. He was famous for having little pockets himself. In fact he was an alderman before I was, Sir, and he taught me some of these things. Mr.

Speaker, what we are saying is if a community committee has the ability to manage their affairs with their community committee and you give them the right, Sir, to say, you know, ladies and gentlemen we may not do this this year but if we are careful and watch our budgets, etc. , we don't overspend and you don't push us for wanting the moon and what have you, we may be able to accumulate some money from this year and present it to council the following year and get their blessing with the new budget to use this money in your district. Now, Mr.

Speaker, there is nothing wrong with that; we're asking for the blessing of Council to do it. Now you're saying, I know the story that at the end of a budget year anything left over goes back in the pot, that's the way we've always worked. But as I said, the Attorney-General knows well what equipment reserves are, and he also knows well that equipment reserves have always been used for the

3122 July 24, 1971 (MR. F. JOHNSTON cont'd) . • . . . benefit of the community. Now, Mr. Speaker, the reason I say that this is possible is this; nobody in this room is going to tell me how much money the Civic Centre in st. James-Assiniboia is going to make in 1971. I don't know whether the team is going to reach the playoffs or not. I don't know if it may start to rain and rain that our swimming will go up in attendance or go down; and if the sun shines, our swimming will go up. There is no way of estimating in any way, shape or form accurately on a community club or recreational budget.

You try very hard to be close, Sir, but you might not be that accurate. And if by good management you come out ahead with the money, you were able to rent your auditorium more than you expected, and you were able to rent your facilities more than you expected, and because of your good management you have a little surplus, I ,can't see why that can't be left. If you want to, I might say, leave it in Culture and Recreation, but you've got to go to council. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure the Minister of Urban Affairs is going to get up and say to me, "what if they have a deficit." There is no possible way any of these community committees can have a deficit without getting permission from the central council. Sir, if they run out of money and they have to keep things going and they have to keep it operating, they've got to go to the central council to get the money or else they just close the facility or they don't •.•. There's no way that they can have a deficit without it being approved by the Central Council.

But there is a way through good management that they could have a small surplus, or work to have a small surplus working within their committee, the committees that this government want set up and let them work with them. There is no way that they could not accumulate a small surplus to spend the money in their area the way they want to the same as we used to have equipment reserves. Mr. Speaker, I know it's a favourable way of doing things because I was taught a good way of -doing things, and I assure you, I assure you, Mr .

Speaker, that this amendment is something that will give a little brighter light to the community committees in the local area . Thank you very much. MR. SPEAKE R: Are you ready for the question ? The Honourable Member for Charles wood. MR. MOUG: Mr .

Speaker, just briefly, in the area that I'v e represented for six years as a member of the council, we found every time without fail that coming towards September or October area of the year that you had more money that you intended to buy gravel with in your public works, or some portion of your administration rather than what you had thought you might have for recreation or programs for recreation and we found ourselves from time to time moving it back and forth.

I think that if one community can show better administration and operate in an area that is economical and save themselves some money on their public works end or their gravelling, their street repair, their back lane repair and operate efficient ly, I think that they should have the opportunity to move that money out of one column in their budget over into another. There's several ways that it happens.

Recreation as was brought up by the Member for Sturgeon Creek I think is a very important one; that is always one that we are concerned about getting as many dollars as we can to spend on the youth of our community and facilities for them to play in and to better their abilities in sport, it betters their personal ities, it keeps them out of the dining room that they could get into with their parents. It's something that we need for them.

I think that if each community throughout the area of the new city is allowed to transfer this money from one column of the budget as they see they're going to have excess and shortages, if they can juggle those back and forth and break even at the end of the year I think this is very very important• I know that there's going to be some of the communities that are going to operate at a deficit and it's happened from time to time possibly in the municipalitY that I represent, but I think that this is a definite reflection to bad management, not only by the council but by the ad ministrative st::: ff ..

I think this is something that's got to be looked at and watched closely; but certainly don't make those with good management that have a surplus suffer for those that have bad management and a deficit. MR. SPEAKE R: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment only on the wording of the

section and not the general discussion we've heard: "If any community committee incurs a surplus as a consequence of its operations in any particular year. " Now we 're only talking about a surplus resultant as a consequence of its operations, and frankly I don't know who judges whether the

July 24, 1971 3123 (MR. CH ERNIACK cont'd) . . . . . surplus came about through that means or through another means like no snow or no rain or no need for some eventuality coming up which would require money, "then the community committee may, with the approval of the central council, apply all or any part of that surplus in the implementation of any program it chooses. " Now it says "with the approval of the council . . . any program that it chooses." Let me make it clear that in my

interpretation of the present bill , the present what will be the Act, gives the authority to council to do exactly what could be done as described by honourable members either in a speci fic or in a general way. That's up to council and it's up to members of council all of whom are members of community committee s. This is possible. But this

section itself seems to imply that council would sort of have to give a blanket approval, in advance, to a community commit tee to do anything it chooses. And I don't believe that council should be in that position and I don't believe that a community committee should be in a position to look for pockets to put little funds of money for such purposes, because then it 'sas if it 's working against itself and its own body. So all I can say, Mr.

Speaker, is the bill gives the right to council to permit this kind of development to take place, this kind of encouragement to take place, but I don't think that the wording is acceptable nor is it necessary. MR . SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion lost . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNS'ID N: Mr.

Speaker, I would move , seconded by the Honourable Member from Swan River, that Sections 43 and 44 be deleted and the following sections be substituted therefor: "The council shall have the right to employ such administrative , professional and other personnel as it may require , under such terms and conditions as it sees fit, and to dele gate such duties and responsibilities to them as in the opinion of the council to the proper dis charge of their functions." MR. SPEAKER presented the motion . MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Cr eek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, we brought this up in committe e; we still feel, Sir, that the council should be in the position of setting up its own committ ees . We do not believe it should be worked out or specified in this bill; you are electing 50 councillors to a new coun cil and I think they have every right to set up their committe e systems the way they see fit . I believe that the councillors should be spread out much more thinly than they will be on to many different committee s.

I think every councillor should be working on committ ees, they should be on these committe es to as sure that they have good representation and clo seness to the situations at hand; but, Sir, the main thing is, is this bill tells 50 men who will be elected how they have to set up their commit tees. Nobody tells this government how they have to do it before they ran for office; I don't think the City of Winnipeg should be told how to set up their committe es to operate the new city . MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: Mr.

Speaker, I rise on thi s amendment, because some of the remarks I will make on this amendment could have been made on the other amendments, but I think they're rather appropriate to be made now.

I would hope that the remarks that I will make now and in the remaining amendments to be proposed by our side will not be repetitious but will simply present a basic theme of opposition to the plan on the basis that what is being proposed is some thing that embodies consideration and thinking by academics and by practical politicians who have attempted to blend a combination together that will be better than what we have now; better than what others have been able to devise in other areas, but realistic ally on the basis of what has been proposed, I predict will not be as good as antici pated or expected, nor will it equal anywhere near the expectations that the Minister of Finance and other members of the party have expressed before .

The Board of Commissio ners or thi s basic concept that we have been asked to delete, the administrative end which we've been asked to delete, as proposed by the government places too much power and too much authority in the hands of an administration that basically will not be subject to the control and direction of the members of council who are elected, but rather to the select few who will be on the var ious committees as proposed in the statute authority that is being devised and who in many respects may be considered to be answerable to the council, but in real terms will be only answerable to the Board of Commis sioners .

What I' m suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that in reality what is going to happen is that the

3124 July 24, 1971 (MR. SPlVAK cont'd) . Board of Commissioners are going to be supreme and the poli:.. ticians are going to be secondary; because it's structured that way, it's designed that way and it defeats,! think, the essential purpose or essential requirement of municip� l authority, that the _elected officials have the opportunity to devise a policy and to be able to oversee its execu tion so that the people will benefit. Mr. Speaker, this

section is not basic to the plan. If the government can change its milld on the mayor overnight -- and we're going to discuss that -- if the government can trust the people to elect the mayor: I suggest, Mr . Speaker, they can trust the council to set the structure; they can trust the council to be able to develop the administration; and they can trust the council to do the things; because if in fact we talk in terms of a democratic procedure why do we tie the hands of the elected officials to be able to accomplish what they have been elected for?

We present a framework, an outline, and beyond that outline they should be able to move as they see fit. The government is attempting as we've said before, to in fact blend central administrative authority with political decentralization, but, Mr. Speaker, it will not work; and once the government has rejected the concept that the community committee be given some of the powers that have been asked for by the Honourable Member from Assiniboia and the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek, once they've rejected that, and once we really then talk in terms of a central administration, then at this point, Mr .

Speaker, put the power in the hands of the council, give them the authority, let them make the decision, let them devise a structure, let them set up the kind of committee system and administrative system that they see fit.

And even though there may be some difficulty and even though there may be some haggling and bitterness, and even though it may not work in the theoretic as well as some theoretical concept that could be presented or has been presented at this time, if we're prepared to go through the sheer agony that the City of Winnipeg is going to have to go through with an elected mayor fighting and bickering with the council, if we're prepared to do that, we can go through the procedure of allowing the council to set up its own administration and to be able to work and set up within one very broad outline the framework under which it can operate so that the councillors will in fact have something meaningful to do rather than something that's artificial, rather than something that essentially will be window dressing and which will I suggest accomplish neither the purpose but rather add to the confusion for the next three-year period once they have been elected and taken office .

So, Mr. Speaker, the argument is presented once again in this House, but the argument is presented at a time when the government itself has changed fundamentally the basic struc ture that was first proposed and they can consider this because in reality they would be giving power to the people. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, that was a very nice-sounding speech . It even gave me the impression for a moment when I wasn't listening carefully that the honourable member knew whereof he spoke .

I' m a little bit sorry that when he loses his job as leader of his party and is no longer an MLA that he won't have a chance to go into municipal affairs and learn something about how one 'c onducts municipal administration, so that at least I could acknowledge or believe that he really had a: picture of just how it operates; but instead of that, of necessity, and through no fault of his own -- I certainly wouldn't fault him -- he's had to rely on what he 1 s been told and what he's been able to learn from the newspapers and many of us are often in that position, so of course I recognize that that is the difficulty under which he has been labouring.

One of the problems that I have found is that the Honourable Leader of the Opposition has not really studied this Act or this Bill and the support material sufficiently to try to understand how we are envisioning the structure of the new government; but he doE;is know, because he does read the paper and he's lived in the city long enough, and he has had occasion to deal with councils, and he has dealt with councils and with administrators, that there are power elements and administrat�ve groups that sometimes vie with each other.

There are power elements within an administrative group that sometimes assert the preferences of attention for their departments over and above that of possibly a less effective or less forceful director. The elimination of this

section eliminates what? It eliminates the Board of Commission ers; it does not eliminate the commissioners, it does not change the committee set-up . It eliminates the board. What will follow if this amendment passes -- and since it won't pass, then, of course, we won't have the following motion I' m sure -- would be a motion to reduce certain powers of the commissioners, but I get a signal that that is coming anyway. So let's

July 24, 1971 3125 (MR. CHERNIACK cont'd) • . . . . deal with the fact that this motion proposes to remove the Board of Commissioners, not the commissioners, not the standing committees, but to only deal with the removal of the board. Well, Mr. Speaker, to remove the board succeeds only in eliminating the efforts that we'r e making to create a form whereby there will be co ordination of activities and the responsibility of a form of unified acc ountability to council from the ad ministration .

In other words, you won't have a director reporting to a committee and getting at a council without making sure that the report that comes to council comes as a re sult of the concerted review by all three commissioners and the chief commissioner so that you get a unified and coordinated report and recommendation, and that's all it does. Because the main thing is that council still receives -- I can't quite adjust my speech to the beat of the drum on the desk of the Leader of the Opposition, so if he could soften the drum a bit I can -- yeah, the cadence isn't mine. The . . . then, Mr.

Speaker, was that council keeps all its powers, has been set in committee, council has the power to add subcommittees, any number it wishes, but the important thing is administration should report through a centralized body so that when it makes a report it will do so in the full knowledge of all other administrative problems and programs and be able to reflect priorities and a measure of consideration of one program as against another. I think that's desirable, I think it's necessary. If council doesn't want it, then it really doesn't make use of it, therefore it disappears.

What 's more important is, if by the time the next session rolls around -- and it won't be that long from now -- if council really has given this a try and feels that a change is necessary we will li sten and be prepared to do so as we have in the past and as we 've shown as recently as the honourable member in dicates, we are prepared to do. It won't be too long but at least it is worth giving it a try because it's a new concept and one that people should not approach with preconceived ideas such as are evidenced by the speech of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition . MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment. No doubt as the Finance Minister says that other amendments would have to follow if this one was acce pted . However, we have to make a beginning somewheres and I think the amendment is only proper because I, too, don't subscribe to the principle of having commissioners and have that type of a system brought into the administration of the Ci ty of Winnipeg after Bill 36 is passed.

I feel that we 're putting too much power into the hands of these three people and that as a result we will have increased bureauc racy, the people will be further removed from government and it will be more difficult for them to get changes brought about and to get their briefs and what ever they may have looked after.

I do not want to prolong the discussion; I simply want to state that I' m opposed to the principle of this type of administration and I feel that we should give the power to the central committee to administer the City of Winnipeg more or less along the lines as they see fit, to set up the various committees as they desire wi thout having this put into the statute so that they cannot make changes as they see fit. MR . SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the amendment lost . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON : Mr.

Speaker, I would move, seconded by the Member from Riel , that

Section 50 be deleted. MR . SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, my comments· on the removal of

Section 50, I' m sure the Minister is wondering why I insisted on keeping it there because we lost 43 which is the destruction, or lost 43 which would eliminate the commissioners. Now that we have the com missioners, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe the power that they have in this legi slation or the organization of the commissioners is such that is going to be for good government in Manitoba. The structure which is set up in this piece of legi slation will mean that the commissioners will have the largest or the greatest control over this new city.

They will be there setting up the organization not long before the elected members -- they could even be appointed before the next election . I may be wrong there, Mr. Speaker -- I' m sorry, it' s been a long day -- but anyway, I firmly believe that the commissioners should not have the powers they have, and if we'r e going to have the commissioners, I beli eve that the council should be the one that sets out their duties. Now, the Minister will be ce rtainly saying that I' m a little confused at having 43 first or 52nd and what have you, but the whole

section is basically on commissioners; the

3126 July 24, l971 (MR . F. JOHNSTON cont'd) . commis sioner set-up is not a good form of govern- ment and, if we'r e going to have them, I think their powers should be greatly reduced. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourabi e Leader of the Oppositi on. MR, SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, f rise again on this particular amendment in essence to discuss the amendment and to reply to the Minister of Finance . Mr . Speaker, I must say that I resent very much the continual attack by the government that when something is questioned it obviously comes (

a) from a lack of knowledge - you know, first, because we do not have the experience of the members opposite, or that I didn't have the experience, and their experience, because it has made them so much wiser, has given them, you know, the prerogative of gov erning. Now, Mr. Speaker, I resent it as strong as I can express -- (Interjection) -- Well, Mr.

Speaker, I have made a prediction and I make a prediction now, that the Board of Commi ssion ers as proposed in this act will give far greater power to that group than any administration in the municipal structure now has; that there will be nothing but a continual conflict with the council; that there will be a breakdown, and that we in turn will probably have a request to re-legislate this proposal; and I say that .based, not on my experience, but based -- well, no one knows, but based on the research and discussion, and the delegations - but these state ments were made prior to the delegations - based on people who, I would suggest, are more knowledgeable than the Ministe.r of Finance, have been involved in municipal politics longer, based· on academics who are as knowledgeable as the consultants that were presented to the committe e, and based on some real understanding and feeling of what's happening with respect to urban matters not only in Canada but in North Americ a.

So the remarks that have been made by myself have come as a result of discussion, reading and research, and it 's not neces sary, Mr. Speaker, for me to stand up and defend myself, nor do I intend to, in every situa tion . But so long, Mr. Speaker, as the government continues to use the tack that everything we suggest is objectionable because they are so smart, and because they are so experienced, because they are so experienced and they are so smart from their experience, then I suggest Mr .... MR; SPEAKER: Order, please . I believe we have an amendment before us.

I have tried to relate the honourable member's remarks to the amendment but it eludes me . I wonder if he would make his remarks to the amendment before us. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition . MR . SPIVAK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am , and I' m talking about the Board of Commission ers . It was referred to in the previous motion and it is now referred to in this motion . And , Mr. Speaker, may I say, I do this now because if anything indicated the areas with which the government have acted, not only in this matter but in other matters, it 's typified in this parti cular situation, because, Mr .

Speaker, this is an experiment for Manitoba; this is a unique situation. We admit that .

They don't know, nor do we know, but we 've made some judgments based not just on the newspaper reports, or on the lim ited information that the Minister has presented us, because in real terms the Minister and the government have presented us with very litt le , but based on some analysis as well of the commi ssioner system in other jurisdic tio ns, and on the city manager's system in other jurisdictions, and relating it to the experience already in Manitoba, through the Metro Corporation, and thrrugh the Cit y of Winnipeg, and the municipal structures, and with respect to the manner and the way in which and the horizons of the administrators who in all likelihood will be placed in the top positions in the structure that's being proposed.

Because, you know, if we want to talk in reality, what's going to hap pen is that people who are now involved to a large extent are still going to be involved in the structure that's being proposed in the administrative end, and there is a great deal of power being given; far greater, far greater than I think is desirable. Far greater than will be work able, that can work with a council that wants to do a job - and that's a question for the council that wants to de a job .

I suggest and I bring foiward again the point that whether the govern ment likes it or not, at thi s point, we place on the record our dissent from that proposal on . the basis that the council itself should determine the administrative structure, and its com mittee structure, and go through the agonizing that has to take place to put itself in a position to make it work. But what 's being imposed on it has certain basic difficulties and the essential one is the attempt by the government to politically decentralize and at the same time to ad ministratively centralize, and it isn't going to work.

So therefore, Mr. Speaker, again we propose this as a matter of placing it on the re cord, recognizing that the government has the

July 24, 1971 (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) • majority; recognizing that it's easy for any member on the 3127 opposite side to stand up and say, ''You don't know." Well , I'll tell you something, Mr. Speaker, they don't know , they don't know at all . And I want to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, as uneducated as they may think my opinion is, and as educated as they may think their opinion is, they are gambling with the proposal that's being put forth, and I think we have a right at this point to indicate that, to indicate our concern; to indicate the inconsistency with the philosophy that's being presented with respect to the bill. And further, Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fundamental change that was made with the mayor now being elected, there is no justification for not having to reconsider this proposal because it 's basic to what they are attempting to do and it still is our belief that the power will be in the hands of the administrator rather than with the council lors and rather than with the people . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance . MR . CHE RNIACK: Mr.

Speaker, let me make it absolutely clear that we don't pretend we know all the answers; and let me make it absolutely clear that we have indicated that we believe that this is the best way in which to proceed. We have also indicated more than once that this Legislature will be meeting again and that the Legisla ture will be reviewing again , with the creation of a Ministry for Urban Affairs, will be working clo sely with the council to assess progress . We can always make changes and that is part of an on-going process of adjusting to a new system. Mr.

Speaker, I want to make it clear that I have a great deal of respect for the knowledge and the ability and the experience for a number of the members of the Opposition, especially those who have had munici pal experience . I was critical of the Leader of the Opposition for speaking in the pompous way he did about matters where I believe he did not know enough about what he spoke , whether because of lack of experience or whether because of lack of his own study in depth of the proposals. I do not say that all the Opposition shares that lack of depth, and I said I did n't fault him, he's a busy man.

He has a great deal to learn - to do, I' m sorry . He has a great deal to do and I can't expect him to cover the whole gambit of legi slation but when he spoke as he did, he had a right to do so, the Opposition has a right and even a duty to point out def ects and deficiencies, I accept it . I was critical of the manner he used . I continue to be critical . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel . MR. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel ): Mr.

Speaker, through the sitting of the Municipal Af fairs Committee , having li stened to most of the representations made at the Committee, there were a number of things that came out and recurred over and over again from the different delegations regardless of who they were . The positio n of the commissioners in the structure of the new city was one of the greatest concerns that came out of most of the briefs.

Now as a result of tbat,we would have thought that the government would have given consideration to the position of the commissioners in such a powerful position in the structure of the decision making that's going to have to be done with the new ci ty. The government has made the change,has introduced the change of electing the mayor at large , which effectively changes significantly the powers and the influence that the elected councillors are going to have.

Now as a result of this, electing the mayor at large, and having the commissioners at the top of the pyramid, it becomes pretty clear that the councillors that are elected are going to be in a difficult position in actually having nearly as much influence as they would have (

a) if they were to elect their own person and (

b) probably more important, if they were in a position of making more of the administrative decisions and fewer of them being made by the commissioners. And this was part of the main thrust of the briefs that were made to the committee, whether the commissioners were too strong, too powerful, and that more power should be legislated and delegated to the elected members of the council s.

Now as a result of this, I think that the government when they have seen fit mid-stream to make an important change in how the mayor gets into his position, that they would also have an open enough mind to pay heed to the recommendations that did come from the briefs at committee, and also review the powers of these commissioners. Undoubtedly they have looked at other cities where a commissioner type of government is in force - I think they can look at some Canadian ones .

For example, I think they might find in Calgary that the people there would think twice again before setting up a commissioner type of government. And that's only one example . I don't intend, you know, to imply that I' m well briefed in all the city managements that use them. But it 's pretty clear from the

3128 July 24, 1971 (MR. CRAIK cont'd) . . . . . structure here that it's not going to help the grass roots move ment of getting people involved in the political process. The problem that has plagued Metro, and the Minister stands before us and says those of you who have not been involved can do nothing but read newspapers and pass on second-hand information, if I can oaraphrase what he was implying.

Well, we're well aware that he and the Minister of Mines and Resources are the only two people, I guess, that have been on the Metro Council and therefore I suppose can say that they've got an inside track and know how this is going to work, and all the rest of you Indians can read the newspapers because we've got the experience, and we're the chiefs in this.

But one of the problems that plagued Metro, despite what the Minister's impression of it is, was the fact that the elected people, even on the present Metro council, have not had the degree of power or influence over Metro decisions that you found at the local level, and to insert and inject the commissioners into the structure in the position where they have designed them for us, is going to aggravate the problem even more than it is.

Therefore if for no other reason than to actually assist the government's aims and desires, to get more going in terms of participation by elected people and by the electorate, for goodness sakes review this and let the council decide whether they want to put these commissioners into this powerful slot that you've got legislated for them now. MR. SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion lost . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek . MR. F. JOHNSTON : Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Riel, that the proposed

Section 81 of the amended bill, be amended by striking out the word "may" in the first line, and substituting therefor the word "shall". 1 MR. SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek . MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr . Speaker, the Opposition may wonder why we are being so insistent upon this. We did not win it in committee. We had an amendment on the

Part 3 of the bill, the Official Languages section, and we fully agreed with the amendment, and we have no quarrel whatsoever re cultural, re the two official languages of Canada. In fact, I don't particularly want to get into the discussion . I know the opinions of the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources when he gave his opinions, but agaill, they are opinions on official languages and how it should be handled in Canada.

Well, I'm not interested in that. 81 says the City may make available at its central offices, or any other city .office or department, persons who can communicate in languages other than the official languages of Canada . We asked for the word "shall" in this and the argument was given to us that it would seem they would have to have a staff or somebody from every country possibly there to com municate. That is not what we are asking.

The argument came up, Sir, that when we were giving this, that we had originally mentioned languages such as Ukrainian, German, Italian, and the Honourable Member from Winnipeg Centre said he was sorry we left out Gaelic, and I giless I can agree with him there. But all we are saying, Sir, that if somebody walks into the City Hall, or the Administrative Buildings of this new City, instead of saying "Angus go home, " - and the way this reads he can - it says, the City "may" make available . We are saying the City "shall" make available, and I don't care where they get them.

They can find somebody who can communicate, even if it happens to be somebody up on the 4th floor or the 5th floor, but the City "shall" make available in its central offices, or any other city office, or department, persi:m·s who can communicate in languages other than the official languages of Canada . Mr . Speaker, we are not, or I am not, moving this amendment on any other basis than a sound based fact basis . We have many different languages in this p�ovince. The City should be able to communicate . We don't like the word "may" .

I don't like the word ·· may." I don't think everybody realizes it leaves a lot to be desired, and in something like this I think the city "shall" make available is the proper wording. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources . HON . SIDNEY GREEN, Q .C . (Minister of Mines, Resources and Environmental Manage ment)(Inkster) : Well, Mr. Speaker, I dealt with this matter at the committee stage and the Honourable the Minister of Finance has asked me and I'm very happy to deal with it at this stage as well . Mr .

Speaker, I don't think that there is a member in the House that doesn't have the.

July 24, 1971 3129 (MR . GREEN cont'd) • same intent with regard to what should happen in a Ci vic Ad- ministration, and I can assure the honourable member that the Ci ty of Winnipeg, and particu larly the north end of the Ci ty of Winnipeg, and thereby the people who would use the adminis tration services of the City of Winnipeg couldn't operate unless there were available people wit hin that ci ty administration who could speak the different languages that are spoken by the people in north Winnipeg, and in the rest of Winnipeg.

There is no doubt, there is no doubt that this is done and I have no doubt,just as the honourable members opposite had no doubt, that the Ci ty would be able to choose its form of administration . I have no doubt that the poli ticians elected at the civic level will do justice to all of the ethnic groups that live within our society . But I suggest to the Honourable Member for St .

James-As siniboia, and I don't sug gest that is - excuse me, Sturgeon Creek - I do n't suggest that thi s is his intention, but I suggest that the issue here is not whether any government, such as the Provincial Government, or civic governments, or a government that exists, let us say, in Pine River where probably, when I was there, I am sure that more talking is done in Ukrainian than is done in English, that the question is not whether services will be made available, but how do we insure within our city administration that the same respect upon which Canadian nationalism is based will find its way into municipal government?

The arguments in this respect, Mr . Speaker, have been twofold. There have been people who have said, whenever the question of bilingualism has arisen, there have been people who have said, "Well, if the country is going to have two officia l languages, why are you leaving out the Ukrainians ? Why are you leaving out the Poles? Why are you leaving out our native people, the Cree, the other Indian ethnic groups, or any other of the ethnic groups that are in society ?" And it is usually the case , Mr.

Speaker, and I don't refer to the Honour able Member for Sturgeon Creek in this regard, but it 's usually the case that the people who advance that type of position advance this on the basis of its impossibility, that trying to create -- well, if the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek would just let me continue.

The fact is that any suggestion that one can make, every single language in thi s country on the same official status level, is really saying that this should be an Anglo-Saxon country; that English is the official language that there should be, because it would be impos sible to have every other language as official languages . Why is it that this Legislature at this time, and with respect to this city , we are talking about other languages? It's not because, Mr.

Speaker, Ca nadians by virtue of some innate understanding, some superior intelligence, have a respect for minority groups that often is not found in other countries; it doesn't come be cause of some innate intelligence, it comes about rather acci dently, Mr. Speaker, by an acci dent of history - and it 's strictly an accident.

We have been founded as a nation, not on the basis of a homogenous culture, not on the basis of, let us say, the same way as France was founded, or the same way as Germany was founded, or the same way as Italy was founded, whereby each person in their country moves towards being a nationalist Italian, or a national ist German, and I think that we saw the epitome of the damage that can be done with that type of nationalism during 1945 when people were talking about being 100 percent pure Arian German and the effect that it had on minority groups in that country.

I think that we can also see the same difference as to what takes place in the United States and what takes place in Canada, where people talk in the United States of being 100 per cent red-blooded American . But in Canada, Mr. Speaker, because the country was founded on the basis, not of homogenous culture, on the basis of two cultures, this feature of Canadian hist ory has spread itself out whereby every other minority group gets the benefit of it, and Mr.

Speaker, what is paradoxical is that that benefit is lost if one attempts to say that you are going to legi slate equal status for every language in thi s country. Because what - (Interjection) -- Well, Mr . Speaker, I know that the Member for Sturgeon Creek does not want this, but will he do me the courtesy of respecting a difference of opinion on this question? Because there is a difference of opinion. As far as I' m concerned, Mr. Speaker, I know that I, as a Jew, and that my constituents as Ukrainians , Poles, Germans, Icelandic, would not be better off if this country was an Anglo-Saxon country. Mr .

Speaker, there are English speaking people in that part of town as well and they would not be better off if this was an Anglo-Saxon country. We are in the fortunate position of living in a country which is not based on a homo geneity of culture; we are fortunate in living in a country where the very nationalism itself is based on the mutual respect of one person for another, and it has nothing to do with English

3130 July 24, 1971 (MR . GREEN cont'd) . . . . . being superior; it has nothing to do with French being superior; they happen to be the two accidental langl.iages upon which the country was founded, but each of us gains the benefit of it . And I suggest to you that any attempt, any attempt to say that all of the languages have the same status is an attack on the ethnic position, Mr. Speaker, of the very languages that are not either English or French, and as well, Mr.

Speaker, when I put this position, I repeat , I do n 't put it for the pur pose of favouring the Eng 1 i s h language or favouring the French languag_e; frankly, I put it for the position of favouring myself as an ethnic minority group living in a country which has within its very foundation the respect of one ethnic minority group for another. And the honourable member says that the word "shall" doesn't affect that argument. Well, he's entitled to his opinion, Mr. Speaker. I am merely voicing my opinion.

I know that every tinie someone suggests that every language shall have equal treatment at the Ci ty Hall, which is in effect what thi s says, that the reverse argument to that is, well, that is impossi ble, therefore let 's rely on the fact that we have one language and that 's it . Now, Mr . Speaker, this amendment - this amendment is only recommended and we would only be talking about it, whether "may" or "shall", because of the form of nationalism that we are happy enough to have in thi s country; and therefore, Mr.

Speaker, !wo uld reject the amendment and in doing so I suggest I' m doing it for the benefit of the minority groups' languages that my honourable friend is referring to, and not to their detriment . MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Rhine- land. MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, we had similar debate, ifyou can call it that , or exchange of views in the committe e, and I can't see it the way the Minister of Mines and Natural Re sources does. I feel that this particular

section should be amended and that the way it reads now it says, "The city shall make available at its central office persons who can communicate in French and English." This is what we want; we want communication; and we feel that com mli.nication should not be just to those two groups, it should be so that other groups can enjoy the same privile ge, and I don't see why we can •t make this possible.

Surely enough if we have large groups of people in the city who speak another language , who have another culture and who want to maintain it and make the effort among their own groups to have this maintained over the years, and they have done so in ·many ways, that we should also at least go this far, that when they come to the Ci ty Hall that we have people there who can receive them and can converse with them, and I feel that we'r e not asking too much in the amendment that is being proposed.

Certainly we live with each other here in the city, love each other, and I see no reason why we cannot accommodate each other in thi s way as well . MR. SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Cr eek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I' d like to move , seconded by the Honourable Mem ber for Swan River, that subsection 85 be amended by adding after subsection (d), the follow ing subsection: "(

e) a resident of the community in which he runs for election." MR . SPEAKER presented the motion . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr . Speaker, we have been in committee today li stening to another bill, which I certainly won't mention because we 'll deal with what 's in front of us, and the ward system has been brought forward in thi s bill .

It is regarded as a democratic way of people having representation, and if you're going to have a ward system, really, in a smaller com munity such as the area of Winnipeg, I think you should live in the wards, but because it is such a large area and there might be somebody that lives one or two blocks away from a ward, there is nothing wrong with the member who is running living in the community. In other words, Sir, there are six wards in the Ci ty of St .

James-Assiniboia, he would have to live in the community 0ouncil of Assiniboia, which it will be called, he would have to live in that area of the community council . Now, Sir, that leaves a very wide scope. That means that a member who has been· part of a community in the previous administrati ons or the previous cities could be well enough known to run in a different ward by having it that way. In other words, we 're saying he must live in the community.

The whole logic of this bill, Sir, was to have the elected member closer to the people , and there is no way that you could have this if somebody on one side of the city is running in another area. There is no way that communication will be there. In

July 24, 1971 3131 (MR. F. JOHNSTON cont 'd) . . . . . fact, sheer travelling alone to get over to see some- body could be a problem. But there is one basic thing that has been said today in the other committee , that all of the aldermen live in one area and there is not much representation, and if you put in a ward system and do not insist they live in the ward or the community, as we are suggesting here, you have the same possibility. It's argued that the people don't have to vote for him; it's entirely up to them; it's a democratic society, and everything like that.

But there is no sense using a ward system unle ss you add to it that you live in the ward or in the community of an area the size of Winnipeg, or you defeat the whole purpose. So, Mr. Speaker, that is the reason for us wanting to register our amendment on that basis, the addition. We believe that that is the principle of the bill, for the people to become closer, We heard that from every one of the members and we believe that it should be some body from the community to accomplish this. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Leader of the Op position. MR. SPIVAK: Mr.

Speaker, just a few brief comments. As one who has had no ex perience in municipal affairs, one who was not elected to municipal office, may I say one thing, Mr. Speaker. I think I understand the philosophy , the concept of the bill. I think that the government has fragmented the bill in its final form.

I think the proposal that the govern ment has now, which would be altered by the amendment that was proposed by the Honourable Member from Sturgeon Creek, that the proposal as it is now in the Act fragments, as other particular decisions fragment the basic concept position that was first proposed, and like so many things that they have done, they have in fact defeated the very purpose becau se, Mr.

Speaker, so long as a person can be el ected from any part of the City of Winnipeg area to represent a ward, then in effect you •ve defeated the whole concept of the neighborhood system which was the basic -- (Interjection) -- I don't understand it. I must say to the Honourable Minister of Finance, you know, I think I understand it, and as a matter of fact I have to say to him that I have probably read as much on the neighborhood concept as he has - maybe not in terms of municipal politics, but I think I understand the philosophy and I understand the most recent works that have been completed on this.

And I say, Mr. Speaker, having read them, and I'm prepared to debate on that , that the basic concept of the neighborhood as it was first envisioned in the presentation, has been defeated comple tely, defeated completely by allowing someone to be elected from anywhere in the City of Winnipeg to represent the ward area itself.

That was never the original intent; it goes against the very grain of the remarks that were presented by the Minister in his presentation at the various community hearings, and is one more effort on their part to arrive at a politically expedient decision, which in fact fragments the very intent of the bill. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, this bill , as it reads, is no different from what it was all along in accordance with what we considered the basic concept of the community committee , the neighborhood structure; and Mr.

Speaker, the important thing we felt was that a ward electorate should have the opportunity to decide for itself whom it will accept and elect as the person to be representative of that ward. If that isn't a neighborhood concept, then I don't know what is. Not to limit him to living there , but to limit him to capturing the support of the electorate within the ward, who will say, "That man will represent us, and if he doesn't, we'll reject him." That is essentially giving to the ward the right to make the decision as to wheth er or not they will select that person.

And I believe that if the Leader of the Opposition would offer himself in any number of wards in the City of Winnipeg, he might well be elected and serve that ward well, but if he ran in the ward in which he live s, he might well be rejec ted, and that too would be a decision of the electorate. And we 're saying; leave it to the electorate , don't impose that kind of decision for the electorate, and that means a recognition by the com munity of who can speak for it. Now if he wants to think in terms of -- No , I think I just will leave it at that, Mr. Speaker. I think I've made our point. MR.

SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Birtle Russell. MR. HARRY E. GRAHAM (Birtle-Rus sell): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that at this particular time we find the government ignoring a basic concept of democracy that has existed for many many years. You look at the municipal system that has existed for years and that has had one fundamental basic in it, and that is that a councillor must live in the ward that

3132 July 24, 1971 (MR. GRAHAM cont'd) .••.. he represents . There has been the exception, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the reeve, who is looking after the entire area, has an additional privilege . Now we go from the municipal system up to the provincial system and you find that in the provincial system and you find that in the provincial system there's a little more latitude, but still the provincial system insists that anybody that runs for election in the Province of Manito ba must reside in the Province of Manitoba. Then you go into the federal system, Mr.

Speaker, and you find that again there is more latitude . The larger the government gets, the more latitude there is involved. And in the federal system you don't even have to live in the province of the constituency that you want to represent, as long as you're a Canadian citizen, and so far, Mr. Speaker, we haven't taken out the Canadian citizenship in_that re spect . But the basic concept, Mr.

Speaker, is that, depending on the level of government that you're intending to provide, the restrictive measures regarding the eligibility for election is scaled according to the level of government that you intend to provide. Now I would say that if the government persists in this attitude that they have at this time , then they are intending to set up a government which is in fact superior to the provincial government. It .is not a municipal government in any sense, because they are ignoring the fundamental principles that are inherent in the election of members to a municipal government. MR.

SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: You can't even win a "shall" tonight, or a "may." Mr. Speaker, that

Section 86 of Bill 36 be amended by adding thereto, at the end thereof, the following subsections - I' d like to move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Brandon West; Election of MLA to council. 86 (3) : If a mem ber of the Legislative As sembly is elected as a member of council, he ipso facto forfeits his seat in the Asse mbly and is disqualified from sitting and voting in the As sembly. Election of councillor as MLA. 86 (4): If a Jnember of the council is elected to the Legis lative Aasembly, he ipso facto forfeits his seat on the council and is disqualified from sitting on and voting in the council .

Elec tion of MLA as mayor. 86 (5 ): If a mem ber of the Legislative As sembly is elected as mayor, he ipso facto forfeits his seat in the Asse mbly and is disqualified from sitting and voting in the As sembly. Election of mayor as MLA. 86(6): If the mayor is elected to the Legislative Assembly , he ipso facto forfeits his position as mayor. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please . I would like to indicate to some honourable members that Rule 40 is on Page 21. Some of them should have a look at it . The honourable members should realize that there was a lot of interjection.

I think I should have to read the whole thing because some of the words that were spoken by the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek, "£ don't think were intended to be in the motion, but nevertheless. moved by tlie Honourable Mem ber for Sturgeon Creek • . • Are you ready for the question? MR. SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker - I' d like to say this is my last motion - Mr. Speaker, that

Section .687 be numbered -- I would like to move , seconded by the Honourable Member for Birtle -Russell, that the proposed

Section 687 be renumbered 687 (1) and that subsection (

a) and (

h) of proposed

Section 687 be deleted and the following subsection added i=ediately after

Section 68 7 (1): "687(2): The mayor shall be elected at large and every elector shall have one v_ote in the election for mayor." MR. SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNS'ID N: Mr. Speaker, briefly, Mr. Speaker, this amendment says that if the mayor is going to be elected for the first term, he should be continued to be elected from now on.

It is not the proper thing to have a mayor elected for the first term; you are saying to the people that you have the chance to vote in a mayor for the new city, in the structure of the . new city, the first time that it comes into being, and three years later you are saying that this system is no longer valid. I, Sir, will not give my co=ents on what I think of the mayor being elected at large

July 24 , 1971 3133 (MR . F. JOHNSTON cont'd) ...•. versus being appointed by council, but if the mayor is to be elected at large the first time , he should be continued to be elected at large when his term is up. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR . MOUG: Mr. Speaker, just briefly on this amendment, I would like to suggest to the government that a mayor is not a mayor if he has not got the sanction of the people that he represents; if he's not voted in by the people , he can't properly represent them at the table he sits at .

He can pour tea and he can cut ribbons, but I say for him to sit and control the 50 -man council that 's going to be sitting in front of, that this bill puts forth, I say that he has to be a man that knows that he has the sanction of the people.

Now, on the other side of the coin, I say that if politics moves into the City of Winnipeg Council - and I know it 's going to - I think that a mayor that 's elected at large by popular vote is going to be shot down before Bill 36 comes into effect on January 1, 1972 , simply be cause if he's elected by the people and he's not the favorite mayor or the ideal mayor of the 50 -man council, they will not support him . And if there's 26 members of one political party in that council , they're going to move on to that council table every day and shoot that mayor down. He's going to be shot down continuously .

So for that reason I say that you have to ap point the mayor from the 50 -man council -- (Interjection) -- and I don't know who the mouth piece is on the other side of the room but I think, Mr. Speaker, you could declare to him that he'll get his opportunity to stand up and speak as well .

But whoever he is on that side of the room, I can say to him that he has never been elected to any council that this bill affects in Metro Winnipeg as mayor, because there's very few people on that side of the House that has the ability to be elected and it is not my fear, when I stand and speak tonight, that any one of them will be the mayor of the new Cit y of Winnipeg -- not one of them; not one of them . They are looking tonight, they're looking tonight at thi s amendment of this

section of the bill , Mr . Speaker, where a man has to pick up somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 , OOO votes possibly -- 150, OOO votes, I would suggest, the new mayor of this ne;v city is going to get, or the mayor of this new city (I don't suspect he'll be a new mayor) , but the mayor of this new city is going to pick up something like 150, OOO votes . And I would have to suggest to you, Sir, that everybody on that side of the House , including the Premier, has never had thi s particular experience. Never have any one of them .

Possibly you could group them together and wonder if there was that many votes involved in electing a government. For this reason - I' m not trying to belittle the government side of the House when I speak like this - the Premier of today was elected with 4, OOO-odd votes, a nice vote to pick up when you 're running in the constituency, in the province provincially . It's good . I envy that . I couldn't get that many votes. I got 3, 300 vote s. But there's one man, there's one man in the House here , probably he could get it - Mumbles. He could get it . But nobody else . A MEMBER : Who? MR .

MOUG: Mumbles, the House Leader. He gets a good vote ; he gets 4, OOO vot es. The Finance Minister, he gets 4, 000 vote s. The Attorney-General, no . He's in a bad position; there's no way he can get that . -- (Interjection) -- No, I don't think so. He's well respected in his area . I think that he'll carry on to -- he's doing a good job -- as it goes on that side of the House, as jobs go on that side of the House. ·But I have to suggest, Sir, that you're looking, when you look at this amendment before the members vote on it, I hope that they realize that they're voting a strong man ..

He has to be a strong man to win it; he has to be a man that 's capable. First of all, hi s financial situa tion has to be in the neighborhood of $30, OOO to even threaten to say he's going to win the seat of the mayor of this new City of Winnipeg. You've got to get to a half million people; you've got to get to thei r doors . You've got to have a very very strong man that knows how to run a campaign. You have to have a man 'that knows how to gef to the TV, to the press and to every body, to tell them who you are .

You've got to meet in every committe e, with every committee throughout the areas; you've got to get to every community; you've got to hold meetings there . You've got to knock on just about every door that you can, in order to conv ince them that you 're stronger than the powers that are opposing you; and for that reason, Mr . Speaker, I say that it 's discriminati on, if you'll accept that word, to think that a man has to position him self to have $30, OOO to campaign with .

I say that the man should go in by way of one simple ward, one of the 50 wards, and then be appointed by popularity of those 50 councillors, cer tainly not by the half million people .

31 34 July 24, 1971 (MR . MOUG cont'

d) As popular as the Premier of this province is, there•s no way that he could campaign this province and pick up a half million votes, or let's say 300, OOO votes, which he would need in a two-man race, if everybody came out and voted . And the Premier, he would have a threat riding with him, because possibly the loud speaker could move in and be a positive threat from the north; and it's a like situation of what could happen within the City of Winni peg .

It's a like situation, Sir, of what could happen right within the City of Winn ipeg , and I think that for that reason that the government should either accept this amendment to continue to elect the mayor at large; if it's good enough to do it in the first instance, to do it in the future; to continue to do that . I can see no reason why, if the man's got to be popular enough to be elected at large in the ·f irst instance, which is a hard thing to do, I think it 's something that's geared.up for one reason and cne reason only .

The government is quite concerned about the legi slation they've put out here in this act . They're not sure of what they're doing. They realize they've made many many mistakes; they realize it 's too big a bill; they realize that their errors are all within the bounds of that bill here, along with the amendments they've made . They've got themselves in a position they're at the point of no return. They can't back up and withdraw this act; they can't handle this act once it's implemented. There's no way they can handle this act; it 's too big for them.

It 's like many other bills they bring in, this act is too big for the government of today. They're too late to retract it, Sir; they're too late to bring in people that know how to implement it for them; it 's too late . This election 's got to be in September. Next month is August . 'By the end of August and the early part of September you have to have this 50 -man council and a mayor that's very very close to being nominated, and give him three weeks to do his campaign, and there's where you are . So this government is using the easy way out .

T hey figure within this book and after all the ... they get to several members of this city that have experience on municipal councils, they feel that if they elect the mayor at large that it 'li get them off the hook. This puts them back for a two-year period, a three-year period, .Sir, before they have to come out and say that they're going to make changes. They put themselves in a position where,if they don't depend on.the mayor of today, they're in trouble . They got to go down Main Street to get themselves out of the trouble they've got themselves into within the bounds of this book .

The only man that can help them and get them out of trouble is the mayor of the City of Win nipeg of today. They know by popular vote in an election at large they can elect him, and otherwise they're in a lot of trouble . MR. SPEAKE R: Are you ready for the question ? The Honour Minister of Finance. · MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Sturgeon Creek made a rather con vincing argument about the election of the mayor at large and continuously for term after term.

The Member for Charleswood made a convincing argument that the mayor should not be elected at large at all , and between the two of them I guess there must be quite a difference of opinion. The fact is that the committee voted in supp ort of the electio n of mayor at large and the vote was not limited to members of government caucu s.

The proposal to elect a mayor at large for the first term, the first term only, is one which is a recognition of a number of factors and designed so that this Legi slature will have a further opportunity, without committing itself, to further review the progress of the council, the way it Works, with every right and opportunity to make changes in the future. In that way I believe we leave the options open and I think that that is a proper way to approach so that we know how we cart deal with it in the future. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition . MR . SPIVAK: Mr.

Speaker, I will try to be very brief . I think it 's been known for some time that the NDP caucus was split on this matter when they had to vote for it . I think it was known, Mr . Speaker, that the NDP caucus was split on this particular matter, and I must say that I think it w::.s split rather evenly, from what we 've heard. I understand that they've had to go through the procedure of several votes before finally, finally they were able to arrive at a decision . Now , Mr . Speaker, the government originally had one proposal; they altered it .

There have been a number of reasons put forward as to why this happened, and I present them not neces sarily as the reasons that I personally believe , but these are the reasons that are dis cussed for the change, and I think they should be listed. Some of them may appear as incred ible , but on the other hand some of them may have some validity .

July 24 , 1971 31 35 (MR. SPIVAK cont'

d) Fi rst , the reason the change was brought in by the government that the mayor should be elected for the first term, was that was what the people wanted; the people asked the mayor should be elected for the first term and the government listened to them. Now against that , Mr, Speaker, I must point out that , insofar as I know, not one brief said that the mayor should be elected for the first term, and I don't think that in any of the community meetings held by the Minister and the other Ministers was there any suggestion by anyone that the mayor should be elected for the first term. So I bring it forward, Mr.

Speaker , as a proposition which I do not think has great validity.

The other proposition was that the NDP had decided that they were going to run a slate, which has now been announced, for the council and for control of the council although they may not be running in every ward, but they were going to be running a slate; that in effect if they were successful in controll ing the majority or being able to put a combination of the majority , their leader would obviously become the mayor, and that if in fact they had an NDP leader who was the mayor , he would basically be a threat to the office of Premier , as leader of an NDP caucus which would be equivalent in a parliament of Greater Winnipeg.

MR. SCHREYER: Ridiculous proposition. MR. SPIV AK: Ridiculous proposition. The Fi rst Minister says it 's a ridiculous propo sition, Mr. Speaker, I'm not suggesting that 's my .•• I haven't suggested it at all, I'm going to put in five or six propositions and we will then try and make a judgment as to which is right ; but I say to the First Minister, that is one proposition that has been put forward and I think it should be listed for the record. The third proposition is that the government decided after Mr.

Benson announced his budget and they reviewed their financial position, that all the representations that they had made with respect to their financial position meant that in the next few years we were going to be in d

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-3-136
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 3rd hansardpdf 136.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	be544398304cfa3494a0e05d986fb0ca163f2319

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