Manitoba Hansard — 28 April 1962 (Sitting 84, 26th Legislature, 5th Session)

26-5-84

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative � � Assembly Of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable A. W. Harrison Vol. VII No. 84 2:30 p.m. Saturday, April 28, 1962. 5th Session, 26th Legislature Printed by R. S. Evans, Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba, Winnipeg

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o'clock, Saturday, April 28, 1962 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions Reading and Receiving Petitions Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees Notice of Motion Introduction of Bills Orders of the Day HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier)(Wolseley): Mr. Sp@aker, I would like to lay on the table of the House a reply to an Order of the House, No. 19, on the motion of the Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. MR. ROBLIN: I suppose members are interested in discussing our procedure this afternoon.

I advanced this proposition for consideration, Mr. Speaker, that we should just carry on in the House until 5:30. I understand the Honourable the Leader of the NDP does not wish to speak this afternoon so you would not expect him to resume the Budget debate, but we have a few bills here to give second reading to. We might proceed with them and then carry on with our resolutions. An alternative of that, of course, would be to adjourn after we finish the second readings and go back into committee.

On the other hand, there are a number of ra ther important suggestions before the Committee with respect to legislation that I don't think the government would be prepa,red to proceed with thiS afternoon. We'd want to have a look at them and I imagine other members would the same.

So it occu,rred to me that it might be just as suitable to stay in the House this afternoon and do as much business as we could and then meet again Monday morning, at which time we could hear the Leader of the NDP Party in re spect of the Budget Address and any others who care to speak; and then Monday afternoon at 2 :30 go into Committee and then take care of the bills in that way. I just offer that as a sugges tion. If there are better ideas that-other members would like to advance, I'm sure we would· be pleased�o hear them. MR. GILDAS MOLGAT (Leader of the Qpposition)(Ste. Rose): Mr.

Speaker, I ... . understood from the discussion yesterday in what the First Minister said, that we would be meeting only for a very brief moment this afternoon and then proceeding directly to Law Amendments Committee, and we had prepared our work on that basis. However, I have no objection basically, Mr. Speaker, if there are matters here that we can proceed with and ad vance one more stage. I would have nb objection to that, but I would have to make the reserva tion all the way through that there are a number of items that likely we would ask to stand in view of what we have expected. MR.

ROBLIN: Well if there was that feeling, Mr. Speaker, I certainly would have no objection to going back to committee. We could do the second readings we have on the Order Paper, both public and private bills, and then we could go back into committee and see what progress we can make there this afternoon. If that's more in line with.what members had ex pected to do, well that's, I think, the course we should follow. So if that's agreeable, we'll take second readings starting with the Bill 100 on the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Is it the intention to take the adjourned debates on second reading too?

Adjourned debate on the proposed second reading of Bill No. 100. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. MOLGAT: Well, Mr. Speaker, there has been a considerable debate on this bill and certainly the members of our group have contributed a fair amount to the debate. I don't propose to make any long statement on it this afternoon. I think our position has been made clear. While it's true that when Metro Bill first came up, a number of our group voted against it; and while it's true when it first came up we proposed that there should be a refer endum on Metro; our position on Metro now, Mr.

Speaker, is that it is here and it is up to this House that passed the bill to do everything it can to make Metro work. Quite frankly, insofar as this bill is concerned, we think that this is an attempt on the part of the government to hide behind the committee rather than take its responsibilities in April 28th, 1962 Page 3069

(Mr. Molgat, cont'd.) • • this matter. We are quite prepared to have any committee of the House continue a discussion on the matters of Metro in between sessions. We don't think that this is the time to set up a separate committee to do it. This is the House that passed the legislation and this is the House that should consider, at this time, if changes are needed. When the legislation was first introduced, the government said that it would give a term of five years for Metro to get, shall we say, sorted out. Now the government after bare ly a year in operation, is suggesting that it should be reviewed.

We don't agree with that pro cedure, Mr. Speaker, and we are not going to vote in favour of this bill. We think the govern ment should either accept its responsibilities; take what action is needed, if in its opinion action is needed at this time; or, if not, then give Metro a chance to work out. The First Minister in. his speech on the 9th of April when he introduced the bill, on one side patted Metro on the back; said what good fellows they were and what a good job they had been doing. On the other side, he chided them for going too quickly. Mr.

Speaker, the Legislature decided actually at what speed they would proceed. When we gave them responsibilities for water control or water services, for sewage, and a number of other things, we determined the speed at which they should operate. What else could they do? Could they take over a portion of the Greater Winnipeg water district? Obviously not. If they were going to take the responsibility they had only one way to do it, and that was to take over the whole thing at one time, which they did. This legislation now, I think, is unfair to ·them. I think it's not in the intent of the original legislation.

I think it's contrary to the very statements that the First Minister made when he introduced the legislation. I suspect that it's simply a manner of getting himself off the hook until the next election is called, so that he doesn't have to face up to his respon-Sibilities in this matter. We say this House has the re sponsibility. If there is action needed, let this House take it. MR. ROBLIN: If no one else cares to speak on this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say just a word or two in winding up the debate.

I had started out to prepare a filll-dress reply to the various people who have spoken in the course of this rather lengthy dis cussion about the government's policy with respect to Metro, but I have to confess that before the debate had proceeded very far, I had to throw up my hands at the job. The contribution that has just been made by the Leader of the Opposition is ample evidence of the dilemma in which I find myself.

Because while we did have, and I must acknowledge the fact that we did have a number of constructive addresses on this subject, most of which -- and I hope this won't be construed as being an attempt to get any closer to some of my honourable friends on the other side of the House -- most of which came from members of the New Democratic Party, and particularly the speech by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks.

They were a construc tive effort to deal with a problem which is causing some concern in this area, but when I turned to the speeches that had been delivered in this House by the members of the Liberal Party, my imagination bulldozed. It really does. Because if there is a side of the question that they haven't been on in the course of their attention to this matter, then I must. say it must be a very obscure side indeed because they have danced a ring around the whole thing from the beginning. It's almost impossible to deal with the contradictions and the arguments that were raised.

The Honourable Member for Carillon, and I'm very sorry that he's not here, held up to us as a model of municipal wisdom, of provincial foresight in this, the report that was made by the Provincial-Municipal Committee in 1952; and said that if only we had followed this, we'd be all right. This was the gospel according to Edmond, and yet if we read this particular docu ment we find right here on �ge 172, a statement about one of the main recommendations of that committee of '52-53. And what was it?

That there should be mandatory, within the area, a Metropolitan Board to cover the services that they thought should be handled on a centralized basis. Mandatory -- exactly what we did -- and yet the prospects that were received from some that we adopted that recommendation, I must in candor say that they did not recommend the particular form of representation on the Metropolitan Council that was eventually chosen. That was another part of their recommendation.

But one of the main recommendations, and I quote from the report -- one of the main recommendations, or the words used here, 11had to do with the establishment of this mandatory metropolitan board to take care of the centralized control of these services starting with planning and the other services which are now in The Page J070 April 28th, 1962

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd.) ..•. Metro Act." So according to him and some of his friends, it's all right to quote this as the authority but pay no regard to the recommendations that are in it. And when the government does pay some regard to a recommendation, and the most important· recommendation in here respecting the Metropolitan area, then we're accused of doing the wrong thing. Well he's entitled to that opinion and I don't grudge it to him. He also pointed out with some considerable satisfaction to the Royal Commission that reported about 1957 or '58 on this subject. They recommended'against a referendum.

He didn't think that was a very good idea, but he thought that report was the acme of wisdom. But he made no reference to his views with respect to referendum and that applies to other mem bers who. have spoken on the other side with respect to it. That Royal Commission didn't re commend a referendum. They recommended against a referendum. They recommended against it and yet my honourable friends opposite criticize us and point to these reports as being the acme of wisdom.

That report also recommended that we should have eight cities -- abolish 11 of the municipalities concerned, more or less, and have eight cities. Where do my honourable friends opposite stand on: that? I am waiting to hear for some constructive, practical, help ful proposals from the members of the Liberal Party, and I haven't heard it in connection with Metro. They haven't had any constructive, helpful or practical proposals in this debate, nor indeed for some time with respect to this matter. What they are trying to do, and what they are obviously enjoying very much, is fishing in the troubled waters.

Well I want to tell them it isn't going to do them any good at all because that's the kind of thing that does not pass for policy; it does not pass for a sound political approach or a political point of view; it does not pass for the leadership which some of my friends on the other side seem to have a fixation on. These are all things which we have noticed with respec t to this debate on Metro. The government has been accused of abandoning its child. We've been accused, and oh the language is pretty fierce in some respects.

One of the honourable members who isn't here accused us of cowardice, treason, disloyalty. l wish I could lay my hands on the adjec ti ves which he bestowed upon us in connection with this debate. Well of course that level of debate hardly enhances· a serious discussion of a problem of this sort. I suppose it's not worth paying much attention to and perhaps that's what I better do, just pay no attention to it at all. But I would like to say this, Mr. Speaker, that the government has a certain responsi bility toward Metro, in that we arrange that under .the Act it would be composed of ten elected officials.

A lot has been heard about the one appointed one. That, incidentally, the fact th at the chairman should be appointed, was a recommendation of the Royal Commission that we followed in this respect. But there are ten elected officers who run that council and who would have thought it right for us -- would anyone have thought it right for us to have interfered with the activities of that elected council in any direct way such as has been suggested by those who say we've been neglecting our child. That child was endowed with certain powers and certain authorities and certain responsibilities.

We trust them, and we trust them now to carry out those responsibilities in their duties as best they may. There's nothing in the act that says the provincial government canme ddle;the re's nothing in the Act that says the provin cial government can interfere with the activities of this Council; and that was put in deliber ately because these are men who are electa:i, and I say to this House, Sir, that it is their re sponsibility to carry on that particular function of government and not ours to meddle with them in the operation of their business from day to day.

So much for those who say we neglect or abandon our child. What about lack of responsibility; what about getting off the hook; what about refusing to face up to the facts, that are implied in the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition. What truth is there in that? We're going to have a commission. You might call it a Royal Commission. One member opposite said that we are opposed to Royal Commissions and said that we had complained about Royal Commissions when we were on the other side. I challenge that gentleman, who isn't here, to give us any examples of when we did that.

I challenge any mem ber of the House to give us any examples. He may be thinking of other complainers, but we didn't. We supported the Royal Commission that went into this in the first place. We suppor ted the Royal Commission that looked into education and the other Royal Commissions which April 28th, 1962 Page 3071

(Mr. Robli n, cont'd.) • • • • had been established when we were in opposition. In fact we asked for them, as the Honourable Leader of the NDP will remember when we were discussing these things in days gone by. I think it was his resolution, but I know that we supported it. We've not been opposed to this. When the Grits were in office they took two Royal Commissions to come to grips with this problem, and then they weren't able to bring the matter to completion.

They had one Royal Commission, if I may describe this Provincial-Municipal Committee in that way -- perhaps not quite accurately -- but a kind of a commission looking into this. They weren't satisfied with that. · They had another -- they had two. So it took them two Royal Commissions -- two investigations of this nature -- and they may have been right to do it.

I'm not complain ing about that; but then to turn around and say that it's all wrong for us to have a committee of enquiry -- it's all wrong for us to have a commission of enquiry when the clear intent to do so was in the legislation from the beginnin g; isn't just the kind of logic that makes much of an impression with me, and I say that people who take that point of view, Sir, are arguing from a very restricted brief indeed. Someone. has said about questions of taxation.

Well, we all know very well that the municipalities are, by statute, obliged to collect the school taxes, although they have no say as to how those taxes are collected. We did not introduce any strange or exotic principle of taxation into the municipal field in Manitoba when it was arranged that the Metropolitan govern ment should collect its taxes through the municipal governments. I think it's right that they should do so and I'll tell you a very good reason why it's right they should do so.

I think it is a good thing that the local taxpayer should know what the total sum and bill of the mu,nicipal taxes lie has to pay for schools and for municipal government and Metro on one piece of paper. That does nobody any harm and it does a lot of us a lot of good. There's no possibility there that this matter can be sloughed off or minimized in respect of that. So I think that the argument that was put forward in that connection was certainly not one that we need worry about very much. But the Liberal party manages to take two points of view with equal conviction.

One is that they have complete confidence in Metro and the other is that Metro, is no good at all. The Honourable Member for Carillon, and many others like him over there are against Metro. They say it's no good. It needs to be improved -- changes. He brings in all kinds of ideas. We bring in a measure by which such change can be effected in an orderly manner and which we're all,accustomed to in this province, and what does he do? He says he's going to vote against it. He says it's no good ·and I'm not going to help make it any better.

That's the way in which his argument, I think, can be summarized, and I think that is the argument of many people in the Liberal Party. But it seems to me that the Honourable Member for Carillon really -- and I'm sorry he's not here because it's not -- well it really isn't fun, apart from anything else, to have to talk about him when he isn't here, because when he's here I always get a very satisfac tory reaction from him. When we're debating he corrects me if I'm wrong, and he takes

part i n the disc ussion, and I feel a little unhappy that he's not here to talk to us now.

But he intro duced what I thought was an absolute jewel of an approach to the problems of political philoso phy .when he was dealing with this matter, because anticipating no doubt, anticipating no doubt that I would say the Liberal Party hasn't got a mind of its own on this subject, they're going in 11 different ways; anticip ating that I might say it's up to them to have a constructive alterna tive policy instead of this eternal niggling and criticizing and fault-finding; you'll never get elected on that boys, I want to tell you -- I've been through that mill -- better find something better than that to say if you expect the voters to pay any attention to you -- but instead of doing that, he anticipated that I would wonder what the policy of the Liberal Party was so he explained it_to us.

He said: "we haven't got a policy." He said: "w 13're split." He said: "we don't have to have a policy. Every man can say what he likes; each one for himself. It doesn't mat ter, we •re in the opposition. 11 All I can say is he has a perfect right to that point of view. I don't complain about it at all. All I say to him, and all I say to l:iis leader, is that you'll never get anywhere that way in the political life. MR. MOLGAT: Tell us your policy. MR. ROBLIN: I'm coming to my policy. You're going to hear all about my policy -- more than you like. You're going to hear all about my policy.

But I want to tell my honourable friends opposite that the;y've got to develop a coherent, consistent point of view on these problems. Page 3072 April 28th, 1962

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd.) • • • . They've got to offer the people of this province a construc�ive, helpful, useful alternative to the policies that the government are enunciating if they expect anyone to take them seriously.

And listening to this debate on Metro and hearing tb6m dance around the ring -- well it's the right day, it's almost the first of May -- almost May Day -- and they can dance around the Maypole and their 11 members can go twisting and twining .around the way they've done in this debate, but they're certainly not going to make any impression upon people who are interested in the conduct of public affairs and that's the kind of thing we want to do. · · · MR. MOLGAT: Tell us yours. MR. ROBLIN: Now the government's policy is perfectly clear. MR. MOLGAT: Send it to a committee. MR. ROBLIN: We believe in Metro.

We are quite satisfied with the Metro syste� of government as being, in essence, helpful and right for the people of this community. I made ' that point pefectly clear in my opening remarks. I'm not going to repeat it.

We do agree, however, that none of the creations of this government, nor I daresay of any other,·· are ill fact perfect or incapable of being improved; and it seemed to us quite clear t_hat at this ljlta:ge in the life of Metro, with the public discussion that there has been about it, that it might be a helpfui thing to have an impartial, completely unbiased view of the. matter taken, as was originally intended in the original Metro Act by the commission of review. MR. MOLGAT: To get you off the hook. MR. ROBLIN: To get me off the hook, he says.

He doesn't understand the -- how can anyone who has been in this House eight or nine years make a statement like that? Does anyone think that after this committee.has reported and its views are made known, that the government will not have to take the responsibility for anything that happellljl after that? Does· my honour able friend think for a minute - - Does he think • • • • MR. MOLGAT: After the election. MR. ROBLIN: That's an idea -- after the election. Maybe.we should'have:one, a little sooner than my honourable friend thlliks. MR. MOLGAT: You ca:n have it any time. Any time you want.· MR.

ROBLIN: I'm grateful for the encouragement. We'll think it over --(Interjection) But the government's course is clear. We take the responsibility for Metro.

It's perfectly true that people on the other side of the House voted for it, and those who did, I'm grateful to them. because I think they did the right thing; but when it comes to a question of responsibility at the beginning, now, before the commission, after it -- whenever you like -- the government is here to take the responsibility for the acts that it has been responsible for, and there is no· ' dodging and the:re is no ducking and there is equivocation and there is none of these endeavours that my honourable friend has tried to impute to us, that we're not going to take the responsibility. But, Mr.

Chairman, there is a world of difference between that and saying thatwe are wrong to follow the particular course we take in examining' this matter. We would be irrespon sible, I suggest, if we did nothing. That's where we'd be irresponsible. We would be irres ponsible, I suggest, if this was opened up in less than a completely impartial and disiriterested way, in view of the differences of opinion that have been aroused. How do you getthB.t kmd of examination.

Well we've learned from long experience in this country that there•s·nothing to be ashamed of in having an instrumentality such as a Royal Commission give that kind of a look, but everybody knows; and the Leader· of the Opposition knows, that we must take the responsi-" bility in the first instance for proposing it and then, when it is done, we must take the reSpon' sibility for what happens. There is no dodging of our responsibility nor will there be any effort to do so.

If my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition would· cons ult with his colleague, who has had some experience himself in setting up commissions of one sort or another, he would understand that what Pm saying is the truth. I'm sure the Honourable Member for Lake side would never tell the Honourable· Member for Ste. Rose that the establishment of a Royal Commission, or an investigation of this sort, was an abdication of responsibility; that. he was forfeiting the respect of this House because he had not come to grips with the problem; that he was doing something to dodge or to get behind or to cover tip.

He'd ne:ve'r give him that advice April 28th, 1962 Page 3073

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd.) • • • . because he knows it isn't true. And I suggest to my honour able friend the Member for Lakeside, that it isn't true either. It's quite a good thing that we have some men of experience, and I may say of judgment, in the Liberal Party these days be cause there are a few that haven't got that kind of a qualification. However, that may be, Mr.

Chairman, and I don't wish to pursue that line of thought any farther, all I want to say is that it is rather disappointing that we heard nothing from the Liberal Party that one could, I think in candor, describe as a constructive approach to this problem: They fished in the muddy waters; they tried to see if they can't stir up a little poli tical wave of self-interest insofar as they're concerned. If they can, God bless them. They're welcome to it. I myself am not interested in that.

I'll say to my honourable friends in the other opposition party that they have approached this problem with considerably more respon sibility than my honourable friends yonder, and I give them credit for that particular point of view. MR. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Leader of the New Democratic Party)(Radisson): Not only this problem, but many others as well. MR. ROBLIN: Well I wouldn't say no to that, and I'll say this, that it's not long since the Liberal Party did have a responsible and a coherent philosophy and stand to take on policies in this House. That day is not forgotten. It isn't long ago. MR.

PAULLEY: Yes, but it1·s gone. MR. ROBLIN: Well I hope it's not gone forever. For the sake of good government in this province, I hope it's not gone forever, because I understand very well that this.province would need a coherent and constructive and helpful policy from the Liberal Party, not only on this subject but on many others that have come here, and I challenge •••• MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Lakeside): We've got one. MR. ROBLIN: Well if my honourable friend says he's got one, I'm glad of that. It's a well-kept secret. I will say that it's well-hidden.

I thought this was the place where we saw a confrontation of ideas. I thought this was a place where opposition parties paraded their words and showed the public why they justified the title of an alternative government. I've been expecting that kind of thing, particularly since we got a new leader in the Liberal Party, but we haven't seen much of it. Oh, we've heard about "ombudsman" and we've heard about -- what is it, Comptroller-Generals ?

I think the Comptroller-General the other day pretty well put the stopper on any ideas of that sort in the discussion that took place in the Public Accounts committee. _And we've heard criticism. We've heard lots of that, not very much of it con structive. We've heard demands on the one side that more money be spent; and, on the. other, that we're spending too much. We've had this famous example of "tweedle-dum and tweedle-'dee" ·--back to back -- orpe rhaps one person just talking out of two sides of the same mouth, I'm not sure which.

But anyway, that's the kind of thing we've had and we've had it in plenty in this Metro Bill. Mr. Speaker, I really must apologize to you because I didn't really expect to get invol ved in this line of argument on this particular bill. MR. MOLGAT: Now where is your policy:l' MR. ROBLIN: However, my honourable friend, the Leader of the Opposition, I must confess, stimulated me to say a little more than I otherwise might have. All I want to say is this. The government's policy is quite clear. We aren't trying to dodge any responsibility. We want to make sure that there is an impartial examination of this problem.

We'll see that it's done and having a policy, even if it is not a pefect policy, is considerably better than hav ing no policy at all; and that's the policy of my honourable friends opposite. MR. MOLGAT: What's yours? MR. ROBLIN: I told you my policy and you know it very well; and when you've got a policy to announce, well, we'll be all pleased to listen to it. Meantime, Mr. Speaker, I recom ment the House give second reading to this hill. Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. MOLGAT: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker. ·MR. ROBLIN: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Call in the members. The question before the House is the proposed motion proposed by the Honourable the Page 3074 April 28th, 1962

(Mr. Speaker, cont'd.) • • • • • • • ., , the First Minister for Second Reading of Bill No. 100,

an Act to amend The Metropoi itan Winnipeg Act (1). A standing vote was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS: Messrs. Alexander, Bai.zley, Bjornson, Carroll, Christianson, Corbett, Cowan, Evans, Groves, Harris, Hawryluk, Ingebrigtson, Jeannotte, Johnson (Assiniboia), Johnson (Gimli), Klym, Lyon, McLean, Martin, Paulley, Peters, Reid, Roblin, Scarth, Schreyer, Seaborn, Smellie, Stanes, Strickland, Thompson, We ir, Witney and Wright. NAYS: Messrs. Campbell, Dow, Froese, Hillhouse, Molgat, Roberts and Tanchak. MR. CLERK: Yeas, 33; Nays, 7. MR, SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried. MR. ROBLIN . presented Bill No. 66,

an Act to amend The Reserve for War and PQ�t� War Emergencies Act, for second reading. Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I made a pretty full explanation at the Committee of the Whole stage, and there's really nothing I can add at the moment. Mr. Speaker presented the .motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. ROBLIN presented Bill No. 95,

an Act to amend The Unconditional Grants Act, for second reading. Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, there is just one observation I would like to make on this bill, and I'm certainly not opposing it going to second reading. It's my understanding of the bill that it makes, in general, provisions whereby the grants imder The Unconditional Grants Act may be paid possibly to individuals or to representatives of individuals in certain sections of the. Province of Manitoba.

I'd like to make this suggestion to the government, that the Legislature be informed automatically as to whom the grants are paid. We know that they are being p·aid to recognized legislative organizations such a:s municipalitie� and the likes of this, but I think that it would be well for the government if they disclosed annua:lly to whom the payments were made in respect of any of the bands or the persons in unorganized territory or disorganized territory, so that the information is before us at all times. That is the o:i:IJ.y suggestion I wish to make at this time, Mr. Speaker. MR.

ROBLIN: If no one else wishes to speak, Sir, I think I can say that I imagine thi:S will a:ll appear in the Public Accounts, so it will be placed before the House in that form. Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. ROBLIN presented Bill No. 120,

an Act to amend The Amusements Act, for second reading. Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, this brings in the new

schedule of taxation with respect to the amusement tax that was forecast in the budget speech. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection on our pa:rt to this bill. This is the one that we understood was coming down and it certainly receives our approval. Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared tlie motion carried. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that we turn to Page 9 of the Order Paper and deal with the second readings beginning with the adjourned debate on Bill No. 34. MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on Bill No. 34. The Honourable Member for Fisher. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, may I inform the House that the Honourable Member for Fisher originally adjourned this debate for the Honourable Member for Brokenhead who is here and is prepared to make some comments at this time. MR. E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhead): Mr. Speaker this bill affords anyone an oppor tunity to wax philosophical about such things as universal suffrage, the concept of government by consent, etcetera, but I will be very brief and deal only with the matter of the voting age and the age. limitation thereto. I believe that there has been only small and short comments so far on this particular bill.

The Member for Osborne was speaking on this bill about three weeks ago and he said a very brief comment there that he tested this matter within the confines of his own family and he suggested that the consensus Of opinion Of his OWn SOn and daughter, who are Of the age Of 18 and they felt that they were not qualified to assume the responsibility of casting a vote at the April 28th, 1962 Page 3075

(Mr. Schreyer, cont'd.) • • age of 18. I suggest that such a Gallop poll -- if you want to call it that -- doesn't really have any validity. It only proves one thing, that the honourable member is blessed with a family that has the virtue of humility. That's about all that one can .conclude from that particular observation. Humility is a virtue and the member should feel proud.

However, it seems to me that if we are prepared by law to allow a young man of 21 to take a seat in this Legislature and participate in the law.,.making process, and we do have such provision, then it seems logical to assume that at the age of 18, being but 3 years yoilnger, people -- young people do have the capacity to exercise discretion during an election and cast a vote as they see fit. If a young man can participate in the law-making process at 21, surely be knows enough at 18 to cast a vote in the responsible manner that a citizen should.

Now of course there are some traditional arguments that have been used in past years in opposition to lowering the voting age. I'd like to point out to honourable members there is really ng historical basis for 21 being retained as the voting'age. Traditibn. and custom have played a major

part in us keeping the age 21 as the age limit, but,other colintries in the Wt>rld -- many other!S -- .have a lower voting age. Some have the voting age' limit at a ·higher level • But. isn't it a f.act, Mr. Speaker, that 18 is considered to be the legal age for matrimony. Young people of the age of 18 or over do not require parental consent for matr.imony. It seems that they're capable of responsibility in that regard. It's. an age .at which most young people have· entered into the world; competed ori the labour market for jobs and are working in order to earn a living ..

Many young people at the age of 18 or 19 have jobs in which ther.e is consid erable risk and. cl.anger, working with dangerous machines, and so they do have to accept responsibility. Some might suggest that someone at the age of 18 or 19 doesn't have the psychological stability that. is desirable in someone who has the franchise to cast a ballot to choose ·a govern ment, but it s.eems to me that today's young people are just as psychologically advanced at the ,. age of. 18 as perhaps our parents were at the age of 21.

It seems to me: that today's young · people do have more cares on their. shoulders than might have been the case in the society of . 50 or 60 years ago, when industrialization and urbanization were not as far advanced as they are today. I think that lowering. the. voting age would react to the advantage of our youth· in the sense t.hat they would have a greater feeling of participation in the things that go on about them. It might even work as a positive way to help combat juvenile delinquency, and I suggest members think about that for· awhile·.

One of the greatest psychoses, if I can use that term, that young people labour under is a feeling of not belonging; a feeling of awkwardness and so on and so forth; and if they are expected to shoulder a growing share of responsibility as is re quir�d of any adult citizen, I think they grow up just that much faster and· !think that this is a good thing. I saiq I would .be brief, Mr. Speaker, and !·believe that up to now I have advanced what I believe to be some pretty good arguments for the support of this bill to lower the voting age to that·o� 18.

I.find that, ill the. matter of personal experience, I partieipated in election cam paigns at the age of 21; I was elected at the age of 22; and it seems to me .::_ I!m usirig now the first arguement I advanced -- if we say that someone's old enough to assume pUblic office at 21, he's old enough to vote at 18. If that still doesn't convince honourable.members, I would ask.them to atJeast let it go,to committee. Perhaps there aI"e one .or two or three authorities from outside this C!iamber who might like to have something to say on this. MR. MOLGAT: Mr.

Speaker, I just want to say a very few words on this proposed act. We are certainly all in favour·ef it -:-this motion. In our opinion, ·it is time. that we do extend the franchise to this group. I think any of us who have worked with younger people -- be it through any of the sports fields or any other activity, have found that by and large the younger group have a great deal more interest in whatever it. is that they are partaking than as people go along later on in years. You can get enthusiasm; you can get a great deal more interest in a younger group of people.

In our opinion, if we were to .give the right to vote to people less than 21, down to 18, we will be doing something not only for that particular age group, but we would also be developing, for the future, citizens with a greater interest in public affairs. Citizens wbo, later on in life, will continue the interest that they start at that time. Page 3076 April 28th, 1962

(Mr. Molgat, cont'd.) One of the calamities, Mr. Speaker, in our system is that we have the right to vote, but too few people make use of it. When yo11 look abo11t the world toda,y and you see so many areas where that right does not exist, it's shamef\4 to consider our own sitll ation. But those are the facts an,d anything that we can do to improve this, I think we should do. This motion, I think, is a step in the right direction. So far as the Liberal Party is concerned, our position has been in the past, one of encouraging the franchise. We were the party here in Manitoba, Mr.

Speaker, who bro11ght in the franchise for women. It was the first province in Canada to do this. It was cione by the Liberal Party here in Manitoba, and we are in complete agree ment witl;l this change now which woajd i.IJ.clude youngsters of the age of 18. We as):c of them certiµn responsibilities. If ever there is a need of conscr�pti(,)n, we do not hesitate to con script them at tii.e age 18. Surely if they can shoulder those responsibilities, .they can, as well, the responsibilities of v9ting. · l\IUt. J. M. FROESE (Rhinelan,d): Mr • . Speaker, I'd just like to say a few words.

I think the two western provinces have. an age limit or a voting 11.ge of 19, and I would like to see more uniformity across the Dominion on this matter. I will support the bill, but I'd like to see more uniformity and briJig it in'line with the two western provinces. . . MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, some reference was made in the debate on this same b�ll some days ago now, to the fact that when our govermp.ent had the privilege of occupying the treasury benches that this resolution was prop0sed -- this same bill was put before the House and that we did not support it.

I've forgotten who the honourable member was that made men tion of that -- it was my honourable friend the Leader of the New Democratic Party and he was kind enough, on that occasion, to tell the full story and to say that we bad amended it to say that we thought that unif9rmity, so far as possible, was advisable ·in this connection and that we gave 'an undertaking that we would raise this at either the Constitlltional Conference between Canada and the ten proVinces or the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Conference, whichever was first convened.

Well as a matter of fact, I wish to rep9rt that that's one promise, at least, that we · carried out to the letter,. because I raised t)lls matter at both of those conferences. It happen ed that the constitutional one and the federal-provincial one came close together on that occa sion, and not in.our formal brief but m the discussion that took place, I raised this question at both of those conferences.

I pointed out the fact that we had, and I may be wrong in this, but my recollection was that at that time we had in the four western provinces of Canada, four dif ferent voting ages. · My honourable friend from Burrows informs me now that it is three, that two provinces have 19; one has 18; and the one, of course, 21. I was under the impression that.at that time we were so un-uniform as to have four different voting ages in four provinces of western Canida.

Certainly we had three -- we still have three, and although I don't think that we should slavishly strive for uniformity, I do think that to the extent that we can achieve uniformity, it is advantageous. I said at this conference or at both of those conferences, as I have said in this House on several occasions that as far as I'm concerned, I would be prepared to go along with aµy age from 18 to 21 that we could get majority agreement on or the agree ment with the federal government on, because I would think that it would be helpful if we could have the highest possible degree of uniformity.

But I must say that I was not encouraged by the reaction at that time and I doubt that any progress toward uniformity, particularly so far as the Government of Canada is concerned and some of the Maritime Provinces, is in the offing and I certaiiily would be inclined to go along now with the age that is suggested in this bill. I know thi13 is a digression.

I reaUze we should keep our speeches at this-time of the session short and I shouldn't make a digression, but I can't help but recalling that when I was preparing my few brief remarks for the constitlltional conference which was the first of those two to be held, and again for the federal-provincial financial �onference, when I was preparing my remarks on this question for that conference, I cast about in my own mind to think if there was anything else that I could urge in the interest of uniformity.

I thought of something that I proposed at that time, and I'm going to propose it, if I'm spared, and an election doesn't take place in the meantime and I'm back here next year, I'm going to propose it in a resolution to ·this Legislature because I think it's important too. I suggested to the conference at that time, that I thought one thing that we should move toward in Canada, and I think it would be helpful Api;il 28th, 1962 Page 3077

(Mr. Froese, cont'd.) • • here and particularly helpful in our international relations, would be an adoption of the metric system of weights and measures. I think that anything that we can do in this way toward uniformity, provided we don't sacrifice anything else in the achievement of a degree of uniformity, is to the advantage of better understanding in Canada; and with regard to that second one, certainly with better understanding throughout the world. !think you will remember, Mr.

Speaker, that one of the great statesmen of the former century was credited with the statement that the most important fact of the 19th Century was the fact that the United Kingdom and the United States spoke the same language and I think that that is something that we can keep in mind, that the greater degree of uniformityw e can achieve, withOutsa crificinganymajor principleinthepursuito fu n:iiormity, is good. So, regretfully I - .

I may. say, because o� the fact that even with my powers of persuasion I was not able to make . : much of an impact upon our cionfreres in ·either the constitutional conference or the federal provincial financial bonference, regretfully, I think it is time that we at least join in with the other provinces of t� e west in lowering the age. And in lowering it, I would think we might as well go down to the 18 and then at least we'll have two provinces at 18 and two at 19.

Might I sayjj�st in amplification of what my leader said a very few minutes ago, not only was this provinbe and this party the one that was the first to give votes to women -- the first of the nine pro�inces as there were then, and now ten provinces -- it led the GQvernment of Canada in that regard. I think I'm correct in saying that this province was also the first one to give the voteslto our original citizens, the Indians.

I think that we might now, under the circumstances ti:lat exist, and they have been covered fully enough I thillk in the previous debate, that we might now make this step and join in with at least one of our provinces to the w.est. I · MR; SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member is closing the debate. I MR. J. M. HAWRYLUK (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate on this bill that I i ntroduced thi� year, it was my privilege to introduce a resolution four years ago.

At that time, it appeare:d that both parties had voted against the resolution, but at least, this year we have had some cop mitments made 'On the part of the Liberals. I'm very, very happy to hear some of the reaJsons why they feel that something should be done about reducing the age of o ur voters in this prbvince. I don't intend to belabour the House with the many reasons why I think it should be dorle. I certainly don't agree to the reasons why the Honourable Member for Osborne was against fit, because it was an opinion of his own family at the time.

But I just want to make a brief survey as to what the general public feels why it's time that we in this provhlce were more progressive in ()ur thinking. I believe the Conservatives ·called themselves "p�ogressives". I'd like to see them progress in the idea of giving some of our younger people under 21 an opportunity to express a viewpoint at the polls rather than to rely on some of the people who have had the privilege for many years and have neglected their solemn duty to vote. Vote how you please, but vote on voting day.

The apathy shown from time to time in our civic elections in the rural ridings and in the urban ridings is appalling as far as I'm concerned. I feel that some of our young farm folk who are under 21, who have the responsibility of looking after big machinery, operating big farms, should have the opportunity to 'vote in some of the rural ridings. I don't know whether the members are aware of the fact that we have many of our young people whO have been married under the age of 21.

I was interested enough to make some dif ferent statistics on this figure and possibly, I think, the members would be aware that in this Province of Manitoba we have had over 40, OOO - over 40, OOO young people, at the age of 21 and under, married from the years 1953 to 1960. I don't think you would assume that they were irresponsible people when they got married. Possibly a small fraction could have been but, nevertheless, the bulk of them, I think, were married; possibly some were sorry but, nevertheless, they did have responsibility. Now what is the responsibility that they must have taken over?

The fact that they had to foot the bills as far as family life was concerned, as far as maintaining a home and trying to make ends meet; paying taxes directly and possibly indirectly. -- (Interjection) -- Possibly there too. But nevertheless, in this province we have allowed over 40,000 people under 21 to get married and, I think, that they possibly had every reason and the feeling that they could live as cheaply as one; but nevertheless they got married Page 3078 April 28th, 1962

(Mr. Hawryluk, cont' d.) • this Province in Manitoba. and are holding the responsibility as useful citizens of Then again, we also have another indication of how we give the responsibility to our youth. I think the Minister of Education could be aware of this . He must be aware of this . According to the figures of the Department of Education, we get stati stics shown here as t.Q the age grouping of our future teach ers in this province. It's quite a revelation in case yqq, haven't read it , and this. has been �oing on for years and years.

I think some of you people who are sitting in this House have been taught by top-notch teachers who are only 17 and 18 . No one said that the y weren't capable , of taking the. responsibility of conducting a class in the rural ridings, and yet it's continued today in 1961. We have people accepted in the Teachers' College who are 16 years of age -- two of them . We have 71 at the age of 17 ; we have 198 at the age of 18 ; 120 at the age of 19; and 48. a,t tlle a� of 20.

No one has questioned the fact that they are immature to teach and take the responsibUity of the young lives and mold the fu ture generation of our province . No one Ii.as questioned the integrity of the se people who go out in to our areas and given the full responsibility, in many cases, of one,.,room schools and are doing a doggone good job. Yet on the one hand, you give them this responsibility where the y're going to have to fulfill the obligation of the school teach er ; and, on the other hand, you say they.ire not capable of voting because th ey're 18 or 19. No how ridiculous can anyone be .

It . has been multiplied umpteen times and we've had hundreds and hundreds of our young people go through the house of learning, as one would say, at the Teachers' College, and they come out and we gladly accept th em, especially in the time of war when we couldn't even get qualified teach ers . We had permit teachers and we were glad to get th ose people who could go into the classrooms and teach the youn,g folk in the Province of Manitoba.

Does one realize that that amounted to, on the basis of thi s booklet here, that 80% of our.people were under 21 and were allowed to teach; and yet we haven't done anything in regard to accept the fact that they are capable of teaching , taking the responsibility of molding the lives of our youth; and yet we say they cannot be responsible for whom they can vote.

Now this is a ridiculous , ironical situation that we're living in in thi s day and age. · Then again, we come to the point of the fact that -- I know becaus e I've had many of my boys particularly who have left school at the age of 15 and 16 and, invariably, where do they wind up? In the army, navy and air force. Possibly they haven't got their grade eight educa tion, but our country sure wa.nts the m; they take th em. As far as we're concerned, they take over a responsible job.

How many of you people who've been in the forces in the last war have come across young ·people who are only 17 or 18 taking over a man' s job, a man's job of check ing your equipment; being a top-notch mechanic; and, in many cases, being one of our top pilots -� under 21. They were given the opportunity to operate machinery equipment running into thousands and hundreds of th ousands of dollars under the age of 21 •. And last but not least, they were asked to do a man' s job to go out and fight a man's war under the age of 21, and yet they were not allowed to vote. This could be done today in 1962 .

How many wars do we need bef ore we can give concessions to th ese people who take over a man's job under the age of 21, or a woman's job under the age of 21, and yet we have not considered that aspect at all. I' m reminded of the fact that former President Eisenhower of the Uni ted States asked Congress to introduce a constitution or amendment to lowering the present age of 21.

He said and I quote: "lf a person is old enough to fight for .his country, he 's old enough to vote. 11 And last but not least, I remember a very interesting experience that I had with the Honourable Minister of Commerce three years ago when you and myself and the late Mr . • • • was interviewed by students from Sisler High. Do you remember that , S.ir ? There were a group of people from Sisler High School. We met them in the Chamber and we sat there -- and the se people were in the age category of 18 and 19 -- and we just sat there and they asked us a lot of questions .

Now you presumably thought they would ask a lot of childish, foolish questions and I was interested enough in the kind of questions they asked -- and these were 17, 18 and 19 year old high school students -- and we were asked to answer, to the best of our ability at the time , some of the questions. And some of the questions they did ask, I can assure you, we could not answer too fully as a matter of fact. And here are some of the questions they asked at the time .

The quest ions they asked on what was under discussion -- I think the former Premier of thi s province recalls the Horse Racing Bill.No. 34 -- they were int erested in April 28th, 1962 Page 3079

Page · 3080 April 28th, 1962

MR. A.· J. REID (Kildonan): Mr . Speaker, I adjourned the debate for the Honourable Member for Elmwood. If anybody else wishes to speak though - - MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Elmwood. HON. J. A. CHRISTIAf{SON (Minister of Welfare)(Portage La Prairie) : Mr . Speaker, if the Honourable Member for Elmwood speaks, he'd be . closing the debate, and if he has no objection I would just like to ma,ke a few cOIIJJn0nts before we put it away. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Welfare.· MR. CaRISTIANSON: Mr.

Speaker, I think it's pretty evident; from the speeches we've heard from the members opposite, that the purpose of introducing this amendment to The Em ployment S�dards Act was in an endeavour to raiSe the mfuimum w?-ge. Now I think that .I wotlld like to pers!)iuilly coIIl.plinumt the member wb,o moved the Jnotion for his lll,gh regard for · our SOcial A,llOwanee s Act, because he has listed completely the statement of pr:b:lciple in The Social Allowances Act and ilitends to incorporate it into The Employment Standards Act.

I think this is mdeed a vecy great compliment to our social allowances legislatioD. that he shOuld think it so worthy. But I shOuld pomt out to him that The social Allowances Act makes provision for the �valuation of the person's need on an ilidividual basis. This is the heart and soul, if you ' like, of The Social Allowances Act.

Now he's quite right when he S!lys that an individual with a vecy large family, on social allowances, may receive more than a person can receive from the minimum wage, but this situation is certailily not tru.e for a siligle person or for a person whO doesn't have aey family, because the social allowances meets only the basic necessities of the illdi vidual ease . Now I'm not going to defend the miJi.imum wage ,· Mr. Speaker. I am: iliclined to agree with them that it is rather low •. There's no question about that.

But !'think when the thilig was originally drafted -- I wasn't here at the time but I am told that the purpose was to put a floor at which beginners -- people just startilig out on their productive life would receive a wage that would enable them to live with a reasonable amount of dignity. It was certailily, I don't think, ever ilitended that the mili.imum wage shOuld apply to a man whO has been in the labour force long enough that he shOuld have a family of 10 or 12 children. I don't think that it was ever · intended to do that and I agree completely that it certailily doesn •t.

Anybody with a large_ fam ily whO is forced, through lack of skill or lack of education or for whatever reason, to work at the mili.imum wage, is certailily not g;qing to l:)e able to support his family at any kind of stan dard whatsoever on the mili.imum wage. I think, Mr . Speaker, that the present situation today only emphasizes further the tremendous need for education and for technical training iJi. our society.

I think it's· been pretty well poilited out in the interminable debates we.•ve had to date that we are doing a tremenClous amount in this field, notwithstanding the comment last night of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. Now we're quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that this -- principle, that he has taken from The Social Allowances Act, is the right principle to apply to social allowances because they are given on an individual needs basis , but I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it will not accomplish the purpose that he intends if be tries to incorporate it ilito The Empfoyment Standli.tds Act. For this reason, Mr .

Speaker, I must vote against the amendment. MR. S. PETERS (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, when I moved second reading of this bill I think I only took about a miJi.ute in explaining why I brought in this bill.

When I was a young boy I worked iJi. one of these what they call -- they call them lawyers' offiees now, but ii1 my young day they were called barristers , and i thiilk that some of therii would ttirli over in theii' graves if they were referred to !IS lawyers today, and I learned then and there that if you had a point to make be as brief as yoU: Cari and say it in as few worCls as you can; and I have alW!J.Yl:I . tried to do that.

When I moved second reading of this bill , Mr. speaker, that's what I fried to do, but since moving that I've learned a lesson and today i had intended to do \vhat some of the speakers have done in the HOuse in the past few weeks� I was going to dig up il.11 my past . speeches orl. the minilnum wage and read them out today arid let tliem il.11 listen i:o them all over agam� But I talked to some of my colleagues and, me being a pretty good-natured fellow, they were able to talk me into not saying too much. . ' Now', Mr. speaker, the Minister of Welfare has said that this whole case of the socia.l allowances is no good fOr the minimum wage; and when the Minister of Labour spoke, he s8.id · that, iii his opinion, what they have in The Employment Standards Act, the neces sities of life · April 2stli, 1962 Page 3081

(Mr. Peters , cont'd .) • • and health, has more meaning than what the Minister of Welfare has in his act; so I'm. wondering why they just didn't, when they were setting up The Social Allowances Act, why they didn't just put in the necessities of life and he,alth and then everybody would have been happy? But if the Minister of Labour had been on his job, Mr.

Speaker, there would be no reason for me to be introducing this bill , because if he had read the, 111;st report of March 15th, 1960, of the Minimum Wage Board,. on Page· 3, they say that they had reports from the YMCA and the University of Manitoba both, that they did admittedly include items of expense which various members of the board felt were neither.necessities in the sense :\lltended in the Act nor likely to become items of expense;f or a:female -- for a fe male, Now .where in The Employment Standards Act does it ·say that it should be a female ? · Where. iii The Employment Standards Act does.i t say it should be a ma!'.ried man?

Where? But w.he�. the .. Minister of Labour was speaking he was very -- oh, he wanted to point out how if this thing went through -- but he didn't say, well let's take it into Law Amendments ; maybe we can amend this thing • . And! have amendments to offe r. I did this on purpose to see if the Minister of Labour.is :4iterested, but he isn't. He's satisfied with the minimum wage we have in this province. · If he wi1..s -- he set up the minimum wage Board. He mentioned their names here a few weeks ago. How many times have they sat? Where have they sat?

If he's not satisf ied with the minim1llll wage, why hasn't he had them meeting? Now, Mr. Speaker, I said I was going to be brief and I think I've said enough, but I'm getting fe d up with when it suits the, members across there to say one thing and. then dance around. I must bring :qi this one point too -- what tlie Minister of Welfare was saying the other day when we were speaking on his department about the Metis people working and cutting wood for $5 .5 0 a cord. He said it wasn't enoughfor them to live on.

Well $5 .5 0 a cord is more than the minimum wage • He's not satisfied With it and the Minister of Labour is. Let them . get together and let's get this thing straightened out. Mi:. Speaker put the question and afte r a voice vote declared the motion lost. :MR. PAULLEY: Let's separate the sheep from the lambs. Yeas and nays, please , Mr. Speaker. · · MR.. SP�AKER: Cilll. in the members. The question before the House is the proposed motion by the Honourable Member for Elmwood. Second reading of Bill No. 83 ,

an Act to amend The Employment Standards Act. A. standing vote was tilken, the result being as follo ws: YEAS: Mes1:1rs. Groves, Harris, Hawryluk, Paulley, Peters, Reid, Schreyer, and Wright •. . .NAYS: Messrs. Alexander, Baizley, Bjorn.son, Campbell, Carroll, Christianson; Corbett, Cowan, Evans, Froese, Guttormson, Hillhouse, Hutton; Ingebrgitson, Jeannotte , Johnon (Assiniboia)1,: Johnson (Gimli), Klym, Lissaman, Lyon, McLean, 'Martin, Molgat, Roblin, Roberts, Scarth, Seaborn, Smellie, Stanes, Strickland, Tanchak, Thompson, Weir and Witney., . :MR. CLERK: Yeas, 8; Nays, 34. :MR.

SPEAKER: I decalre the motion los t • . Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member f or Selkirk, f or second. reading of Bill No. 125,

an Act to amend The Child Welfare Act. The Honourable Member fo r Turtle Mountain. MR. ;MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, the member had to be away and as ked for this to stand. If there are others who wish to speak, he has no objection. :MR. SPEAKER: Order stand. ·. :MR. J. COWAN (Winnipeg Centre) presented Bill No. 107,

an Act to amend the Winni peg Charter, 1956, for second reading. Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, this bill is simply due to the provisions of The Metropoli tan Winnipeg Act and also amendments to that act being made at this session. The amendments provide that the As sessment Commissioner will no longer be responsible for the preparation of the tax roll, and so this new bill provides that the tax collector will be responsible for that.

And also, the Metro amendments provide that the Board of Revision will no longer hear appeals in respect of local improvements and this bill makes provision for the setting up by the City of Winnipeg of a Board of Appeal to hear such appeals. When. the bill goes to committee, it is Page 3082 April 28th, 1962

(Mr. Cowan, cont'd) •••••••••• proposed to introduce a further

section into this bill which will provide that, for the purpo se of hospitalization and social services and voting, that the por tion of the Municipality of Rosser that is being taken into the City of Winnipeg will be regarded as having been in the City of Winnipeg in the past , so that people who are required, we '11 say, to be a resident for a year in the City of Winnipeg before they can get hospital and social wel fare benefits and be able to have those benefits and will be able to vote after January 1, 1963, Mr . Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. FROESE presented Bill No. 132,

an Act respecting the Town of Willkler, for second reading. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ' MR. REID presented Bill No. 134,

an Act to amend The East Kildonan Charter, for second reading. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. KEITH ALEXANDER (Roblin) presented Bill Na. 137,

an Act to validate certain by-laws of the Town of Dauphin and the Rural Municipality of Dauphin and to enlarge the boun daries of the Town of Dauphin, for second reading. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. ROBLIN: Mr . Speaker, I think that concludes the second readings of bills, and our understanding is that we will adjourn now and return to the Committee on Law Amendments to deal with the bills that are before that committee.

I would remind the House, Sir, that we shall meet again at 9:30 on Monday and, without attempting to revive a former debate, may I say that it will be daylight saving time. I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce, that the House do now adjourn. MR. MOLGAT: May I ask a question of the First Minister? Has he made his decision , that daylight saving time time does exist,? · MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I can say that the decision has been made by the duly qualified authorities, the municipal ones , of this great metropolitan centre. MR.

MOLGAT: This is a matter of policy with the government, is it, Mr. Speaker?· MR. ROBLIN: No, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of allowing those who have the right to decide to make the decisions. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House adjourned until 9:30 daylight time, Monday, morning. April 28th, 1962 Page aosa

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-5-84
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 5th hansardpdf 84.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d1418dc5a904da59e08bcd7dd83e14001d12aa13

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