Manitoba Committee Hansard — 7 June 1977 (Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 8, 30th Legislature, 4th Session)

30-4-la8

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba HEARING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AMENDMENTS Chairman Mr. D. James Walding Constituency of St. Vital TUESDAY, June 7, 1977, 4:00p.m. Printed by P.N. Crosbie- Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba

TIME: 4:00 p.m. Law Amendments Tuesday, June 7, 1977 CHAIRMAN: Mr. D. James Walding. MR. CLERK: Your regular chairman is away sick and will not be here today. I would therefore as�- r a motion for the appointment of a temporary chairman to take this meeting. Are there any 1minations? A MEMBER: Mr. Walding. MR. CLERK: Mr. Walding has been nominated. Are there any further nominations? Hearing none, vould ask Mr. Walding if he would please take the Chair. MR. CHAIRMAN : Order please.

I will read a list of the bills before the Committee: No. 6, No. 10, ). 22, No. 25, No. 29, No. 30, No. 32, No. 35, No. 48, No. 54, No. 56, No. 59, No. 62, No. 64, No. 67, No. I, No. 77, No. 79 and No. 85. All at your will and pleasure . Mr. Graham. MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I think it should be pointed out there are some bills here that have >t had an opportunity to go before a Committee for public representation yet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we then maybe start from the top? If there is any bill that members know IS not been available for public representation, we can lay that over and continue the next one.

Does at suit the Committee? (Agreed) Our first one, then, is No. 6.

An Act to Amend The Jury Act. Are there amendments? A MEMBER: Yes, there are. MR. CHAIRMAN: There are some amendments. Page 1-pass; Page 2, Mr. Boyce. MR. BOYCE: Mr. Chairman, I would move that the proposed clause 4(

m) of The Jury Act as set out

Section 1 of Bill 6 be amended by adding thereto, immediately after the word "institution " in the lcond line thereof, the words "or a probation office r. " MR. CHAIRMAN: You heard the motion. Any discussion? Mr. Tallin. MR. TALLIN: lt was brought to our attention that probation officers are not considered officers of 1e court. They are not usually considered as persons employed in a penitentiary or a correctional stitution and they are no longer employees in the Attorney-General's Department.

They have a vital 1le to play in many criminal cases, in that they make recommendations with respect to punishment; 1ey give reports to the judge with respect to the accused's background, family arrangements, nployment and that sort of thing. We thought it would be better to exclude them from serving on 1ries altogether, rather than have them challenged at the time of the trial. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham. MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, in a jury trial, is it not a fact that a probation officer normally is >sociated only with juveniles? MR.

TALLIN: No, the judge in any criminal case, after a person has been convicted, the judge can >k for a probation officer's report prior to sentencing, a pre-sentence report. MR. GRAHAM: Is it not also a fact that a person, when serving on a jury, has to state whether or not e has any particular interest in any case? MR. TALLIN: That's true, but a probation officer doesn't necessarily have an interest in a articular case. I don't think that they are asked specifically if they have any interest in any particular �se. MR. GRAHAM: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I just wonder whether, in this particular case, would it not be 1ore advisable to leave the person in and give them the opportunity? If they have any interest, let 1em declare it at the time and they will naturally disq ualify themselves. MR. TALLIN: I don't know whether the Attorney-General wants to speak to this, but these rovisions were provisions which were recommended by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada in n attempt to get the law relating to the quali fications of jurors fairly uniform across Canada.

One of 1e concerns that the Uniformity Commissioners mentioned was that the people who are qualified >r jurors not only have no interest, but they appear to have no interest in the administration of 1stice. That is why you will find that employees in the Attorney-General's Department and the 'epartment of Justice of Canada and that sort of thing are exclu ded holus-bolus, not on the basis 1at they all have an interest in what happens in jury trials, but there is always the suspicion in eople's minds who don't know what the employee's duties are. They say, "Oh, well, he might ... .

" person who works in the Attorney-General's Department in the Land Titles Office may have no oncern with the administration of the jury system, and yet to make it apparent to the public that the ttorney-General is not attempting to influence in any way the outcome of jury trials by having some f his employees on the juri es, they thought it advisable to exclude all persons who were employed y the Attorney-General under the Attorney-General's Department. And this is the type of thing.

If probation officers appeared on a jury, there might be a suspicion in )me people's minds that they had a preconceived idea as to how accused people should be dealt •ith, and that might affect their decision. Whether or not that is true is not what they were concerned 237

Law Amendments Tuesday, June 7, 1977 about. They were concerned about what is the appearance to the ordinary man in the street. Would i appear to that man in the street that the probation officer might have a preconceived idea as to hov certain cases should be disposed of? MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, seeing as how these remarks are recorded, I just wonder if lega counsel wants to look at what he said, and perhaps maybe he wants to change the wording o something he said. I believe he said that probation officers did not want to appear to have anything tc do with justice. MR.

TALLIN: No, no, what I said was that the Uniformity Commissioners wanted the appearance1 to the man in the street to be that no person who had any interest in how justice was administrate< particularly appeared on juries. I probably had some poor wording. MR. GRAHAM: Very good, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The agreement as read-(agreed). 4(m)-pass. MR. BOYCE: Mr. Chairman, I would move that the proposed clause 4(

p) of The Jury Act, as setou in

Section 1 of Bill 6, be amended by striking out the figure "5" in the first line thereof and substitutin! therefor the figure "10." MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment as read. Mr. Graham. MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, if we are going to put any limitation at all on the service of thosetha have served and paid their debt to society, can I ask for the justification of the changing from thefiv, years to the ten years in this particular case? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pawley. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Graham, that is to deal with the period of time for a pardon, is it not? Five yean Do you recall the reason for that? MR.

TALLIN: lt was recommended by the people in the department, I think. MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, may I speak to it a little furt her? I believe that under The Crimim Code of Canada - I'm not too sure and I'm not familiar with all the laws of this land - but understand that after five years, I believe a person's criminal record - if he is five years trouble free his criminal record is stricken from the record. Is it not? MR. PAWLEY: The time period is five years. Now, the ten year change, as Mr. Tallin indicate< came by way of recommendation within the department itself. Mr.

Good man is down in my office do you want to just hold that in abeyance? MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, if a person after five years has had no offence and his record i wiped clean, why should we make any reference at all other than say that if a person who has criminal record should not be eligible to serve on the jury. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to advocate stren uously for the ten because I don know what the reasoning would be, because five years is the period for pardoning. I'm prepared 1 withdraw that amendment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Boyce. MR.

BOVCE: As the mover of the motion, if the Committee concurs, we'll withdraw t� amendment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Agreed the amendment be withdrawn. (Agreed) Page 1. Mr. Boyce. MR. BOYCE: Mr. Chairman, I would move that

Section 4 of Bill 6,

An Act to Amend the Jur y Act, t amended by adding thereto at the end thereof the words: "and by striking out the word, 'alternately' i the last line thereof and substituting therefor the word, 'successively' ." MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment as read? Mr. Jorgenson. MR. JORGENSON: I wonder if the Minister could point out where we could find that particuli clause in the present bill? MR. BOYCE:

Section 4 of the bill. MR. JORGENSON: Yes, I looked at

Section 4 and I am just unable to find the words that he .. MR. TALLIN: We're adding some more words that amend the

section furt her and I can explain tt meaning of the amendment. MR. JORGENSON: You suggested you are striking out the word "alternately. " MR. TALLIN: No, those are the words that are being added. By adding the words starting wit "and by striking .. . " The

section that is being amended is

Section 12(1) of the Act, and it say "Where there are more than one jury list, the selectors shall select from the lists alternately, " whic presumes that there will be only two. The Sheriff's Office suggested that this be "successively "� that they get them all in successively. it's just a correction of language. MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment as read? (Agreed)

Section 4-pass. Page 2-pass; Page 3. Mr. Boyce. MR. BOYCE: Mr. Chairman, I would move that the proposed clause 18. 2 Sub. (1) (

a) of The JUI Act as set out in

Section 7 of Bill 6 be amended by adding thereto immediately before the wo1 "liable " therein the words "qualified and. " 238

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pawley. Law Amendments Tuesday, June 7, 1977 MR. PAWLEY: Again, that's a technical rewording to make more clear, more precise the eligibility. MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment as read. (Agreed)

Section 7-pass; Page 3-pass; Page 4. Mr. )yce. MR. BOYCE: Mr. Chairman, I would move that

Section 8 of Bill 6 be struck out and the following 1ction substituted therefor: Subsections 24(1 ), (2) and (3) repealed and substitute 8, Jbsections 24(1 ), (2), and (3) of the Act are repealed and the following subsections are substituted erefor: c�mber of jurors to be selected in E. J.D. �(1 ).

In the Eastern Judicial District, the Board shall ballot for jurors until they have selected 1,000 tmes of persons who are liable and qualified to serve as jurors and who have not been summoned 1d attended as such during the previous two years. 1e number of jurors in other judicial districts. �(2): Except in the Eastern Judicial District, the Board shall ballotf or jurors until they have selected 10 names of persons who are qualified and liable to serve as jurors and who have not been 1mmoned and attended as such during the previous two years. MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment as read? Mr. Graham. MR. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, I think we are doing something here that may alarm some anitobans. As The Jury Act read before, there was a fundamental obligation on the part of any juror be discreet and competent. We are now removing those qualif ications from the role of a juror. He > longer has to be discreet and he no longer has to be competent and I think that if we remove those 1ctions, I think we may be tampering a little too far with the justice system and people may begin to onder whether or not justice in the fact will be done as well as appear to be done. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tallin. MR. TALLIN: This

section doesn't deal with whether or not the jurors have an obligation to be screet and competent. lt has to do with the obligation of the Board in balloting for jurors at a time hen they have no knowledge of the people who are on the list. They are required, under the present �t. to select 1 ,000 names of people who are discreet and competent when they have no knowledge who those people are. The only knowledge they have is from the records that are available to them ' the people who made the list and who have given some undertaking that the people on the lists are Jalified and liable.

So the first change that these sections are making deals with the question of ving the Board a duty which they can perform, and that is to select people who are qualified and tble. The second change which is being made here is to make it clear that the person who has served on ury in the immediately preceding two years, will not be selected again, and this is in line with a later nendment in the bill, 63 Subsection (3 ), so that more of the people who would be entitled to claim an :emption under 63(3) will not even be selected on the list. MR. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, I would prefer to see the words "discreet and competent" left in. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, I have one simple question of why 1,000 in the Eastern Judicial strict, and only 400 in the ... Is the Eastern Judicial District Winnipeg, the City of Winnipeg? MR. PAWLEY: Yes. A much larger population. And insofar as leaving "discreet" in the wording, as r. Tallin indicates, "discreet and competent" - it is really imposing a requirement that can't 1cessarily be met in the process. MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment as read? Mr. Jorgenson. MR.

JORGENSON: I must draw attention to the fact that this amendment that we are dealing with ,w is not contained in the bill that is before us. We are amending a

section of the Act that's partly ere.

Section 8 says subsection 24(3) of the Act is repealed. But you are dealing here with

Section ·(1), (2), and (3) of the Act. There are sufficient references in our rules ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pawley. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, all I would like to say is that Mr. Jorgenson may be correct, but rtainly the principles are being dealt with in relationship to the amendment that is before us. MR. JORGENSON: I know it poses a problem, Mr. Chairman, in that sometimes there are 1endments that are necessary as a consequence of an amendment that you are going to make and related to the subject that is going to suffer an amendment. But I want to draw your attention to Beauchesne,

Section 304, which says: "A Committee can only nsider those matters which have been committed to it by the House." A matter that has been mmitted to a Committee is a subject matter of a bill and you cannot include a

section of the original · :t to amend the original Act that is not contained in the Act to amend. And there are numerous ferences to that in Beauchesne which precludes you from moving amendments to portions of the iginal Act that are not contained in the Act to amend. I recognize that it could pose some difficulties in the drafting , if after a bill has been submitted to 9 House and passed second reading and sent to a Committee, that if it was found that there was a 239

Law Amendments Tuesday, June 7, 1977 consequential amendment or an amendment based on the one that is being proposed, that has to b moved in order to make the Act operative. I admit that that poses somewhat of a problem. But i1 looking over the amendments that are before us, there are five of the six amendments that are befor the House right now, before this Committee right now, are amendments that are not contained in th original bill.

I submit, Sir, that it is an abuse of the Committee to ask a bill to be passed on secon1 reading in which members of the House are led to believe that certain amendments are bein1 proposed to a bill and then come to the Committee to find out that we are dealing with amendment that are not contained in the original bill, not contained in the principle of the bill to amend at al I submit, Sir, that this pract ice - and I have been informed that it has been carried on to a certai extent in the past - I think this practice has to be clarified.

I do not want to prevent amendments tha are necessary as a consequence, technical amendments, but I think that amendments that introduc an entirely different principle in a bill should not be presented before this Committee without eve having an opportunity to examine them. They're distributed to the members of the Committee as th bill is being considered. We have not had an opportunity to examine them. We have not had a opportunity to determine whether or not they are simply technical amendments to the bill that i before us or if they are of a consequen tial nature.

I submit, Sir, that if the government is insistent upon introducing amendments to a bill to amenc that are not contained in the bill to amend, then it must find some other mechanism of doing it; eithe introducing it as a separate bill, or during the report stage where we have an opportunity at least t have a 24-hour examination of those amendments, that they be submitted at that point. But eve then, Sir, I submit that the government does not have the right to introduce amendments that chang an entire principle of a bill, as is the case in Bill 14 , where an entirely new principle is bein introduced.

I submit that that amendment is completely out of order. Now I don't want to hold up th passage of amendments that the government feel are important, but at the same time, sooner or late we're going to have to deal with this and I think the sooner we deal with it, the better. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller to the same point. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I can't entirely disagree with Mr. Jorgenson but I think he wi recognize that this Committee has in the past operated somewhat differently than what he has jw indicated.

And as well - you know, it opens up the whole question - when we hear delegation! when the public comes, we do not limit them to those sections which are contained in the bill t amend. We're pretty lax and allow a pretty broad range of views to be expressed by people wh appear before the Committee, including matters which are not even in the bill to amend.

If we ar goin g to follow the suggestion of the Member of for Morris, then I think we've got to look at the who I thing, not from just the point of view of the government bringing in an amendment which is not in th bill to amend, but the whole question of how we operate in Law Amendments, both for the publi hearings and for the Committee work itself. But I think the Member for Morris will admit th; notwithstanding Beauchesne, in the years that I have been here, certainly amendments have bee brought in which perhaps are not clearly identified in the bill to amend, but they are certainly

part c the original bill and they are related, albeit sometimes tenuously, to the actual bill to amend. But no at this point to sort of start changing the rules again I think would be somewhat awkward, althougt suppose it could be brought in on third reading as a motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Paulley, on the same point. MR. PAULLEY: On the Point of Order, Mr. Chairman, I don't disagree entirely with my colleagt that it has been a real past practice to do this at the Committee stage and I have every bit c understanding of the Honourable Member for Morris. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Chairman, we argue this point to some degree the other night and, as a result of the discussions at that particular time, 111 agreed basically to the contention of Mr. Jorgenson and the net result was that in one of the bills; report stage, an amendment was introduced into the House. And of course, it is a recognize principle that the House is master of its own rules and at that particular time, it was my understand in that the matter was dealt with there rather than in the Committee.

During the discussion we had tt other evening on this point, I made the suggestion then that the matter should be referred to tt Committee on Rules of the House for clarification or for amendment to our own rules so that 111 clearly understand where we're going. I would suggest, in all deference to my colleague, the Ministc of Finance, that the people who come to make representations do so very broadly within the con ten of the name of the bill itself rather than just simply the amendments to that bill.

And I would questic any endeavour to try and prevent that because of the fact, of course, that the Legislature is continuing body, and at subsequent sessions of the Assembly, points raised by delegates wt appear before a Committee, changes can be made at that particular time. ow I am wondering whethc or not the Committee would be amenable in this particular case to proceed in the same way as we d with the other bill-1 am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I just forgot what it was; was one of Mr. Toupin's bills· and at the report stage, an amendment was introduced. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorgenson. MR. JORGENSON: Mr.

Chairman, I want to deal with one point that the Minister of Financ 240

Law Amendments Tuesday, June 7, 1977 ,uggested, that we we were going to be changing the rules in to adhere to mid-stream. On the :ontrary, what I am attempting to do is the rules and I want to, just for his benefit, to read some ;ections from Beauch esne to indicate to him that it's a pretty firmly established principle that you do 10t introduce extraneous matters to a bill in Committee. This is Citation 304: "A committee can only :onsider those matters which have been committed to it by the House. " That's the bill that's before •ou.

Section 361 says in part: "If the title is

an Act to amend the Criminal Code, " and they are only 1sing an example here, "no other

section of the Code can be amended than those mentioned in the >ill unless modifications have become necessary in consequence of amendments made by the :ommittee to the clauses of this amending bill, " which is the point that I raised earlier.

Section 383: "lt may become necessary before the second reading of a bill to make considerable :hanges in its provisions which can only be accomplished at this stage by discharging the order for >econd reading and withdrawing the bill. " And

Section 402 says, "A new clause will not be mtertained if it is beyond the scope of the bill, inconsistent with clau ses agreed to by the Committee >r substantially the same as clauses previously negatized. " And

Section 408 says, "A Committee can 1egatize every clause and substitute new clauses if relevant to the bill as read a second time. " Well I submit, Sir, that we are not dealing with a bill that was read on second reading; we're dealing vith an entirely new principle, if you are going to introduce amendments, four or five out of six, which tre not contained in the bill to amend. I submit, Sir, that without attempting to fru strate the work of he Committee- and I have some sympathy with the people who draft legislation - it's an imperfect trt and it poses all sort of diffic ulties.

When you draft an amendment, I don't suppose at the moment hat you will recognize that later on in the bill is another clause that has to be amended in order to nake it have it make sense. I recognize that problem, and that's really the reason that I mentioning it, >ecause I do think there should be some regularizing of the method in which we deal with bills to tmend. I submit that the way we're doing it here is out of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Boyce to the same point. MR.

BOYCE: To the general case made by the Member for Morris, I agree with him almost entirely. 3ut to the specific issue we're talking about at the moment, I would suggest that it is in order, my mderstanding of 167 is that

Section 24 is open because 24(3) is an amendment to

Section 24. MR. JORGENSON: lt specifically mentioned 24(3), that 24(3) is the only clause that can be tmended, not 24(1), (2) or (5) or anything else. MR. BOYCE: I listened to the Member for Morris. Just what he has said himself, that 24(3) was to 1ave been repealed; the effect of this particular amendment is to wipe out 24(3), that there will be no �4(3). There'll be 24(1) and 24(2). MR. JORGENSON: But that does not change the arg ument. 24(3) is the one that is to be amended. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Order please. Can we only have one member speaking at a time. ll'lr. Boyce, have you finished? MR.

BOYCE: But to the general case that's made by the Member for Morris, I agree entirely with it. 3ut as I say, it's a matter of

interpretation what is a section, what is a subsection. The

Section is open .. t's my understanding and others on

Section 167 of Beauc hesne, is that the

Section is open. MR. JORGENSON: I disagree with the Minister of Corrections. However, that's a somewhat minor 10int. The tact is that, as Mr. Miller pointed out, we do open the bills somewhat on second reading; he entire bill is opened up. A bill to amend will open up the entire bill for second reading. And we've tllowed a great deal of latitude tor people making representations before this Committee on the :on tents of the entire bill rather than sticking strictly to the terms of the amendments that are before JS.

But I think that is an entirely different situation when you are dealing with amendments to the bill >ecause after all, then you're dealing with a concrete portion of a bill, you're amending it and it >ecomes law. And I don't think that we can treat amendments to existing statutes as casually as that. I >ubmit that the practice of distributing amendments to us just as the bill is being amended, without us 1aving an opportunity to examine whether or not it changes an entire principle, as some sections of his Act does, of the amendments that are brought before us right now.

They have changed the >rinciple of portions of the Act that were not contained in the bill that we debated on second reading. submit, Sir, that is out of order. MR. CHAIAN: Mr. Paulley. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, on the point. As I indicated earlier, we argued this the other night. "he House has established a precedent it you want to call it that, that the amendments can be ntroduced into the House at Report stage, and that having been done, has established a precedent or the House.

I, in all due respect to the argument that is going on in this Committee as to whether we :an or we cannot open up the bill, I think basically the point raised by Mr. Jorgenson is a valid one, but · think in order to expedite the business of the House, we should follow the proced ure that we used he other day and introduce amendments at the report stage. And that is the reason that the rules of he House, in my opinion, were changed only on the 24 hours; it's a time limit rather than a session imit.

When we're in speed-up, it's still 24 hours of the clock, and if during that period of time any 1onourable member desires to introduce an amendment, he reports the same to the Clerk of the 241

House and it's proceeded with. Law Amendments Tuesday, June 7, 1977 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adam to the same point. MR. ADAM: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the few occasions that I find myself agreeing with th Member for Morris. We see it before us here and it happened the other day as well, that we hav amendments coming in that are not part of the bill, that had not been debated in the House. Here w have a case, Bill 6, where about 90 percent, I would say, of the amendments have not been debated i the House.

I think we are certainly stepping a great extent beyond the rules and it seems to me that we are going to establish this practice, we should bring this to the attention of the Rules Committe because I don't see how we can operate this way. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorgenson. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with a further point that Mr. Paulley raised i connection with the report stage. l don't want the impression to be created, as he seems to have donE that at the report stage, we can introduce any kind of amendment that we want.

I still submit, whet he it be the report stage or any other stage, that the only amendments that are admissible ar amendments that relate to the bill that is before the House. I would hate to see the report stage -I ' oppose this report stage of the bill right from its inception because I thought it contained some ver dangerous possibilities. My suspicions now have been confirmed, because the Minister of LabOL has now suggested that at the report stage, we can depart completely from the bill that has bee passed in second reading and introduce anything we like.

I submit that that is not in order anc that cannot be done; that whether you introduce them at the report stage or any other stage, after the bi has passed second reading, that's the bill that you're dealing with and the only one that you ea legitimately propose amendments to. However, again, I reiterate, I recognize the difficulty in draftin< I don't want to impose insurmou ntable obstacles to the people who are responsible for drafting an who may have to move technical amendments to legislation. I think there is some way that we ea work that out so that we are not going to frustrate the drafting of legislation.

But I submit, Sir, th; introducing amendments to legislation, whether it be at the report stage or in the Committee staqt that entirely change a principle, is beyond our capacity. A new bill is necessary. ! think perhaps that the kind of practice that we should be following. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Paulley. MR. PAULLEV: Mr. Chairman, in all deference to Mr. Jorgenson, I think he answered, in part. hi own questions, because he said in effect that he never ever agreed with the procedures at the repo stage, or the facility for consideration at the report stage.

I pose the question: Why was the rul changed from previously, to make provision within 24 hours after the Committee has received a bil in order that the House might have a debate at the report stage? If it wasn't for the purpose of bein able to refer the bill either back or to introduce amendments, I don't know why. The point, though, Mr.

Chairman, is that the House established, by virtue of the bill that WE passed after it being amended at the report stage - it has done it and we are masters of our ow conduct, and it is historic that when a legislative body such as the Legislature of Manitot establishes a precedent, it takes precedence over Beauc hesne or any other parliamentary documer and we have done that.

So I simply suggest, having done that, that the matter under consideratio1 apparently over the objections it cannot or should not be proceeded with, but we do the same as"' did with the other bill I make reference to at the report stage, and fur ther to that the suggestion be in made that the Rules Committee could take a look at the rules which now apply in our House, thi amendments can be made at third or report stage .. . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorgenson. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister suggests that I answered my own question. 1- said in effect that why else did we adopt that procedure in the House.

Well, I want to remind him th• that procedure was adopted over my objections all the way through. MR. PAULLEV: lt was still adopted. MR.

JORGENSON: The Committee on Rules submitted amendments to the Rules whic contained a suggestion that in this Committee, in Law Amendments Commiitee, we would hear on the representations, and that the actual drafting of amendments, instead of hearing them twice as"' have in the past, once here and then back in the House again, that we hear them only on or occasion, and that would be in the House itself. lt was the First Minister who introduced this report stage nonsense and managed, with H support of the government, to get it through over the objections of the Opposition. -(I nterjection) · MR.

CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. JORGENSON: The Minister is suggesting that I was a party to those amendments. MR. PAULLEV: No, I am not. MR. JORGENSON: I was opposed to those amendments all the way through and now my reasor for opposing them are becoming evident. MR. PAULLEY: That's nonsense. 242

Law Amendments Tuesday 1 June 71 1977 MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Is there agreement in the Committee as to how to deal with this. or tre the members asking the Chair to make a rul ing on the matter? Mr. Boyce. MR. BOYCE: The matter under consideration is a point of order raised on my motion, so that ather than resolve this partic ular debate, whether it should or should not be part of the rules, if it is tgreeable to the Committee I will withdraw the motion, then we can deal with it, whether we should or :hould not deal with it, in report stage. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Is the Committee agreed that the amendment be withdrawn? Agreed and so 1rdered. MR. JORGENSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, if that one is going to be withdrawn, then there are others ts well that fall into the same category and should be withdrawn as well. MR. BOYCE: lt is my understanding that is the intention on amendments which fall in that :ategory. MR. CHAIRMAN: MR. Green. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I certainly have been involved in this discussion before, and I :ertainly recognize what the Member for Morris is saying, and furthermore I also will agree that he 1as consistently opposed this procedure.

There is no argument about that. The proced ure has been allowed, and I know that it was followed not only from 1969 on, but it was followed between 1966 and 1969, and maybe the Minister of Labour could say between 1958 and 1966 . I couldn't speak for those rears. I think that members always want to try to accommodate each other if something is not a serious, lisputed point.

What I am concerned with is that being withdrawn now, it won't solve the debate, >ecause I understand that there are such amendments in other bills which are of some consequence, md therefore let it be at least noted that the withdrawing of it is not going to settle the argu ment, >ecause it is going to come up again and eventually the Chair is going to have to rule, and despite wen some of the logic of the Member for Morris' position, the precedents of this House- and there 1ave been no changes in the rules - have been as indicated by the Minister of Labour. So I am not rying to reopen the argument.

I am suggesting that it is going to be reopened and it is going to have o be dealt with, and the members will probably have to be divided on a question of how we should >roceed. But in the meantime I gather this amendment is being withdrawn. Is it being reintroduced at he report stage? MR. PAULLEY: lt is my understanding that it will be. I don't ... . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorgenson on the same point. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I have no desire to fru strate the work of the :;ommittee.

And the rules do provide, as I indicated in the citations that I quoted, that amendments :an be moved that are not contained in the original bill or in the bill to amend, providing they are of a 1ature that make them necessary in order to make sense out of the amendments that are being >roposed. I think it is a question of judgment as to how far they go, but when you see one that is so :!early beyond the scope of the bill, that changes the entire principle of the bill to amend, then I think hat a line must be drawn. What I am intending to do is to draw that particular line, as difficult as it may >e.

I again agree with the suggestion that it is perhaps one of those matters that should be referred to he Rules Committee.

I am quite prepared to debate that at that particular time, but it is very difficult. rhe point I want to make here now is that it is very difficult for us to determine at a quick glance, which s all we have, whether or not an amendment that is being proposed that is not contained in the >riginal bill is a consequential amendment or not, whether it changes the principle of a bill. or 'lhether it goes beyond the scope of being just a technical amendment. lt takes time to review that tmendment, and I am submitting that we do not have that time when they are just handed to you while rou are considering the bill.

That is the real problem that we face. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, maybe we could deal with that problem that the Member for Morris 1as raised because in the last analysis, things can be done. The Honourable Minister if he wants the tmendment, and even if we agreed with what is being represented, would introduce a bill and we :ould go through three readings of a bill, and I am sure that will not be desired if it is not necessary. Nhen we come to an amendment, could we proceed in this way in the meantime, without prejudice to he position that we might want to change the rules?

When we come to an amendment which is being ntroduced, which is not an amendment to the amendments of the bill, in other words which is an m related amendment, for the remainder of this session can we say that if that requires time to be ooked at, it will be passed over. The bill will be brought back into the next reading of Law �mendments Committee, and then we will deal with it at that stage. We are not going to be changing my procedures. The Attorney-General could introduce a bill on first reading, and if he needs it bad mough, I am not even going to object to that.

But if something is introduced for the first time, and it is 1ot to the other provisions of the bill, and even recognizing that the procedure that the Member for v1orris is fi ghting for and believes is right could be dealt with on Rules. To expedite our proceedinqs 243

Law Amendments Tuesday, June 7, 19 77 and knowing that we have used this precedent, but in order to make sure that nobody is taken t surprise when such an amendment comes up, can't it be put over and dealt with at the next meetinp 1 the Law Amendments Committee? MR. JORGENSON: I am quite prepared to accept that suggestion, Mr. Chairman. That sounds m a reasonable one to me, and I don't think we will frustrate the work of the Committee. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pawley. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Chairman, I just wish to point out that the amendment before us is one th. could not be argued to be against the very principle of the bill. We are dealing here with relativity I sections 3 and 15, dealing with the choosing of jurors. In 15 the qualifications, the grounds f( exemption, are spelled out. lt deals with the choosing of members of the jury, the same thing insof1 as

section 3, dealing with most fit and proper persons, and certainly this deals also with selection. � that there is definitely a relativity between the amendment and sections 3 and 15 of the bill before u Now, I don't want to prolong this argu ment, if there is some better way of doing it, nor is th necessarily all that consequential, but certainly it is relative to provisions in the existing bill. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green. if MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Attorney-General can convince members on tt spot that it is relevant, fine.

If not, then can we agree that the procedure we will adopt is that if it is new amendment, not as a matter of rule but as a matter of expediency, that if there is a day requestE to the next Law Amendments meeting, that that's what we would do? If you can convir.ce tt members that it is relevant, then fine.

If it is not, then they should have the opportunity to look at which is all that is being requested, and that we proceed that way for the remainder of the sessio Now a way of expediting matters would be for Ministers to inform the Opposition of any ne amendments that are not contained in previous sections of the bill, so that when they get them Committee, it may be that they will be in a position to be able to discuss them, so that I say th particularly for the Minister of Urban Affairs, who thinks that there may be such amendments in h City of Winnipeg Act.

If there are new amendments, see to it that the Opposition gets them a dl before, at least, of Law Amendments Committee, so that they will be in that position. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham. MR. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, perhaps this all stems from recommendations I made on secor reading of the bill when I suggested there was some inconsistency with the approach being taken I the Attorney-General in this case where the selection of the names on the jurors was to be from tt integrity of their character, the soundness of their judgment, and to the extent of their informatio the most discreet and competent for the performance of duties as jurors. That was the area tha MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Order please. Can the honourable member inform the Cha ir wh he is speaking to? MR.

GRAHAM: Yes, on sections 24(1 ), (2), and (3). I pointed out that you were changing it in or

section only. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The honoura ble member is aware that that amendment has beE withdrawn. lt is not before the Committee. MR. GRAHAM: Well, I am glad it is withdrawn, but I hope it is withdrawn for the right reaso MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 4, Mr. Boyce. MR. BOYCIE: I am advised that this is to the bill, that the proposed subsection 63. 1 (3) of The Ju Act as set out in

section 15 of Bill 6 be amended by striking out the words "or the deputy sheri ff " in tl last line thereof. MR. PAWLEY: I suppose, Mr. Tallin, this may also involve us in the same issue? MR. JORGIENSON: They're not contained in the bill to amend, and that's the same with the ne one,

section 64. MR. TALLIN: No, that's right. That one is in. This is justto make the language consistent, becau elsewhere through the Act where we have referred to people dealing with the sheriff, we have1 mentioned the deputy sheriff. The sheriff's office thought that they should be consistent, so he sa just always make it just in reference to the sheriff, and the sheriff's officers deal with the people they come in the office. MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment as read? (Agreed) Page 4 as amended-pass; Page 5 as amended-pass; Page 6, Mr. Boyce. MR. BOYCE: 1 would move that proposed

section 76 of The Jury Act as set out in

section 16 of E 6 be amended by striking out the word "common " therein. MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment as read? (Agreed) Page 6 as amended-pass; Page 7, Mr. Boyce. MR. BOYCE: 1 would move this

schedule to The Jury .Act as set out in

section 19 of Bill 6 I amended by striking out the words "or the deputy sheriff " in the second line of the second paragra1 thereof. MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment as read-pass. 244

Law Amendments Tuesday, June 7, 1977 Page 7 as amended-pass; Page 8-p ass;

Preamble-pass; Title- pass; Bill be reported. �greed) MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 25,

An Act to amend The Buildings and Mobile Homes Act. Are there mendments? The Attorney-General has indicated to me he has another appointment he wishes to et away to and would like those left to a later date. Bill 25. I wonder, Mr. Paulley, if you would come up to the table and take a microphone. MR. PAULLEY: Actually, Mr. Chairman, the amendments that we are proposing are related to ome of the sections contained within the bill.

I don't want to create any further debate on proced ure, ut I do want to indicate to the Committee that they are essentially technical changes that clarify the uthority of the Minister to designate areas of the province in which occupancy permits are required 1 respect to classes of work involved in building construction. I have found that since we passed this Act, I believe it was last year, and then with the ad option of ·he Building Code on April 1st, that we have found that mun icipalities are asking us to take over 1spections and designation of classes of buildi ngs, and to name them.

And the purpose of these mendments is to give the Minister the author ity to designate classes of work involved in building onstruction and classes of buildi ng within the province. lt's a clarifying amendment. lt doesn't really introd uce any substantive new proposal but it is a clarification for the purposes of 1e cond uct within the department that we felt we had in the old bill but the Legal Counsel pointed out 1at we may not have the authority to designate buildings the way we should have. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 1-pass. Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: I'll yield to Mr. Jorgenson. MR. JORGENSON: I just want to say, Sir, that again, this bill does not deal with sections that are in lil125 and it's extremely difficult for us to know just exactly what the amendments do unless you have 1e original bill before you, which we do not have. However, the Minister has suggested that they are simply amendments that do not contain any eparture from the principle of the bill, simply consequent upon the amendments that are being ,reposed.

In politics it is a mistake to take anybody's word for anything, but I'm prepared to do that nd hopefully that what the Minister says is indeed a fact, that there are no amendments that are a eparture from what was contained in the provisions of Bill 25. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman. I just was handed the original bill and I can appreciate Mr. orgenson's point but I again want to reaffirm it's not that I want to pull anything off or the likes of 1at, but to make damn sure that the rights that the Minister had under the original bill are not 1fringed upon in this .. . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: Mr.

Chairman, I have had all kinds of complaints aboutthe type of workmanship 1at has been done under The Critical Home Repair Program and I would certainly like to take this mendment back and study it and then come back and see if it will tighten up the problems that have een raised to me in the last several days of shoddy workmanship that's not being evident under The :ritical Home Repair Program. I can't, until I take it back and digest it and see if in fact I'm . MR.

PAULLEY: I'm prepared to not proceed with the bill at this stage. lt looks to me as though we re going to be here for a couple of weeks or another month. If my honourable friend wants to take it ack home and study it for a while .. . MR. McKENZIE: I don't want to take it back home, Sir .. . MR. PAULLEY: If he has any problems with the question of shoddy workmanship, it's not ontained within this particular Act in any case. it's a separate subject matter that wouldn't be for mending this particular bill. This only deals with the designation and classes of buildings. not rorkmanship.

But if it is the desire of the Committee, and I appreciate the fact that the amendments I am roposing have just reached here at this particular time, I'm prepared to hold off until the next 1eeting of the Committee. MR. CHAIRMAN: There seems to have been general agreement by the Committee to adopt the roced ure suggested by Mr. Green and that is, if members wish more time it will be deferred until the ext meeting of this Committee. If that is the wish of the members, we will go on to the next bill. Is that greed? (Agreed) Bill No. 29 -

An Act to Amend the Snowmobile Act. I am informed there are no amendments to the ill. Page by page: Page 1-pass; Page 2-pass; Page 3-pass;

Preamble-pass; Title-pass; Bill be :eported. Agreed? (Agreed) Bill No. 30-

An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act (2). There are amendments. Bill 30, Page 1, · -ection 1. Mr. Boyce. MR. BOYCE: Mr. Chairman, I would move the proposed new Clause 2(29.1) of The Highway raffic Act, as set out in

Section 1 of Bill 30, be amended: (

a) by adding thereto, at the end of Clause (

d) thereof, the word "or "; and (

b) by striking out Clauses (

e) and (

f) thereof and substituting therefor the following clause: 245

Law Amendments Tuesday, June 7, 1977 (

e) is not capable of attaining a speed greater than 31 miles or 50 kilometers per hour. MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment as read? Agreed'? (Agreed)

Section 1 as amended-pass; Paq; 1-pass; Page 2. Mr. Boyc e. MR. BOYCE: Mr. Chairman, I would move that proposed new Subsection 23(2. 1) of The Highwa� Traffic Act as set out in

Section 6 of Bill 30 be amended by striking out the word "or" in the third linE thereof and substituting therefor the figure "7". MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment as read? Pass. Pag e 2 as amended-pass. Page 3-pass; PaqE 4- pa l?S; Page 5-pass; Page 6-pass; Page 7-pass;

Preamble-pass; Title-pass. Bill be reported' Agreed? (Agree

d) Bill No. 32 �An Act to Amend The Hospitals Act. I am informed there are no amendments to Bill 32 Page by page. Page 1-pass; Page 2-pass;

Preamble-pass; Title-pass. Bill be reported? Agreed' (Agreed) Bill No. 35 �An Act to Amend The Highway Traffic Act (3). There are some amendments. Bill 35 page by page. Page 1-pass; 0 Page 2-pass; Page 3-pass; Page 4. Mr. Boyce. MR. BOYCE: Mr. Chairman, I would move that

Section 12 of Bill 35 be amended by striking outth� words "at the end thereof" in the first and the second lines thereof and substituting therefort he word1 "immediately after the word 'pounds' in the second line thereof". MR. BURTNIAK: Mr.

Chairman, last year, I believe, or two years ago when the class licences cam� into effect, there was a Class 31 icence which dealt with farm truck operation or driving of farm trucks What we are doing here is allowing young people who are 16 years of age to be able to drive a tarn truck, provided of course -I believe I am correct in saying -t hat the farm truck is not equipped witl air brakes and the likes of that, in order to help out the farming operations. That is the extent of th1 amendment. MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment as read? Agreed? (Agreed) Mr. Einarson. MR. EINARSON: Mr.

Chairman , just for further clarification, I know I was talking to the Ministe personally, but when he says "farm truck," there are farm trucks that are run by air brakes and so the· would not come under this classification? There are farm trucks, you know, that are over three ton with front air brakes. That means that a young fellow that is between 16 and 18 is not allowed to driv• a truck with air brakes. Do I understand that to be so? MR. BURTNIAK: I am told that this person is able to do so if he is 16 years of age, he can drive truck equipped with air brakes provided he gets the endorsement to do so. MR.

EINARSON: Provided he gets the endorsement to do so? Is that what I understand th· Minister to say? MR. BURTNIAK: That's right, he takes a test and he goes through the normal procedure an• drives it for farm purpose only, and nothing else. MR. EINARSON: That, Mr. Chairman, is the point I wanted to clear up. If he is 17 years of age h can take a test for the purpose of driving a truck with air brakes providing it's on the farm or for farr use only? MR. BURTNIAK: That's correct. MR. EINARSON: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment as read? Agreed? (agreed) Page 4 as amended-pass; Paq 5-pass; Page 6. Mr. Boyce. MR.

BOYCE: Mr. Chairman, I would move that

Section 19 of Bill 35 be amended by striking outth word "3rd" in the second line thereof and substituting therefor the word "4th". MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment as read? Mr. Minaker. MR. MINAKER: Was that just a typographical error .. . ? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Burtniak, could you answer the question, please. MR. BURTNIAK: I think the question was whether it was a typographical error.

This particulc; amendment is needed to introduce the principle whereby pursuant to which drivers whose licenc had been previously suspended for life, would be entitled to make application for restoration of the· licence provided that they have not been convicted of any further offences under the Criminal Cod during the five�year period since their suspension or immediately preceding their application fc reinstatement. MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment as read? Agreed? MR. JORGENSON: Can I give the Member for St.

James the assurance that it is just an error i describing the particular line in the bill that was subject to amendment and let's pass it. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 19 as amended-pass;

Section 20. Mr. Boyce. MR. BOYCE: Mr. Chairman, I would move that

Section 20 of Bill35 be struck out and the followin

section be substituted therefor: subsection 238(12) and (13) added: 20

Section 238 of the Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after subsectio (11) thereof, the following subsections: 246

Law Amendments Tuesday, June 7, 1977 1spension. 18(12) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, where a person is convicted of an offence mentioned in Jbsection (1 ), the convicting judge or justice may suspend the licence and the right to have a :ence for a period not exceeding 5 years, but in making the order the judge or justice shall not 1spend the licence or the right to have a licence for a period shorter than the period prescribed by Jbsection (1). �instatement of licence of person suspended for life: 18(13) Where the licence or right to have a licence has been previously suspended under subsection ) for life, and 5 or more years have elapsed from the date when the suspension became effective, the �rson whose licence or right to have a licence was suspended for life, may apply to the registrar for in statement of his licence to drive; and the registrar may issue the licence if the person is otherwise Jalified under the Act to obtain and hold a licence and has not been convicted of any further offence entioned in Subsection (1) during the 5-year period immediately preceding the date of his >plication.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment as read? Agreed? (Agreed)

Section 20 as amended-pass; �ge 6 as amended-pass; Page 7. Mr. Boyce. MR. BOYCE: Mr. Chairman, I would move THAT

Section 26 of Bill 35 be amended: (

a) by striking out the letters "(kkk)" in the second line thereof and substituting the letters "(Ill)"; 1d (

b) by striking out the letters "(Ill)" in the third line thereof and substituting therefor the letters mmm)". MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment as read? Page 7-pass;

Preamble-pass; Title-pass. Bill be 1ported. Agreed. Bill 48,

an Act to amend the Insurance Act. Page 1 - Mr. Boyce. MR. BOYCE: Mr. Chairman, I would move THAT clause (

b) of

section 4 of Bill 48 be amended by adding thereto, immediately after the word ine" where it appears in the 1st line thereof, and again in the 2nd line thereof, in each case, the words >f clause (b)"! MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment as read. Agreed.

Section 4 as amended-pass; Page 1 as Tlended-pass; Page 2-pass;

Preamble-pass; Title-pass; Bill be reported. Agreed? (Agreed) Bill 54-

An Act to amend The Intoxicated Persons' Detention Act. There are no amendments. age by page: Page 1 -pass; Page 2-pass;

Preamble-pass; Title-pass; Bill be reported. Agreed? �greed) Bill 59 -

an Act to amend The Human Rights Act. Are there amendments? Mr. Graham. MR. GRAHAM: We held Bill No. 10 because the AttorneyGeneral had a date. Perhaps we should old 59 because he's still on that same date. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adam. MR. ADAM: Mr. Chairman, I had brought it to your attention that the Minister wasn't here and that e should hold this one over. MR. CHAIRMAN: Fine. Hold Bill 59. Bill 56 is being held because I understand there have been no ublic representations yet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorgenson. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Chairman, I believe that bill is going to go to the Agricultural Committee DW. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I'm not sure. it's on the list of this committee. Mr. Jorgenson. MR. JORGENSON: I'd like to say that the House Leader approached me today and requested hether or not we'd agree to allow that bill to go to the Agricultural Committee, and then multaneously - he hasn't announced that yet but I presume he will - simultaneously with the tting of the Agricultural Committee Thursday morning will be Private Members' which will deal with 1e Private Members' bills. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Bill No. 64 -

an Act to amend The Highway Traffic Act (4). There are mendments. Bill No. 64-

an Act to amend The Highway Traffic Act (4). Page by page. Page 1-pass; Page 2- ass; Page 3- pass. Pass Page 3, Mr. Boyce. MR. BOYCE: Mr. Chairman, I would move THAT Bill 64 be amended by adding thereto, immediately after

section 5 thereof, the following �ction: ubsection 96(6) added. 1 -

Section 96 of the Act is amended by adding thereto, at the end thereof, the following subsection: peed to be expressed in kilometers per hour. 3(6) - Any provision of a bylaw enacted under this subsection or under

Section 97 or 98 fixinq the 1aximum speed at which vehicles, or any one or more classes of vehicles, may be driven on any 247

Law Amendments Tuesday, June 7, 1977 hig hway or part thereof that, after the expiration of 3 months after the coming into force of this subsection, does not express the maximum spee'd in kilometers per hour is of no effect anc unen forceable. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, may I request that that

section be held over because it's not withir the context of the bill. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman , I get the feeling looking at some of these other amendments, I don' know whether they pertain to the bill for amendment that we're dea ling with or not, but really if ir accordance with the feeli ng of the Committee and decision made some time ago that memben should have an opportunity to look at the amendments so that they don't have to deal with them at thE moment they are distributed, and si nce it is 5:30 I wonder whether we can leave this bill.

Members wil have an opportunity to look at the amendments that have been distrib uted and it may just sail througt next time without any comment at all, rather than introduce it as a motion to ame nd them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreed? (Agreed) Committee rise and report. Committee rise. 248

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-4-la8
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 4th hansardpdf la8.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e2112ecdcba986a1c9ecb70fa13995ee3aeb517b

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