Manitoba Hansard — 18 June 1975 (Sitting 138, 30th Legislature, 2nd Session)

30-2-138

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MA.NITOBA 8:00 o'clock, Wednesday, June 18, 1975 Opening prayer by Mr. Speaker. 4249 MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions ; Reading and Receiv ing Petitio ns; Presenting Re ports by Standing and Special Committees ; Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Repor ts; Notices of Motion; Introduction of Bills; Questions; Orders of the Day. The Honourable House Leader. HON. SIDNEY GREEN, Q. C. (Minister of Mines, Resources and En vironmental Manage ment) (Inkster) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like the House to recess for the purpose of waiting for deliberations to take place at the Committee of Law Ame ndments and that the Speaker be available upon that committee being ready to report to the House. MR. SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Leader ring the bell for that Assembl y? MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr. Spea ker, in order to notify all members that the House will be back in session, we will ask the Clerk to see to it that the division bells are rung. MR. SPEAKER: Very well. I'm leaving the Chair until the call of the Assembly. * * * * * REPORTS BY STANDING COMMIT TEES MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The Honourable Member for Logan. MR . WILLIA M JENKINS (Logan) : Mr. Speaker, by leave, I wish lo present the Fifth Report of the Standing.Committee on Law Am endments. MR. CLERK: Your Committee met on Wednesday, June 18, 1975 at 8:05 p. m. Your committee has consider ed Bills: No. 62 - The Statute Law Am endment Ac t (1975), No. 65 - and Act to amend the Health Services Act and the Elderly and Infirm Persons' Housing Act. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. JENKINS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Thompson, that the report of the committee be received.

MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Flin Flan. MR. THOMAS BARROW (Flin Flon) : Mr. Speaker, may I make a non- legal announce ment? MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed? (Agreed) The Honourable Member for Flin Flon ANNOUNCEMENT MR. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour, it's an honour and a pleasure for me to announce that a young man from Flin Flan who has been an inspiration for every young athlete in this province has been chosen for the second time in two seasons as the most outstanding, the most valuable player in the NHL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAK ER: Would the honour able member tell us his na me? MR. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I neglected the most important part of the announcement. The gentleman's name is Bobby Clark. MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable House Leader. ORDERS OF THE DAY - GOVERN MENT BILLS MR. GREEN : Mr. Speaker, I wish to proceed with third reading on bills. I'd like you to call at the report stage Bill No. 29. BILL NO. 29 - PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT MR. SPEA KER: Bill No. 29. Shall the report on the Standing Committee on Bill 29, The Payment of Wages Act, be concurred in? Is it agreed? The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON.

RUSSELL PA ULLEY (Minister of Labour) (Transcon a): Mr. Speaker, so far as Bill 29 is concerned, following the report to the House - or following the committee, in accord ance with our rules, I propose a motion by way of amendment to which I gave due notice. I

42 50 June 18, 1975 BILL 29 (MR. PAULLEY cont'd) ..... have that before me at the present time. And if I may, Mr. Speaker, correct a statement that I made in committee in connection with the Payment of Wages Act, I indicated to the Honourable Member for Souris-Killarney that this Act did not apply to the agricultural industry. It does apply and a specific question directed to me by the honourable member was insofar as the time that's permissible to make payment to the employee.

The reason for this amendment, Mr. gpeaker, is to strike out the word "and" and insert the word "or", so that where there has been a custom established as to the time of pay ment of wages, that is the time - or where there's a collective agreement. At the present time, the indication is the practine and a collective agreement, that the purpose of this amend ment is to make sure that the two stand separately. So I move, Mr. Chairman, that subsection (3) of Bill 29 be amended by striking out the word "and" in the seventh line thereof and sub stituting therefor the word "or".

MOTION on amendment presented and carried. THIRD READINGS - BILLS - 29, 27, 28 , 45, 46, 50, 51 , 55, 56 (BILLS 29, 27, 28, 45, 46, 50, 51 (On division), 55, 56, were each read a third time and passed) BILL NO. 57 - THE PENSION BE NEFITS ACT HON. EDWARD SCHRE YER (Premier) (Rossmere) presented Bill No. 57, The Pension Benefits Act, for Third Reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Honourable Member for Riel - be fore it's passed. MR . CRAIK: Yes. With regard to Bill 57, I just wanted to ask,

Part 2 of this is being referred to intersession committee -

Part 1 and

Part 3 are being passed. Should reference not be made to that at this stage? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHR EYER: Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for Riel I believe was present in Law Amendments when we dealt with Bill No. 57, and at the time I indicated that we would amend the Proclamation section, the last

section of the bill, so that

Part 2 could not be pro claimed until after April 1/ 76, just to make sure that there could be no mistake in terms of it being proclaimed at an earlier date. So that de facto

Part 2 will be referred, and indeed there is a resolution on this Order Paper specifically referring to

Part 2, to the Statutory Committee consideration. (Bill 57 was read a third time and passed) TIDRD RE ADINGS - BILLS 58, 11, 33, 36 , 49, 59, 54 (BILLS 58 , 11, 33, 36, 49, 59, and 54 were each read a third time and passed) BILL NO. 44 - THE PLANNING ACT MR. GR EEN: Bill No. 44, Mr. Speaker. HON. HOWARD PAWLEY (Attorney-General) (Selkirk) presented Bill No. 44, the Planning Act, for third reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. The bill is not passed. MR. F. JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to take this opportu- nity to make some last few comments on Bill No. 44. Our position on Bill 44 has been through out, since its introduction, that we agree with the concept of planning for rural Manitoba, and we are very pleased that the Minister has been doing some work in that regard. But the bill does really not do for rural Manitoba what we believe should be done as far as the organization and the planning for the rural area. Mr. Speaker, after going through the bill clause by clause, I had many many references on the bill. This

section was taken out of the Metro Act, and there is no question in my mind that the Metro Act really has no, no relationship whatsoever to the rural parts of Manitoba.

June 18, 1975 4251 BILL 44 (MR. F. JOHNSTON cont'd) .. ... The bill, Mr. Speaker, is such that it is going to create a regional situation in Manitoba. The Minister of Municipal Affairs - when I was talking on his estimates last year, I was very concerned because nobody was mad at him or nobody was too concerned about him, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, he was getting along with everyb ody. But unfortunately we find the same as Autopac, as has happened in this bill, that the bill has not had enough consultation with the people that it concerns mostly. Mr.

Speaker, I could visualize, if I drive by the corner on Main street and I see the old Metro building, and in the basement of that building I will see the inspectors - all the inspectors, the plumbing inspector, the electrical inspector and everything else - and that's what this bill will do, give these district boards the authority to set up that kind of an organization. On the second floor we had the planners and the people who delivered the licences etc. And on the third floor we had the experts who had to lay down and give all the opinions and drawings and expertise about planning of the Metro area.

And of course on the third floor we had the secretary-treasurers, the directors and all those people that were involved in Metro, and of course a very large Council Chamber. And that's really what has been produced in this bill for every district that's formal in rural Manitoba, and there's no way they can afford it at the present time. The consultation should be done in many ways with the councils and municipalities on this bill, and there's no question - no question that the consultation should be going on right now.

The Union of Manitoba Municipalities have been holding meetings for the last three days - two days - yesterday and today - and they're holding some more. And while the Minister is sending people out there to explain this bill to them, we're here passing it tonight. The government is here passing it tonight. Mr. Speaker, we had amendments delivered to us three or four days ago, and last night we had more amendments on the amendments, and they've never seen those either. Mr.

Speaker, the principle of the bill when we first started out, naturally we didn't like the principle of the bill, and we said so at the beginning. We said so at the beginning and we said at the end and we say so now. And of course the Member from Portage la Prairie, any opport unity he gets to call down the Conservatives he welcomes. It doesn't matter to me. --(Interjection)-- You're right. I always knew I was right. He just said I was. So, Mr. Speaker, here we are with a bill that rural Manitoba is not ready for, without much further consultation.

It is going to be put upon them and the Minister says, "I won't proclaim it." But tonight if it's passed it will be law. It'll be law. It'll be another Metro situation in every district that sets up this, and we can't afford that or force that upon rural Manitoba without further consultation. Mr.

Speaker, therefore, I move, seconded by the Member from La Verendrye that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "be" and substituting therefor the words "not now read a third time but be referred to the Special Committee on Land Use for examination, and reported back to the next session of the Manitoba Legislature". MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. I don't see how we're going to proceed if we're goiµg to have more than one person speaking. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines. MR . GREEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking on a point of order.

I do not believe Mr. Speaker, and I respectfully suggest that such a motion is not in order on Third Reading. The bill has been approved on Second Reading, reported back to committee, and cannot now be unapproved by the House. It can be negative. But the only time that you can move a hoist or a referral is before the Legislature has approved the bill in principle, and therefore I respect fully suggest that a six-month hoist on Third Reading or a referral to a committee on Third Reading is not in order because the Legislature has approved the bill and it has been reported back from committee.

It can be negative or voted for. MR. SPEAKER: The motion of the honourable member - the amendment is not accepted. The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MR. LLOYD AXWORTHY (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a statement on Third reading of this bill. First, because some members of this House have made it their point to establish the question of consistency in raising it to a high principle. I think it was Ben Johnson once said that 'consistency is a virtue of small minds'. I find it peculiarly

4252 June 18, 1975 BILL 44 (MR. AXWORTHY cont'd) .. ... interesting, Mr. Chairman, that consistency is raised as a principle by those who are least able to practice it - or have practiced it in the past in either their vote, behaviour of speech or any other kind of activity in this House. I think that those in particular who are most vociferous in proclaiming their allegiance and honour to that prin ciple of consistency, at least in the last month or two, have been guilty of some very serious omissions or sins of forgetfulness in maintaining a straight line of commitment and thought.

And I wouldn't want to pull out some of the statements and voting records. But I think the members whom I'm referring to know exactly what I mean. --(I nterjection)--Oh, yes, the Mining Bill, we mustn't forget that. Mr. Speaker, the question of the Planning Act - our commitment to it began last year in the estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Two speakers, myself and the Member from St.

Boniface, both rose and directly requested the other Minister of Municipal Affairs at that time for a provincial land use policy related particularly to cope with the problem of ex panding growth beyond the boundaries of the City of Winnipeg. And we pointed out at that time, Mr. Speaker, that one of the most important requirements and goals of this House that we foresaw, was the need to reform and restore the Planning Act to a viable instrument in order to try to manage the tremendous expansion and movement of people beyond the borders of Winnipeg into a periphery of 20 or 30 miles beyond.

Because we saw at that time, Mr. Speaker, and have consulted with and talked with a number of representatives of the rural municipalities in the additional zone and beyond about the serious problems of land speculation, of scattered growth, of the use of valuable agricultural land - all these problems that were continuing apace with a ferocity that was only going to grow as each day went by.

I think the Minister would recognize that we spoke to that effect, and asked him specifically at that time that we establish first designated areas so that we could control certain ecologically and environmentally and agriculturally protected areas; and secondly, to change the mechanisms of planning so that there would be some ability to manage that area beyond the city in a more rational way. That, Mr. Speaker, was the beginning of his commitment a year ago. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we look forward with great interest to the bill.

And on Second Reading of the bill when it was presented for comment on principle, we indicated our basic support for that bill with reservations, be cause we felt that there were two or three major areas in the bill that needed refinement. The first one was the question of the involvement of the private citizen. We felt that there was not nearly adequate enough opportunity or mechanism for private citizens to enter into the planning process early on , to make, not just objections known, but to make their wishes and concerns and needs known. That was objection No. 1, Mr. Speaker.

Objection No. 2 was the real question about compensation for property rights. We said, take a look at the old Planning Act and the new one. We felt that one of the most important dilemmas that anyone in the planning process had to deal with, was that they were in fact absorbing individual property rights for the sake of community rights, and therefore it was very important that adequate and proper compensation be able to flow back to those individuals when their property rights were taken over. Those, Mr.

Speaker, if you look at the record of this House in Hansard - and I would suggest to certain members that they look at that record - were the two objections that we raised. Our vote on Second Reading, Mr. Speaker, was in keeping with that, because we said specifically we would agree with the principle of the bill, we there fore wanted the bill to go to committee, to hear the amendments, to hear the submissions, and to try to determine to what degree we could alter that bill. For the last two evenings, Mr.

Speaker, in Law Amendments, first we had representa tions from representatives of a variety of groups, both urban and rural, who suggested certain complaints about the bill but underlined continually their own sense of urgency that the bill come into force so that some property planning could take place. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we also made an effort to speak to representatives and municipal councillors who represent municipalities in the additional zone and ask them, is this bill necessary now, do you need it now, or can it wait a year? The answer came back, they wanted it now.

There was no equivo cation on that, Mr. Speaker , they wanted it now. They had reservations, but they wanted it now. --(In terjection)--We were talking of the rural municipalities within the border and fringe of this area. As for all these people who postulate themselves as being the spokesmen for those areas, I'm asking them, who were they talking to when they were asking about when it was com ing? They sure as hell weren't talking to the same people we were, because we were talking to

June 18, 1975 4253 BILL 44 MR. AXWORTHY cont'd) ... .. people from those municipalities. Now, Mr. Speaker, the point is that we spent four to five hours last night going over a series of amendments. 27(1) clarified very directly the opportunity for representation of the public, and also the clear and undeniable right of the public authorities other than the rr,unici palities to be involved early in the planning process. That took care of our objection. Secondly, Mr.

Speaker, we asked - and the Minister acceded to - the holding back or the freezing of the whole sections related to compensation, which eliminated that problem, with the commitment - and I think the Minister made that commitment - that he would undertake consul tation to understand the problems dealing with compensation and bring in amendments at the next sitting of this House. And on the basis of that commitment, Mr. Speaker, that second major objection of ours was dealt with. Now when we 're talking about consistency, Mr.

Speaker, I think I have outlined a very consistent, very deliberate set of commitments by this group to that bill. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it could compare very favourably with a somewhat varied course by a group of people who weren't even prepared in a committee to consider the amendments that might change and alter the composition of that bill; who wanted not even to hear those amendments or to consider them, or even to pay any attention to the representations that had been made the evening before. Now. if I call that

an act of principle, I call it rather, Mr. Speaker,

an Act of sheer pig-headed blindness, that's what I'd call it. And I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that our position at this stage is that we believe very firmly that this bill is a necessary bill in order to cope with a serious problem of urban growth and its expansion to the rural areas of this province. We don't say, Mr. Speaker, it is a perfect bill, not by any means. But it is a beginning. And all we can say, Mr.

Speaker, in keeping with the consistency of principle that we have adhered to, that we are going to be keeping a watchful eye on how the bill is operated, the kinds of con sultations that the Minister holds with the municipalities and the kinds of amendments that ap pear next session. That is our understanding of the legislative process, Mr. Speaker, where you undertake a piece of legislation, you are prepared as in opposition to maintain a watchful eye as to what's going on, and if there are problems you bring it to the attention of the public and to the attention of the House. That, Mr.

Speaker, is the understanding of the rightful role of an opposition, not sort of implacable hostility, not total antagonism, not total rejection, but the willingness to entertain and look at how you provide the best legislation for this province, no matter who brings it in. And on that basis, Mr. Speaker, we 're going to support this bill on Third Reading. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. HARRY J. ENNS (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, at this llth hour of the current session, allow me to make a confession . I am propelled to do so by the comments of my honourable friend, the Member for Fort Rouge.

I confess to you, sir, Mr. Speaker, and to none other that surely I have to stand alone among the 57 members as being one whose consistency of position is most in doubt. Surely, Mr. Speaker, I must confess that my position vis-a-vis the ideology between those on that side and myself on this side is most times in doubt. I fail so often to express them in any meaningful way, in any way that members of the Fourth Estate could understand them. I'd be the last person, Mr. Speaker, to ever paint things in a black and white kind of a situation. I just have never done that. I just have never done that .

You see, I've wishy washied around this whole scene. I've never known what a Conservative stood for. I've never fought for the free enterprise, you know, principles that I believe, you know, maybe some people in this pr.wince stand for. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if my contribution in this last little while the Member for Fort Rouge has been in the Chamber - I've left that impression - then I suppose Il'aybe he's right.

I've failed dismally, dismally, in being able to at least - you know, if I can't show my consistency to my friend who sits much closer to me, how am I going to show it to my honourable friend the Minister of Mines who sits that far distant to me. -- (Inter jection)- - I '11 holler, Mr. Speaker. Be that the case, let the Hansard show how people voted on the bill. Let the Hansard show how people voted on the bill and the Hansard -- (Interjectio n) -- MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. ENNS: The Hansard, Mr. Speaker - the Hansard, Mr.

Speaker, is full of the speeches made by honourable members of the Liberal Party on certain matters in this House, and how in turn they voted for them. Mr. Speaker, on this particular bill, we have consistently voiced our objection to it. We voiced our objection to it on the basis that, first of all, they're

4254 June 18, 1975 BILL 44 (MR. ENNS cont'd) .. ... prepared to plan the development of this whole province, but the very first --(lnterjection)-- MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I'm going to ask the Honourable Membe r for Flin Flon to contain himself. If he can't, would he kindly leave. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: You know, if for no other reason, one of the principle clauses in this bill is that the Crown be excluded from this Act. It was originally in the bill. By amendment they withdrew it.

And this means, that while everybody else shall be bound by this Act, the Crown shall not be bound by this Act. Now, you know, maybe Mr. Speaker, it's because of the diffi culties that past Ministers of Public Works have had with building out-houses in Memorial Park or building the kind of abortion that we have now beside the Law Courts Building, maybe we can understand why everybody else is to be bound by this Act other than the Crown. You know, that alone is ample reason why we should consider the consistency of our pasi.tion in rejecting this Act at this time. Mr.

Speaker, members from the Liberal Party indicate that they're prepared to pass something. They're prepared to accept a 'pig in a poke'. They're prepared to see whether or not the municipalities will accept it once they see the Act. Most municipal people haven't se en this Act. --(Interjection)-- Never mind the amendments, Mr. Leader. Right now there are municipal meetings being held around this province that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is scheduled as the guest speaker, to explain this Act - well, not to explain the Act. Well, Mr.

Speaker, at least then not tell us that the people that are directly concerned with the passage of the Act, the people that are going to have to live with the Act, are familiar with the Act, have ssen some of the amendments and that you've had that kind of consultation with them. Now the Liberal Party of Manitoba is prepared ·.;o buy that. They're prepared to say, as they've said to you long ago - you '.-mow, they naid that to Mr. Trudeau in '68 and they're still saying it, "Really, whate'1er you fellows do is good enough. As long as 'Ne can slide in on some coattails, we'll slide with you." Well, Mr.

Speaker, if it's consistency on our part, the Conservative Party, to object to that position, Mr. Speaker, I welcome it. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I did:1't intend to spea'< on third reading of Bill 44, but I made the mistake of answering a rhetorical question from the Member for Sturgeon Creek when he said that the Member for Portage la Prairie, if he gets the opportunity will oppose the Conservatives, and I said, "Yes, that's right." A MEMB ER: At any cost. MR. G.

JOHNSTON: I have had a great deal of practice in opposing the Conservatives, I might say, Mr. Speaker, because they give me the opportunity. When they were the govern ment and I was in Opposition, they gave me so many opportunities that I found �t rather easy to oppose them.

And to refer to a few times that I opposed them as best I could, I recall that they placed what was referred to as a Heat Tax on hydro, all energy fuels and everything else, &'1d I had the opportunity to oppose that at the time, and I might say I opposed it successfully - and I'm sorry to see that the Member for Lakeside is leaving the House because I had a few state ments to make to him if he would stay. (Applause) Of course, when the Member for Lakeside was fired out of his job as Deputy House Leader, I restrained myself to speak on principle there because I felt that was a party matter, although I had sympathy for his leader because it was a matter of principle there and the Mem - ber for Lakeside decided -co act other than his leader wished and I suppose that he was acting on principle, but then perhaps he shouldn't have accepted the job if he felt that he was that far apart on the political spectrum within the Conservative Party.

And I could recall a number of occasions, but only h:ive to go back perhaps three weeks or four weeks when the Member for Lalrnside spoke on principle on the new taxation bill as it regarde d mines in Manitoba. And he made a rousing speech about how great the bill was and how he could support it. and then, lo and behold, on second reading he voted against the bill. So I'm confused when the Membe r for Lakeside speaks on principle because I just don'.t know where he is from day to day. MR. ENNS: That's my problem. And why do people keep calling me a reactionary? A Right Swinger ? MR . G.

JOHNSTON: Now, I'm surprised at the Member for Lakesid·9 at this late hour .. . MR. EN NS: You know, I'm the Red Tory in the party. MR. G. JOHNSTON: I'm surprised at this late hour on third reading of bills when the

June 18, 1975 42 55 BILL 44 (MR. G. JOHNSTON cont'd) .. ... battles have baen fought on principle on second reading, the battles have been fought over amendments and so on, but the Member for Lakeside d·2cides to do some nit -picking on third reading of a bill that his party had worked so hard at in com mittee. But I must remember, or recall, that his party voted against this bill on principle in second reading, which the Member for Fort Rouge said, and then, lo and behold, Mr.

Speaker, when we get in committee, the government distrib·ited a d 3.Y or two ahead .)f time about 60 amendments, said they realized there's something wrong and here's some amendments, lo and behold. the Member for Sturgeon Creek arises in committee, or he gets the floor, an d he wants to move a motion right away. He d::>esn't want to hear the amendments. He's not concerned about improving the bill. He's only against it - and that's the Co'lservative position. He's against it. He d·)esn't want to improve the bill.

He wants to get it out into a committee so he can raise Caine intersessionally about hoN bad the government is handling this operation. He's not concerned about the people who are affected. We've heard from --(Interjections)-- We've heard at committee - and I'm glad I'm get ting some response; it makes me feel better. I would feel very badly if some of the Co'lserva tive members weren't bothered by the events that have transpired with respect to Bill 44. because I kn:iw that some of them are concerned. Some of their areas are affected and they have problems, and they know it.

But two or three me mbers in the Conservative Party, I think usurped the position :if the whole group and took the bit in their teeth and ::lecided to say, "Well, her(;'s a chance to shaft the government, to make them look bad. " (By the way, I'm not averse to that myself if I get the chance. ) But - Wait a minute.

If it affects people's livelih:iod,o and their futures, then we as legislators had better be very careful - had ·Jetter be very careful - and I would challenge the Member for Lakeside and ·1is leader - if he's still the leader at the next electio'l - to come out to Portage la Prairie and get a cand:�d:i.te, an d get that candidate to say that he supported the Liberal position with respect to Bill 44 in Portage la Prairie, because I have news for those gentle men. The City of Portage la Pr airie and d1 e surrounding district want this bill. They want it.

And I would like whoever the Leader of the Conservative Party is to come out to Portage la Prairie in the next election and state his stand ·D Bill 41, because it's a negative stand. It's a negative stand. It doesn't stand for anything. All they want to do is tear something d:iwn. All they wacit to do is tear something dJwn, never mind what good will come out of it. If they can make some political hay. that's what they want to make. Now. Mr.

Sp·eaker, I'm being pretty tough :ici some of the members of the Conservative party, but soaie of them are not that way. and some of them kno;v in their hearts that this bill is good for the people affected in the Province of Manitoba. And there have been statements while I've been spea'zing, that members of the Conservative Party are in bloc going to vote against this bill on third reading. and I appeal to these members in the Conservative Party, who kn:iw in their hearts that this l:Jill is needed, to stand up and be counted. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Honoarable Member for Morris. MR.

WAR NER H. JOR GENSON (Morris): Mr.

Speaker, we have ju5t heard 1 very rousing defence of the governme:it coming from a group who have been elected :o this Chamber, since they d•J not form the government. for the P'.lrpose of providing opposition to the government, and the whole system of government depends on them performing that function, bat we have seen an example of the kind of responsibility accepted by the Liberal Party in not only this measure, in many other measures, and we have pretty good evidence of that just recently from the Leader of the Liberal Party himself, who is pleading with the voters af Crescentwood to vote for him. n'.lt on the basis of his a':Jility to do things for the people of Cr escentwood or the Province of Ma11itoba. not on th·e basis of policies that they have enunciated - because they haven't enunciated anything. the wet-fingered politicians who constantly test the winds to find out how they're going to vote on every issue - but the Leader of the Liberal Party is appealing to the voters of Cr escentwood to vote for him on the basis that they will save the Liberal Party from becoming an endangered species.

That's his appeal in the Crescentwood by-e lection. "Vote for me because the Liberal Party then might become extinct. " Good rid·:fa.nce, as far as I'm concerned, because there's nothing there of any substance in any case. But, sir, now to get back to Bill 44. MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, (laughter) MR. JORGENSON: Our position on this bill - I enunciated it when I first spoke on the bill - we have said for some time that the Planning Act, or planning legislation, based :in the

4256 June 18, 1975 BILL 44 (MR. JORGENSON cont'd) ..... need to ensure the preservation of agricultural land in this province, is necessary. I would have thought that the government would have welcomed an op portunity to present a White Paper of sorts and take it through the country for an opportunity to provide it for the people to express their opinions on it. That, obviously, is not going to be the case. And I can't understand the government's attitude in this because the Minister of Urban Affairs last night, when dealing with one of the clauses in which some objection had been taken, made this comment. He said: "Let this amendment g<J," - or this

section of the Act go, and I forget which

section it was - "because nothing is going to happen in a year anyway. There is really nothing that's going to take place. So let it go for a year and if it doesn't quite work out then we can amend it. " That's fine. I'll accept that. And we did accept that. But if that's the case, if nothing's going to happen for a year, then what would '.lave been wrong to refer this bill to the Committee on Land Use and use the bill as a White Paper, as a means of provoking debate, as a means of getting ideas from people as to how that particular piece of legislation can be improved upon?

I think it would have been the kind of an action that would have met with the approval, not only of the municipal councils of this province, but everybody who is involved and is concerned. And I'm quite sure that there are many groups in this province that are very concerned about the need for some kind of legislation to d·3al with the whole question of land use, so it would have seemed to me that in referring this bill to the land use committee, then that committee could have done something useful, because the function that it is serving is, in my opinion, not a useful one.

It purports to go out into the country to hear the views of the people, and yet every time a view is expressed the government pounce on that poor person who expresses that view like a ton of bricks. They descend upon him and attempt to refute everything that he says, unless of course it just happens to coincide with the government's own views. So I question whether the purpose of that committee is really to find out the views of the people. But here would have been a very useful function for that committee to perform: to take Bill 44 and present it as a basis for discussion.

And I know that in my experience with encourag ing people to present views on any subject, if you have a concrete proposal in front of them and they have an opportunity to examine and express their opinions, it's a far better way of getting some input than coming out with an abstract idea that we just simply must have some legislation dealing with land ·.ise.

It would have been an excellent opportunity, in my opinion, for the government to really get some input into this bill and :o ensure land use legislation which would 'oe meaningful and which would oinable the people who are concerned and affected by it, that they have an opportunity to take

part in the planning of their own areas and their own destiny, and I regret very much that the government have not taken advantage of this opportunity, because, in the words of the Minister of Urban Affairs, nothing is going to happen for a year anyway. That year could :iave been very usefully spent by allowing the people of this province to have an op portunity to make comments on this piece of legislation. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. R. (Bud) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I intend to be brief in my com ment on this legislation. I haven't spoken on it up to th.is point.

I think it's interestin g that at this stage of the debate we have heard, in defence of the bill, from two members of the 34-mem ber NDP government caucus in this House. The only persons who have spoken to defend it at this point are the two members who've spoken from the Liberal wing of the NDP party in this province, and I think that point should not escape the record at this stage of the session, Mr. Speaker. You know, Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Fort Rouge and the Member for Portage have talked about consistency and about the lack of consistency that they see in the performance of certain members of the Conservative Party. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have sec�n one thing in terms of consistency in this session. When we started out at the beginning of this session we weren't quite sure where the Liberal rump in this province and in this Legislature sat, although we knew they didn't sit on very many seats in this Chamber, But now, sir, after three and a half months of debate in this Chamber, we know where they sit. We know where they sit.

They sit four-square behind the New Democratic administration of this province. That has become evident in the hypocrisy, in the capitalizing on opportunity, that they have seized upon it at every chance, on every crucial debate in this session. Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party in Manitoba, except for oneor two notables like former Premiers Douglas Campbell and Stuart Garson ...

June 18, 1975 4257 BILL 44 A MEMBER: Th at's where you want to b·2 ... MR. SHERMAN: . . . have in my opinion, sir, c on struc ted for the ms elv es the most dismal, abysmal record ::if fa ilure of government the Pr o7in ce of Manitoba has ever h a d on its record in our h istory. You 'moN, we criticize the New Demo crati c Pa rty . t he New Dem o8ratic admi nistration for ma ny th ings . There are many things they d::i th a t we d·)n 't like. But I'll say this for them. sir, at least th ey do th' ngs. the same as the pl'.'evious Conservative adminis trations of this province have done.

They may have made some mistakes, we may have ma d·e some mista'rns. At least we do th ing. -;. A MEMBER: Right. MR. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, the party that the three rump members to my left repre sen t, worked a!ld led and stumbled this party into the 18th Century in the 10 or 12 years that it was in of fic e here, a!ld they stand lp in this House a!ld have the gall. the audac ity, with ne-1er h a ving had the initiati ve, the imagi nation or the guts to give any leadership to this pr o7ince . to criticize a p3.rty like this one, which in riffice may have made soITe mistakes, b·1'. which had the energy a':ld the courage, as the present government d::ies, to at least t ry th !.ng;.; to advan ce th2 cause of the p eople of th e Province of ManitobJ..

And I think th.::ise th ings, at this stage of the Session, have to be said fot· the reco rd . and I take pride in persona lly saying them and putti ng them on the re cord. Mr. Speaker, I haven 't said much on B ill 4! in this debate, but I'll tell you one th ing , Mr. Spea'rnr, if I didrl't kn:iw wh2re I stoo d •)n Bill 41 - -(Interjectio!l)- - My colleague says, "No more Mr. Nice Guy s. " MR. SPEAKER: Order please. A MEMBER: . . . a q1 1 2stion ? MR. SHERMAN: I will when I'm finished. Mr. Spea'rnr. I'll tell you this, Mr.

Speaker, I may have had some d•)ubt in my own m i nd as to Nhere I stoDd on Bill 44 until the Liberals took th e ir positio!l on it - if it can be called l positio!l - but now I c ertainl y know where I stand on it. becauae they have d•)ne n oth ing bat curry favor with this administration since this session of this Legislature opened. and if that's the case. th .en t h e legislation can't have very much to recomme::id it.

Eve::i though there may b·2 aspec ts of it that require and ·foser-ve the support of all m embers of this Hou.oe . if the Liberal Pa rty is for it, the:i it's a very good :�eason for many of us to be against it. Mr. Speaker. when that ame::idment came in tod1y removing the Crown from obligation remo ving the p:ovision that said the Crown was bound !)y the Act, that. I suggest, sir, is suff ic ient to rec ommen d to any obj ec tive person in this Chamber th at he 7ote against the legis lation.

When th ere's legislation at this time being introdiwed in th is Chamber. baing foisted :n the people o� Manitoba. to wh ic h the Cro;vn is not oblig ated , u.1der whi ·,h the Crown is not bound. then I suggest tha'" raises a very crudal and fund3.m ental question a':iou>. democratic g<ner- nm ent. On those grn1nds alone. sir, if the Mem ber for Portage la Prair ie is wondering where we stan d .nd wh2th er individ:.u.l memb ers of the Conservative caucus are going to vote against it oc not.

I c a::i a.3sure !'!lm that I, and I'm sur e ma::iy of my colle ::rg:.ies, o:i those grounds alo!le are going to vote against it. The basic ob.iectio'1 we !'lad ·;o the bill was th at it vested too mu�h po Ner in a new bureau cratic level of government; it vested too mu�!'! p•TNCl' in the Mini ster himself. Now the bJ.sic objection I have to it is the fact that the Cro;vn is absolved :)f responsi.b1lity and obligation, wh ic h it's imp o sing •m ev erybody else in �h is p1·ovince.

If that isn't s•1fficient reason to vote against the bill, then the fa<;t that. the Liberals are for it is sufficient reaso!l :o vote against it. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho:10urable Member for P ortage la P r air ie. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Well, Mr. Speaker. th e Member for Fort Garry said he would enterta:'n a :pe.stion after he spoke. Now, I u ndersta::id '1im to say that he admitted .3ome mis takes h.ld 0)·2•�n mad·" by lh•� C onser vative ad:ninistratio'.l pr ev iously. Wo•1ld he d2tail some of th '.:>se mistakes b2cause l may no: recall all of them? Would h2 d·2tail som e of th-:ise mistake3? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Foc·t Ga rry. MR. SHERMAN: I welcome the opportu1ity, Mr. Sp2aker. Thebii;ge.st mista\:e we mad2. Mr. Spealzer, was 0'1 the night of Jurle 23, 19'39, when we gave up th2 reins of government. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member fot· Assiniboia. MR. STEVE PA TRIC K (Assiniboia): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did1't i nten d to speak on this bill and re ally I d·)n't knoN if I ca'1 out-p2rform the member who ju.st spoke. But r eally .

4258 June 18, 1975 BILL 44 (MR. PATRICK cont'd) ..... I am somewhat concerned because really what started this debate - and if the members to my right would just take count of what really happened in the last week or so. I've watched the members to my right, and I've never questioned them in the last six year s since they've been on the Opposition side - and .;;omehow they haven't accepted that they're in Opposition; they still feel they're in government, or they should be governing - but now they should accept that they're in Opposition. And I have watched them vote in this House.

They voted on the Tax Credit Plan for; they voted against, they voted against; well I could question the principle. Did I question their principles? Never. You know, that's their right to vote the way they want. I saw last year where only three members, the leader and two other members supported them, the Member for - I believe he's sick; he's not in the House - and somebody else that supported the Leader of the Opposition, only three voted and everybody else voted against them, on a measure that was I believe a Private Member's Resolution, and I didn't question it.

I d;dn 't say that they have principles or not principles. And I can't accept that because you vote in a certain way, then somebody's compromising a principle, because really, we stated our objections to the bill, just like we did i_ast year on the labour bill, we stated -Jur objections. The Member for Fort Rouge moved a couple of amendments. He got some of the amend ments and the reservation that he hadn't got those through, and ::m those bases we were pre pared ·;o let the bill go.

But th.i s idea coming from my right continually for the last week 0r so, saying, "Well, you're hypocrites because you voted this way. " Mr. Speaker, the only reason we get that is because there's two by-elections. If the members to my right check the Hansard for the last three or four years they'll find, at least on a rlozen occasions, that they've split on different measu res. Did I say they were hypocrites? No. I said that's their right. In fact I admire the Member for Lakeside, who by himself voted :his Session, I believe. and that's his right. And I can't understand it.

When the Member for Fort Garry, when he wants to talk .. . I can mention to him when the Conservatives were on that side. some of the measures that I proposed in this House - and I didn't propose any measures that were before this House the year before, or two years before, I only proposed measures that were new, not like some of the members on this side. When they were on the government side they voted against everything tax reductions or sales tax. and when they came on this side they started to move the same resolutions that I moved five or six years ago. That's their new program.

You know, they're moving the same resolutions that we moved. or I moved. five or six years ago and eight years ago, and I would like to point out to the member, when we moved. when we were in Opposition. that we should have grants for kindergartens in the whole City of Winnipeg. or in the whole Province of Manitoba, what did the Conservative Party d:i? They voted against it. And still the City of Winnipeg, at that time they did have grants becau'le they used a. technique that they said we need four classrooms for Grade 1, a.'1d they used one class room for the kindergarten system. But in St.

James we were turned :bwn. We had a letter from the Minister at tint time, Mr. Stewart McLean. Fort Garry was turned down. We could not have it. The City of Winnipeg had it. So I had a proposal that said, "Look. The money's coming, at least 50 percent from the revenue of the Province of Manitoba. It should be the same throughout the province. " Did 1;hey accept it? They voted against it. You know, when we talked about increasing the minimum wage, it was 75 cents - that's about $ 22. 00 a WP.ek.

Can any member expect his daughter or son to live on $ 22. 00, pay transportation, cigarettes, coffee and everything else, and board and room? No, but they voted against it. So that's the kind of program they believed in. --(Interjection)-- Not too long ago. Not too long ago. MR. SPEAKER: Order pl ease. MR. PATRICK: So, Mr. Speaker, in this House I have taken issue with the NDP. I've taken a strong issue.

I've taken a strong issue on labour matters, and I've said when the govern ment was on this side, when they were in Opposition, they talked about many areas in the way of labour, and after the Minister of Labour was in his seat as Minister of Labour for five or six years and we still weren't getting action on things like 40-hour work week, on extension of holid.1y pay to three weeks, so how can anybody say that we haven't? This Session alone we voted against the government, I believe, on at least four or five issues, or on six divisions, so let them check.

Perhaps when we get stuck on one bill or, you know, that there's a difference. and right away you get name-calling, surely that's not the height of intelligence of some of the

June 18, 1975 4259 BILL 44 (MR. PAT RICK cont'd) .... . members, because I have rwt in this Ho:u;e ever challenged anyone for voting any way, not ever said that he's a hypocrite. Because I saw them vote again st each other many times. I didn't ma ke any issue of it. To here, our position's very clear. Wh·:i this year pointed •)Ut the lack of manpower policy in the government? We talked abo'.lt it. Abo·1t the e:iergy crisis? We talked .lbo'.lt it. About mining regulations? The first speaker on the mining b'.11 was the Member for Fort Ro:.ige :L"ld he said, "Loo'-c, the bill's no different than last year.

It's only goj_ng to b3 by reg:.ilation s. " That's what he said, a'ld the Minister of Mines and Reso'.lrces said, "That's right." He saici he realized that. The Member for Lakesid e, he gave it a rousing welcome anrl .3aid, "That's great. " You know, we a0cept them. Now the Ministe;,· of Mines says ... We've pointed out the problems in ho'.lsing, a'ld for the ed::fication of the Member for Morris , I hope he would read tod.:ty's pap.er and I believe that the Fourth Estate. both pap.ers, give an assessment of this sessio'l, and there's quite a lengthy one.

I'm sure that they have communication with the n·3Wspapers probably better than we have. and let him find out what th3 newspapers say - and I'm not critical of the other members, just strictly for the member - what the Foirth Estate had ·;o say. They said the three members here provid•jd more cocistructive criticism, and th.3y said they provided better opposition, because the Opposition was fighting their own battles. - -(Interjecti on) -- Well. the press perhaps haven't got any principl es either.

So I just want to point these things o:.it. --(Interjection)-- No, I think that what has to be done when there's a bill, when you d)n 't accept it. when we've got the amend�'Ilents through - the same thing happened .last year; we got the amend:nents through in the labour bill that was b·3fore us and we said Ne won't support it unless we get some amendments. We got at least eight amendments through and we supported it. The same thing with this. We got two big issues. h:i.d ·;he Minister remove from the bill, and that's the reason we're supporting it and I d•)n't think that's hypocritical.

Next year if the bill's nJt working, then we'd have to change it, because I remember quite Nell, we used to go to Law Amendments when the Conservatives were in power. We used w withdraw a bill, sometimes three or four times, to redraft it, and it wasn't perfect legislation. So just to say that you support a me asure - I said we've split on the division six time.:; this year already, and I'm sure that the members to my right haven't split more, with the ex1�eption of this bill. So I don't thin'-c there's any "leed for name-calling. QUESTION put. third reading of Bill 41 passed.

THl!!_D_llEADINGS - BILLS �65 BILLS NO. 62 .md G5 were each read :i. third time and passed. MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Spea.'zer, I move, seconded by the :.!onourable the Minister of Mines. that the Resolutions reported from Co mmittee of Supply be now reaci a second 'dme and co'.lcurred :in. MOTION presented :md carried MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I've got to read "Che concurrence.

Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not ex<�eedi.ng $ 98·1, 037. 300. being the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending the 3lst d.1y of March, 1976, Resolutions 1 to 110, separately and collectively. Resolved th:i.t there be granted to Her Majesty a further sllm not exceeding $18, 112, 500 for Supplementary Su11ply. Resolutio:is 1 to 6, separately and collectively. Agreed? (Agreed) So ordered. The Ho:iourable Ho:.ise Lead·er. MR. GREEN: Mr. Sp3aker. I was hold:ng Bill No. 40 for the Leader of the Opposition. Call Bill No. 40. or perhaps I'll call the Supply Bill first. MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho:ioarable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker. sir, I move. second·3d ·Jy the Hm10'.lrable the Attorney General. that you do now leave the Chair a"ld che House re.solve itself into a Committee to con.si.d·er Ways and Means of raising of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented and carried. and the House re.solved itself into a Committee of Ways and Means, with the Honour able Member for Gimli in the Chai.r. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Gimli.

4260 COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS June 18, 1975 MR. CH AIRMAN: The Committee of Ways and Means. Resolved that towards making zood certain sums of money granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the Provi nce, for the fiscal year ending the 3lst day of March, 1976, the sum of $ 984, 037, 300 be granted :mt of the Conso lidated Fund. Passed. The Honourable Member for Radisson. MR. HARRY SHAFRANS KY (Rad).sson) : Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to bring attention to one particular concern in my area. I don 't know if this is in order. I will ask tho se people who are very much informed about the . . . MR.

GR EEN: Mr. Spea'rnr, I thin k that the member's remarks would oe limited w the ways and means of raisi ng money, and it is suggested that it be done out of Consolidated Revenue. MR . CHAI RMAN: Resolved that towards making good certain further sums of money granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the Province for the fiscal year ending the 3ls t day of March, 19 76. the sum of $1 8, 11 2, 500 be granted out of the Con solid :i.ted Fund. Passed. Committee Rise. Call in the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Ways and Means has passed certain resolutions and has directed me to report the same.

IN SES SION MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Gimli. MR. J. GOTTFRIED (G imli) : Mr. Spea ker, I move, seconded by th e Honourable Member for Emerso n, that the report of the committee be received. MOTION presented and ·�arried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister . MR. SCHR EYER : Mr. Speaker, I move, secondsd by the Honourable the Minister of Labour , th at the resolutions reported in Committee of Ways and Means be now read a second time and concurred in. MOTION presented and earried. MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Radis son have some point of orde r ? The Honourable First Ministe r.

BIL,1_� �-19 _:-_QAI'._II.A L SUP�_l.Y MR. SCHREYE R int roduced Bill No. 19, anAct for grantingto Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of the Provi nce for the fiscal year ending the 3l st day of March, 1976. MR. SPEA KE R: The Ho nourable First Minister. HON . EDWARD SCHREYER (Pr emier)(Rossme re) (by leave) presented Bill 19,

an Act for Gr anting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of the Province for the fiscal year ending the 3l st day of March, 1976, for second reading. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Radisson. MR. SHAFRANSKY: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the assistance of honourable members. I have been waiting for this opportunity for some time.

I have taken one occ asion at the Com mittee of Supply dealing with the estimates of the Highways Department, and I was told at that particular time that the time to deal with the question which I have -and acertainconcern of my con stituents - is to deal with the estimates of the Minister of Urban Affairs .

Well, this morning I sat all morning. and trnfortunately we had the philosopher from Fort Rouge who expounded at great length so we never really got to the clause which I wanted ·:o just bring to the attention of members, that is, a particular concern of my constituents in the East Elmwood <lrea - in particular to the very high tr affic problem on Nairn Avenue lead:ing from Transcona. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I don 't follow the honourable member . MR. SHAFRANSKY: Am I told not now ? MR. SPEAKE R: Order please I'd like to get some co-oper ation from all the members because I 'm getting confused too.

Now let us get it str aight. By leave, l introduced Bill No .19, First Reading. I also intr oduced, by leave, Bill No. 19 for Second Reading and I asked if it was agreed :o. It was. I thought the Honourable Member for Radisson had a procedural point and I can't under stand what he's discussing. The Honourable House Leader.

June 18, 1975 4261 BILL 19 MR. GREEN: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. Then there was a misunderst anding because the Hon ourable Member for Radtsso'J. thr:>:i.ght that he was speaking on the motio;i to give Second Reading to Bill No. 19. He did not know that you had ,Jassed :he bill. MR. SPEAK ER: Ord,er please. Let's get together. By leave of the House we'll go back to second ::-ea<Yng of Bill 19 and I won't accept the motio:i as having been passed as yet, un til the Honourable Member for Rad'tsson has said his speech. Agreed? (Agreed ) The Honour able Member for Radisson. MR. SHAFRANSKY: Thank you, Mr. Speak Jr.

I was informed that I was going to be given the signal at the particular time -Nhen I could :>peak . (laughter) However, the Honourable Member for Morris ... MR. BOB BANMAN (La Verend· rye): Shafted again , Harry. MR. SHAFRANSKY: They shafted me again (laughter) Well, Mr. Speaker, I was talking about a particu lar co:i cern of the resident s in the East Elmwood :i.rea on Nairn Avenue who have for many years been very mu'.!h beleaguered by the problems of increasi ng traffic - vehicle traffic - on Nairn Ave:rne. I'd like to give a very brief description of the area.

Nairn Avenue is a four-lane und:".vided arterial roadway. --(lnterj ectio '1)-- I knoN most members don't know the area , so I think I should give a d·escriptio::i. It's between Grey Street '.Jl1 the west an d Stapleton St. on the east. there are single family residences which front the north side between Nairn Avenue over·pa'3s and .3tapleton. Two schriols are also located ilong this portio:i of the street.

The south sid-e of Nairn between the overpass and Panet Road �on tains a wide variety o[ commercial establishments mixed Nith some light indastry. --(Interjectio n) -- Now, if the Hon ·:>urable Minister of Health and Social Development would contain himself, I would •Jonclude these remarks in very short order. (Applause) It's a deal. Well Mr. Speaker , I mus t mentioci one of the major problems. There has been a vehicle classif ication count, and a traffic study on licence on trucks was condu·�ted in May. 1974.

At that p.:irticular time they conclud-ed. having -�ner a period :if time looked at all of the traffic studies, fo�r1d that there was a general increase in 'JOlume of traffic of some 7 pe rcent per ann:.im. On 01ce p:i.rticular day, on May •Hh. 197 4, from 7 a. m. to 7 p. m. , they took a traffic co'.lrit - and :his was in 1974 - there w-ere some 17. 763 vehicles. Now, if you take that figure of some 7 pe rcent increase per an num. there would have been in 1975 some 19 .

OOO vehicles in a 12 -ho;_ff period which amounts to l. 600 vehicles per hour ; bro'rnn doNn, comes out to abo:.it ap1Jroximately 26. 27 vehicles P'er minute. and that is like half a vehicle pclr seccnd . Now. Mr. Speaker, yo•.i can consider, of these vehicles, there were some 16 - pard,Jn '."'.le. about 2. OOO were trucks , and these ·1ere gravel trucks. I know the Honourable Member for Fort Rouge wo•.ild like to talk about his philosophy and .ideas of something that we have lo'lg ad vocated in the New Demo· cr atic Party. Now '.ie's going to ask q·.iestions.

But we have ad·vocated on these things a� 'me too' - 'me to:iism'. That's all he is. He's iust one of these people who is always - one of the people who is sort of a professional student and ·1e feels he knows - I've never heard him shut up on an y particular issue or topic entered ·:iefore this Ho'.lse. He's an e.xp2ct on everything and he even expresses some opinion today. Well, Mr. Sp•eaker, I like to listen to pe ople Nho are down-to-earth.

So>netimes I get very annoyed with these professio:ial stud-e:its who expounded on every issue that could e·1er be discussed - and that is the Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. i:iumetirne:o ne does make sense - once in awhile - if he knows something. Bu� if he doesn t, he still begins to continue expo:.md i.ng his ideas. Well. Mr.

S9eaker, there have been several proposa ls '!:Ilade by the City of Win nipeg on vario·.is schemes to develop .:i system of traffic down Nairn Ave:me. o:ie of the t'J.oroughfares that I would like to have seen supported :JJ this gover nment . because I notice that there was some $ 35 millio'.1 in the Highways Department appropriated for the purpose of urba'J. transit. Of co·. irse it also referred to wnstru ction aid3 to cities, town and villages, work in uno rganized territories b·.it in total there was some $ 35 million.

I'd like to have found ,Jut. and I just hoped �hat the Minister of Urban Affairs - who is not present tonight - wo'.lld ·1ave been able to give me some figure s, th·:i actual amount of moneys that were allocated for the roa d construc tion in the urban areas. One of the road,3 that I'm tal.king in ;J:J.rticular is the one Nhich has for many years beleagured the people on the street. "�'he First Minister who used to be the Member for Parliament for Selkirk. I kno JV has been ac;quainted with the problem. These people have even been more beleaguered by the problems of the ever-i ncr easing traffic of

4262 June 18, 1975 BILL 19 (MR. SHAFRANS KY cont 'd) ..... some 7 percent per annum, which amounts close to 20 , OOO vehicles and I've given you the figures, But what the people there would like to see, is that there would be some changes made, where the truck tr affic would be removed from Nairn Avenue and a bypass made.

In the city's prop osals, there were four schemes, and one scheme they advocated was the one that would take the truck traffic off Nairn Aveaue to another street on the north side of the CN line leading to Symington Yards called Traverse Street and ther efore red'.lce the problem of gravel and trucks that are the major problem to the homes. --(Inter jection) -- I haven't made any deals. I've brought this question up and I was told that I couldn 't speak in the ... -- (Int erjection) -- Well, you see I haven't been given any opportunities to lmow what the inner sanctum 's discussions are.

If the Premier considers that to be blowing it, he blew it a long time on the basis that he was informed about this problem many years ago and he has not seen fit to brin g this to the attention of Urban Affairs. In fact he was the Urban Affairs Minister. --(I nterj ection) -- You' ve neve r heard anything like that. Well Mr.

Spea'.rnr, just for the benefit of those people in Urban Affairs, I would like to bring attention that there are four schemes - scheme D which would promote traffic --(I nter jection) -- I know you're trying to be funny, and I'm not going to be funny any more. --(Inter jection) -- Well, you are being funny now. Do you want to be funny? MR. SPEAK ER: Order please. A MEMBER: I think the government 's falling apart. MR. SHAFRANS KY: I was not attempting to be funny. If the Hm10urable Member for St. Boniface wants to be funny, then he's getting my dander up. A MEMBER: We're going to vote with you, Harry. MR.

SHAFRANS KY: Well, Mr . Speaker, there is a lot of members who figure this question of the people ill the area in particular I'm talking about, who figure this is a funny issue. Well, I do n't consider it funny. I was never attempting to be funny. But I would . Mr. Speaker, like to bring it to your attention so that this particular question could be resolved. It has been a longstand:ing issu e and, in talking with various members, there has never been that type of conc ern, or there have been concerns about various parts . but the urban areas, to my knowledge, have never received -chat type of concern. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKE R: The Honourable Member for Souris -Killarn ey. MR. EARL McKELLAR (S ouris- Kil larney) : Mr. Spea'rnr. I hadn 't intended to speak , but I think there's a plot around here. I und erstand the Premier decided '!.bout thr ee weeks ago this session was going to end on the 19th. and I think maybe the Member for Rad is son has helped him out maybe. We're getting awfully cloee anyway. --(I nterj ection) -- Yeah, Well, things got so hot for me here for awhile here. I had to leave, I was thinking so hard - that' s why I couldn't thmk.

I kind of got caught in a squeeze here for quite awhile tonight, seeing tha Member for Lakeside and the Member for Portage, you know. I thought I was friend:> to both of them. But you can only stand so much, you know, and I had to move down there. I thought I'd mad.3 my last speech yest erd:iy. But 1:1aybe it 's just as well I kept . .. But I'm not going to be very brief. I was hoping the Minister for Tour ism and Recreation was here because I sure get iots of letters, and we 're going to take time out to get things off our chest. I'll just take about one minute here.

I'm speaking on behalf of the rural people of Manitoba regarding the library policies of the Government of Manitoba, who say to the rural people that unless you have 10. OOO people in a library you cannot get the increased 5rants that were made available to the cities of Winnipeg. Bra ndon , Portage la Prair ie, Dauphin and Thom pson, and all the bigger cent res . The problem in the rural areas, as they tell me. it 's impossible to get 10 , OOO people in a library because you have to take in such a large area.

I would suggest to the gov ernment and to the Minister, who is not in his seat, that if they're going to put a 10, OOO population figure in there, that they have som ething of a lesser amount of people in the rural areas. It 's impos sible to get 10, OOO people in a library , and I say to the government, before the next sessi on I hope you reconsider the decis ion and say a figure of 3, OOO or 5, OOO for the rural areas. In that way they will be able to take advantage of the grants that you made available to the larger centres .

It's very important, very important, because the people of the rural areas take great advantage of their libr ary, but they are beco ming very expensive to operate and :hey would :mly hope that they get the same advantages as the larger cenkrs in the Province of Manitoba. MR. SPEAK ER: Is it the pleasure ofthe Ho uset o adopt Bill 19 on second reading ? (Agr eed) So ordered.

June 18, 19 75 42 63 BILL NO. 39 - CAPI TAL SUP PLY MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER by leave . int rod11ced Bill No . 39 .

an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain further sums of money for the Pu':ilic S•3rvice of the Province for the fiscal year ending the 3l st day of March. 19 76. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable First Minist er . MR. SCHREYER by leave. pres ented Bill No. 39.

an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain further sums of money for the Public Servi ce of the Pro· 1ince for the fiscal year ending the 3lst d.i. y of March, 19 76. for second reading. MOTION prese nted and ·�arried. MR. SPEAKE R: The Honoura ble First Minister. MR. SCHREYER : Mr. Sp-eaker, I move. seconded by the Honourable the Attorney Gene ral . that yo:i. sir, do :i.ow leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to co:i.sider the following bil ls: 19 and 39.

Acts for granting to Her Majesty certa in sums of money for the Public Service of the Province for the fiscal year endmg March 31 . 197 6. MOTION pr ese nted and carried. and the House reao lved itself into a Co:nmit tee of the Wh·Jle . with the Honoura ble Member for Logan in the Chair. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILLS 19 and 39 MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 19. Page by page? Agreed? (Agreed) (Bills 19 and 39 were each read page by page and passed. ) Committ ee rise and report. Call in the Speaker. Mr.

Sp•3aker , the Commi ttee of the Whole has considered Bills No. 19 and 39 and recommends them to the Ho:ise. without amendment, and :isks leave to sit again. . . . continued on next page

4264 June 18, 19 75 IN SESSION MR . SPEA KER: Order pl ease. The H: ,nourable Member for Logan. MR . JENKINS: Mr . Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Ste . Rose, that the report of the Committ ee be receiv ed . MOTION presented and carried. TI ITRD READINGS - BILLS NO. 19 and 39 BILLS 19 and 39 were each read a third time and passed. BILL NO. 40 - THE STATUTE LAW AMEN DMENT (TAX ATION) ACT MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. GR EEN: Mr. Speaker, would you call Bill No . 40, standing in the name of the Leader of the Oppo sition? MR. SPEAKER: Third reading of Bill No . 40.

The Honourable Leader of the Opposition . MR. SIDNEY SPIVAK Q. C. (Leader of the Official Opposition) (River Heights) : Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure whether this is the last bill to be called, but I believ e it is and the House Leader has indicated that's the case. Well, either way, it doe sn't ... My assumption is that it is one of the last bills to be called and I think it's really a coincidence that it is one of the last bills to be passed, to be discuss ed by this Ho use .

But it is a rather important bill in many respects because I think, if anything, it gives testimony to one of the concerns we'v e had from the very beginning with respect to the New Democratic Party and its operatio ns . Mr. Speaker, there's no need for a lengthy discuss ion on th is. I would like to state the position of our party very quickly on this. The Statute Law Amendment deals with a series of taxation parts, dealing with taxation Acts.

The most important one, from our point of view, is the raising of two cents a gallon gasoline tax for the purpose of subs idiz ing the government Au to Insurance Corporation. And, Mr . Speaker, it's taken several years for the government to finally come to a point whereby the people of the province will be asked to pay, through a gasoline tax, the amount that normally would have been required from a full premium tax to be charged to individuals for the service provided by govern ment .

The debate of years ago is over, but the results of that debate are now being observed by the people of Manitoba, who now can re-read the statements made by the honourable members opposite in the debate, on the auto insur ance debate, who now have the experience to judge as to how the government has handled itsel f and who are now in a position to judge as to whether the nationalization of the industry by the government was a ju stified one or no t. The fact is, Mr.

Speaker, that the reason for the gasoline tax to be imposed now is simply because the government will not face up to the facts, or will not present to the people the proper facts with resp ect to Autopac . They are not prepared to face up to the people for the actual cost of the auto ins urance administered by them for the people 's benefit. Mr. Speaker, we argued at the time that there was no need for the nationalization of the industry. We argued that it cculd be done by regulation. We pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that the promi ses of the members opposite would not be kept, and by this very Act, Mr .

Speaker, the government has given te stimony to the falsehoods with respect to the expectation that the honourable members gave at the time of the taking over of the auto insurance industry. So, Mr.

Speaker, we say to the honourable members opp osite: you know, you intruded into the busin ess affairs of this province, you intruded on the basis that what you were doing was in the interest of the people , that in fact auto insur ance was a utilit y, and once it was made compulsory it was necessary that the government run the operation because they could run it more beneficially than the private insurers, and the fact is, Mr .

Speaker, that the experience in the last period of time has proven that the premiums that have been levied have not been sufficient to meet the requirements of allowing this to be a self-sust aining Crown corporation, and in fact it's necessary now to dedicate specific taxes for the deficit of this year. Mr. Speaker, there will be additional taxes to be raised in the years to come . And, Mr.

Speaker, the purpose of doing this is to es sentially cloud the p'l"Bmium so that the kind s of comparison that co uld be made with other juris dictions cannot be made, and all we will then have is the statement made by the members opposite that it is cheaper, and those who are the adherents to the New Democratic Party will argue that it' s cheaper without any basis in fact of knowing whether the position is correct or not, and the people of Manitoba have no way in

June 18, 19 75 4265 BILL 40 (M R. SPIVA K cont'd) ..... which to judge. Mr. Speake r, foere will only be one way to judge, and that will be on the basis of competition and a rate review board, which would not allow any inc rease to take place unless there is a proper examination. Mr. Speake r, this brings into issue the one other question.

The procedures of this House, the manner in which audits are undertaken by the Prov in cial Auditor, the whole sch em e of accoun tability in this corporati on, as in many others, is not suffici ent in the procedures we have in our Legislature to understand correctly what is taking place or to be able to understand and predict, with some degree of acc uracy, the likely occurrences in the years to com e with respect to the Crown corporations.

And when a Crown corporation is a Crown corporation co ntrolled by the Cab inet, with the Ch ai rman being the Minister involved so that in effe ct there are political decisio ns in what is taking place within the Crown cor pora tion, you're bound to have a situation wher e the political realities in each situation will dict ate, not a normal course of action and not necess arily good business pract ice. Mr. Speake r, the people of Manit oba do not want to pay an additional rise in the gasoline price. They do not want to pay an addition al gasoline tax. They do not want to pay, at this

part icu lar time, an additional burden with respect to their co st of living. P_nd the basic con tradiction of the governm en t's position when they went to the En ergy Confe rence and said to the Prim e Minister, "Do not raise the price of oil, because by raising the price of oil you are going to affe ct the cost of living, '' is found, Mr . Speaker, in the fact that at home they do exactly the opposite. Mr. Speaker, we belie ve that the people of Manitoba oppose the raising of this tax. They oppose it becaus e they belie ve that Autopac has in fact bee n a fiasco, and they belie ve as well, Mr.

Speaker, that the gover nment has not lived up to the stateme nts that they made in the earlier years during those battles when they said that they knew how to run a business better than anyone else, and that they were in a position, Mr. Speake r, better than anyone else, to be able to tell the people of Manitoba what was really required for them. And so, Mr.

Speaker, we have the gasoline tax raised this yea r and we will have increases in the years to come as the deficits arise, because the gover nment will not face the moment of truth with the people of Manitoba and tell them what the auto insurance premium is really costing them, and what the whole intrusion by them in to the private sector on the basis that what they were doing was in the interests of the people has, in fact, cost the people of this province. Mr . Speake r, this gasoline tax is therefore objecti onable, not only becaus e it is a refle ctio n, Mr.

Speake r, on the way in which Autopac has run, but at this particu lar time when what was required in this province was a reduction of taxation, we have in fact, on the part of the government, an incr ease in taxat ion. MR. SP EAKER : The H0n ourable Member for Port age la Prairie . MR . G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speake r, I wish to say a few words on Bill 40, and I might remind you, sir, and others, that on second reading, the princip le of the bill, we voted against it and we spelled out our reasons. We said in effe ct that this is a subsidization; it's lack of accou ntabi lity in years to come.

An d I understand that some government members had said that they would not be adverse to raising the gas tax to cover more of the costs of Autopac . So the foot is in the door, Mr. Speake r. The government has found a way to keep from raising the direct premium to the people, and they hope in the future to increase this form of subsidization. I might remind you, Mr . Speake r, that the govern ment has broken its promis e . When they introduced Au topac, they said that the Manitoba Government plan would carry itself. It would carry itself.

The people would know what they were paying; they would know how to comp are with other provin ce s. And my honourable friends opposite cannot deny that, bec ause they' v e said it many many times. They' v e said it on the hustings, they' ve said it in the House, they' ve said it in debate of every kind, and they have broken their promis e . As am atter of fact, Mr. Speake r, I must tell you that, even as late as today, one of the NDP candidates in the by-electio ns is calling on the Premier to reduce the gas tax. What hypocrisy ! What hypoc risy !

I asked at the 2:3 0 session, I asked the Acting Premier, does the Cab inet have any plans to reduce the gas tax beca use of the increas ed price of gas that all Cana dians are going to ha ve to pay, and the Acting Premier said no, there are no plans in Cabin et ; there is no discussion about that. Yet on the hustings, one of the NDP candidates is saying that he 's cal ling, he 's asking the Premier to reduce the gas tax. And I say to my honourable friends

4266 June 18, 19 75 BILL 40 (MR. G. JOHNSTON cont'd) ..... opposite that they are not being honest when they bring in a bill such as 40, Bill No . 40, put two cents on to pay for Au topac's deficits. We know by re ports, that it's not going to pay for all of the deficit of this year, let alone picking up past deficits . So I say, Mr . Speaker, that we are against this bill in principle, we 're against the cynical operation of the government, when they broke their pro mises when they said that the people will pay, they'll know what they're paying. After a few years, Mr.

Speaker, people will not know what they'r e paying for Autopac in this provin ce. MR . SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Virden. MR. MORRIS McGRE GOR (Virden) : Mr. Speaker, I would ju st like to add a few word s. I think all members know the area I come from, and this bill certainly has a story somewhat for them. The bill doe s show relief for the small oil prod ucers. I regret that it' s not coming from general revenue, but I certainly oppose the two cents of gas tax for Au topac, because as a rural member I know it doe s cost more at any time to take our families to any kind of a professional show.

This extra two cents is just another 20 or 30 cents, wherever you're going, be it 50 miles to Br andon, a 100 retu rn, or whatever it is. But I also have to think in the past, when I asked both the Premier and the Minister of Mines for a hearing on behalf of the oil people in my area and also people who were coming in from the States, and I remember on that occasion I was allowed to sit in that meeting. And I can almost quote Dr.

Barry who had words to this effect: "I have appreciated doing busi ness with this administration and past administrations" and at that moment I was proud to be a Manitoban, I was proud to be representing an area that people were coming in and saying that about our partic ular provin ce . There were others that were bargaining for a better deal, they got a good hearing I think. This bill does show some action. And I want to make it positiv ely clear I'v e talked this si tuation over with my leader.

He understands the quandary I'm in - and I think as a member who uses very few words in here, I seem to be in a quandary a lot more times than probably my words would indicate . However, I do· have to suppor t the small oil producers, and the Aut opac I have to oppose - if I was a gambler I wo uld roll a dice to see which it could go - I think I'v e always said I represent the people first at all times. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Ministe r. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the Honourable Member for Virden for the very brief and candid way in which he has expressed mixed support for this bill. Mixed support is better than no support, Mr. Speaker. I can appreciate that he's in quandary because this bill has provisions in it that go beyond the dealing only with the matter of relief with respect to, in particular small oil well produc tion. The Member for Virden, I think, is perhaps in the best position of anyone in this House to know the relative position that Manitoba is in with respect to oil production.

We are not, unfort unately, as well blessed or endowed as Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, in that order, with respect to oil prod uction.

Whereas the Province of Saskatchewan has in the order of 80 million barrels a year production, and one can imagine what that is worth these days; and the Province of Alberta in the order of 550 million to 60 0 million barrels of production per year; the Province of British Co lumbia in the order of about 20 million to 22 million barrels production per year ; as oppo sed to all that, Manitoba's production is in the order of 5- 1/2 mil lion to 6 million barrels.

I'm not complaining, sir, that is the nature of the geological facts of our province, and it is better to have Manitobans own 6 million barrels of production than none at all. Bu t you see, that's ju st the point, sir, 6 million barrels - so we're not in a position of the 50 0 million barrel a year producer, nor even the Province of Saskatchewan or B. C. Therefore, when comparing Manitoba' s tax treatment with that of any ot her province in Canada, except the oil producing provin ces, then indeed our gasoline and motive fuel tax is not the highest, sir, it is among the lowe st.

My honourable friends keep wanting to forget that. And I must qu est ion where the hypocrisy li es. What are we comparing 18 and 19 cents per gallon of taxation - we must, if we want to be honest, as the Member for Virden finds it easy to be and others find it difficu lt - we must compare it with the fact that in Ontario it is 25 cents or taxation. Why is it more there? Is it because Ontario is a poorer province than Manitoba ? Tha t's not the reason. That is their sense of prior itie s. So le t us not pretend that Conservative priorities would somehow end up differently. Or New Br unswick or Nova Scotia -

June 18, 1975 4267 BILL 40 (MR. SCHREYER cont'd) ..... do they have lower motiv e fuel and gasoline tax than Manitoba? Most certainly not, Mr . Speaker . Therefore my honourable fri•mds will not pursu e that avenue, I am sure because they will be defeating themselve s. Then they may wish to compare with years gone by in Manitoba itself . And when you do that, sir, you find the iron y that the Prog ressiv e Conse rvativ e administration of Manitoba had an 18 cent per gallon tax levied on Manitobans 11 years ago. They complain now that it is one cent higher. One cent higher in 11 years.

They levied a 17 cent per gallon tax in 1964 when per capita di sposable income stood at $1, 656 as compared to $3, 948 this year. Any child woul dn't even try to argue that 17 cents per gallon tax on motive fuel when the per capita average income was $1, 656 was more generous or le ss onerous tax treatment than today, when it is one cent higher when the per capita income is, in current dollar terms, more than twice as much. My honourable friends will say - "AL, but inflation" so, therefore, I want to use the uninflated cons tant dollar measurement.

In constant dollars in 1964, in con stant 19 61 dollars, using it as a standard of measure, per capita di sposable personal income, $1 , 580 as compared to $2, 370 in 19 74. So on that basis, per capita di sposable income in real ... in real dollars, not in inflated dollars, being almost $800 greater, $750 to $800 greater, the tax, one cent per gallon more - which, sir, is the greater relative tax incidence - now or in 1964 ? So, Mr. Speaker, I don't think more need be said. The facts arE stark and speak for them selv es. My honourable friends raise Au top ac.

And I do not want to go over the same arguments that were made by the Leader of the Opposi tion and by myself and others at the time of second reading, at the second reading stage of this bill and in the committee stage - the same arguments put over and ov er. So I am not going to repeat ad nauseam and to bore honourable members to tears by repeating everything that was said already two or three times. But at the last stage of dealing with this bill, Mr.

Speaker, I did not make reference to, for example, the Ed monton Jour nal headline here of ... dateline of April 5t h: "Insu rance Pinch Nips Driv ers" ; "T en firms stop selling in Alberta" . Th e Leader of the Opposit ion would have us believe and would have Manitobans believe that we have a problem with public auto insurance in Manitoba, only in Manitoba and that the rest of the ins urance industry in Canada is healthy. Mr. Speaker, nothing co uld be further from the truth .

The phenomenon of difficulty that public insu rance is facing in Manitoba is identical in every significant respect to that which is faced by the industry generally in Canada and in North America. Well, but you know, Mr. Speaker, it is not prudent to glance at a headline and to draw any definitive conclusions. So we made inquiries of the authorities in Al berta and we have here a lett er, an official letter from the Department of Consu mer Affairs. And they verify that the

article is subst antially correct - that 10 firms in the automobile insurance industry in Alberta wi thdrew from operations or wi thdrew from the sale of automobile ins urance in the month as of December 3 lst, 1974, for reasons having to do with the general economic condition prevailing in the ins urance indust ry. The

article which I di d not refer to before and which is therefore, I trust, not repetition, makes reference to the fact, and I quote, "Despite general increases of 15 percent to 20 percent last summer and 10 percent in January, Mr. Sadd expects a further 10 percent increase will be sought by companies in Jul y. " Fifteen to 20 percent, plus 10 percent in January, plus 10 percent in Ju ly of 19 75. No matter how one looks at that, it means that in 12 months it' s 15 to 20, plus 10, plus 10. And, Mr.

Speaker, the reason for that is not because Alberta is in some pecdiar position; like Manitoba, it is because insu rance companies in Canada as a whole are in a position of looking at about a 250 million or one quarter of a billion dollar deficit plu s. I find no comfort in that. But I do find it as a basis for a rational intellectually honest defence of a given position that we are in at this point in time . Honourab le m ;mbers want to ignore the fact that in 12 months a general increase, according to the J Jurnal, of 15 to 20 percent, • plus 10, plus 10, and no amount of obfuscation will conceal that fact.

And that fact is not peculiar, it is endemic t-:J the insu rance industry in Canada. Autopac's operation I wish that - the Member for Portage, I say in particular, that I wish it were somehow pos sible to convince him that the matter of the two cents on gasoline, I suppose, can be regarded - and I suppose there isn't much that one can say or do that will dis suade if one wishes to deduce that that is a subsidy from Consolidated Revenue Fund . But I do want - even if it is futile now, sir, it may not be within a matter of a few years, that it

426 8 June 18, 19 75 BILL 40 (MR. SC HR EYER cont'd) ..... will come to be regarded as a charge which is offsetting for future increases in what we call the differential premium rate as between the categorie s of preferred, all purpose, those who drive to work, those who drive for pleasure, and because of that have a differential in premium . We feel that that is a rather arbitrary and a difficult kind of differentiation to administer. We are not abandoning it in toto, but we certainly do not feel it easy to accept the reasoning so much that we would li ke to extend it.

And a quantification based on volu me of fuel consumed is about as good a rational dispassi onate measurement of amount of drivin g, whether it be to work or for pleasure, than an attestation system which works on the basis of one decl aring whether or not one works - usually to work, most of the time to work, never to work, or some c,-imbination thereof. Now, Mr. Speaker, that' s basically the reason for the two cent charge . Bu t I'm under no illusions that it will be accepted with alacrity by the Member for Port age.

The matter of avoiding a conventional premium increase, which is what he suspects it' s for, is not the intent or purpose of it at all. Because if that were the case, we could simply have proceeded with that much more of an ordinary general increase in premiums. And the member should not think that we feel sensitiv e that the premium increase in Manitoba is inordinate, because one need only look at the Toronto Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, the Ed monton Journal, to see that in fact increases - not once a year, sir, but coming in twice and indeed three times in 12 mont hs .

And we have the Department of Consumer Affairs in Alberta confirming an Ed monton Journal newspaper

article to that account. Why should we feel sensitive, sir, if in one province the industry increases rates three time s in 12 months and we increase it here once to a percent age amount less than there and we start from a lower base? We're not that sensitiv e about the rate that we resort to subterfuge. Th at' s not the reason for the two cent charge . It is to attempt to get it onto a different basis of ration ale to some extent. --(Interj ection)-- Well yes, Mr. Speaker, it comes out because the truth always doe s come out, sir, eventually. And that is why on this issue some of my colleagues appear so serene.

MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Ri el. MR. DONALD W. CRAIK (Rie l): Mr. Speaker, I only want to comment on this bill, on the comments made by the First Minister with regards to the two cent gasoline tax and its application to Autopac . Mr. Speaker, the First Minister and, of course, his Minist ers generally defend the principle of Aut opac now on the basis of comparisons with the performance of other companies in Canada. The point was made, Mr.

Speaker, when this bill was brought in origi nally and when Aut opac was introduced - the greatest and st rongest presen tation made by people in the insurance, primarily those in the busine ss of selling insu rance as they appeared before the committee by the do zens at the time the bill was bro ught in - that really what they were doing was selling a service, and that the added cost that could go into the commissions was what the people were paying for service .

And the stro ngest argument encountered to that by the government was that they would in fact be able to save a percentage somewhere in the order of 15 percent on the cost of automobile insurance. Mr. Speaker, what has really happened - and make no mis take about it - what has really happened is that the total cost s of automobile ins urance in Manitoba have risen at a greater rate than the ins urance costs in the other parts of Canada operating under the private sector . Number two, Mr.

Speaker, further more, there is no company that co uld operate under the Insurance Act of Canada that does control the other non-government plans in Canada; there is no company writing $60 million of policy that could, under normal conditions , rack up $10 million losses two years in a row and still meet the test of adequacy in the Insurance Act of Canada. --(interjec tion) -- No, Mr. Speaker, the First Minis ter is dead wrong in that. The companies are not doing it every year. Mr.

Speaker, the insurance companies of Canada whether they are the co-ops or the mutuals or the private companies or anything else have to meet a pretty stringent test of op erations . That 's a test of adequacy imposed by the Insurance Act of Canada. Autopac doe s not have to meet that and does not meet it. MR. ENNS: Just like the Pl anning Bill. MR. CRAIK: And they have not met it. Tech nically under that Act they would at this point be bankrupt if it wasn't for the fact that they were a Crown corporation . Well, Mr.

Speaker, not bankrupt, they would simply be restricted in their bu siness, put out of business probably by the Insurance Act of Canada. But they do n't operate under the Insurance

June 18, 19 75 4269 BILL 40 (MR. CRAIK cont'd ) ..... Act of Canada. They operate as an entity unto themsleves, a Crown corporation. And now what we are, you know, at the present time, where we're at, right now, is that we'r e going a deviation even further than that. The yardsticks that apply to the operations of insurance companies generally, Mr. Speaker - and I want to make a dist inc tion here. You know, the largest and mos t active insu rance companies in Canada are not private companies, they are in effect public companies. They're co-ops and they're mutuals.

They operate under the same laws as the co-ops in Canada, the only difference is that the mutuals pay a corporation income tax in a slightly different form than the co-ops do . Mr. Speaker, let me tell you really now what has happened. That the government by this move and by taxing on driv ers license and the penalties imposed on drivers with their infrac tions andnow the move into the gasoline tax, removes all the yardsticks where we're going to be able to adeqnately compare the operation of A utopac compared to any other company.

So, you know, the government' s going to be able to stand np more effectively now and say onr premiums are the low est, they're the lowe st from here to the North Pole, we'v e got the lowe st preminms, Mr. Speaker. And technically they'l l be right, becanse the:.:e' s only part of it coming from the preminm

whereas ev erybody else has to take their entir e liv elihood from their preminms. So what does it prove ? It simply prov e s that once again we have lost the acconnting integrit y that normally shonld apply to the yardstick by which we shonld be able to, as members of the Legislature, apply, Mr. Speaker, some measnre as to how well that is performing. Let me say, Mr.

Speaker, again, in conclnsion, I do n' t think there's any way, by the way that the mechanics that Autopac nse3, the mechanics of their settlement of claims or techniques and everything else, there is no way they can ever come back and apply the pressnres and the strictnres that other private companies have to apply and forever, Mr. Speaker, we will coll ect in preminms and pnt ont in terms of settlements more money than wonld ever have been done with antomobile in the private sector . Let me add one more factor, Mr. Speaker.

Ad d that this government did not achieve a social objective when they brought in Antopac . Wnat they did is they fulfilled a philosophical goal. Tha t's what happened. As far as a real social measnre is concerned, this jnst is not a social measure th at's adeqnate. You know this idea that somehow it ' s the be-all, end-all to get into bnsines s and run it had its best demonst ration today. For the first time I think in history probably a man barged in to this Chamber becanse he was nnhappy with Au to pac. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker ... MR. SPEAK ER: Order please. MR.

CRAIK: Well, yon know, I' ve got a perfect right, Mr. Speaker, to make the observation that the more government gets in and takes over the wheels of industry, which they're going to do, the more you're going to get this sort of thing. It' s almost an anarchist type of a mentality that develops . We somehow get the impression, Mr. Speaker ... MR. SPEAKER : Order please . Order please. The Hononrable First Minister state his matter of privileg e . MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of parliamentary privileg e .

The reference to the decornm of this House ha vi:1g been affected in one way of the other by the entry of a per son into this Honse, it happens to be factnally incorrect, sir . I was in the Parliament of Canada when a person did mnch the same kind of thing and it , I do n't believe, was any reflection on the gove rnment of the day any more than the incident this afternoon. Auel I fnrthermore am quite prepared to allege that had the person been given the proper connsel by the MLA that he went to see, that the incident may have been avoided . Had I had an --( Inter ject ion)-- Well all right, if you want to . . .

Mr. Speaker . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please . Would the Honourable Member for Lakeside kindl y keep quiet. Th e Hononrable Member for Swan Riv er . Order please . Do I at this late moment have to name members to help maintain decornm. I wonld hope they wonld cooperate and assist me so that we can get finished in a few more minnte s. The Hononr able Minister make his final poi nt . MR . SCHREYER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I am qnite prepared to withdraw the remark. am trying to indicate to the Member for Riel that there may well be a problem, I have already met and am trying to do my best to ascertain the facts, withont ascertaining the facts it is completely pointle ss to comment or specnlate and I wonld hope that he wonld at least withhold

42 70 June 18, 19 75 BILL 40 ( MR. SCHREYER cont'd) ..... comment till that is dane. May I add, sir, that to not to wait until that is done is a little bit disg usti ng, sir . MR. SPEAKER: Order please . The Honourable Member for Morris on the same matter of privileg e . MR. JORGENSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will recognize that the First Minister intervened not to raise a bona fide question of privilege, a spurious one, for the purpose of making another speech. MR. SPEAKER: Order please . I am not going to adjudicate in re spect to whether the honourable member should have brought the matter up or no t.

I am simply going to apologize to the House per sonally because the security of the House is my responsibility and it did not happen to be carried out prope rly . Consequ ently in the future I shall certainly make an effort that the se curity of this Chamber will be carried out properly, and I do hope that it doe s not become a matter of debate whether we do have proper security or not, that we shall have it and it will be carried out forthwith. The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, if there's any suggestion here at all that somehow a move such as that wou ld be aided and abetted by the members of the Opposi tion, Mr. Speaker, if there is any suggestion that a move such as that would be aided and abetted shows a pretty severely strained mentality at this stage of the game to draw that assumption. Mr. Speaker, what I'm trying to say is that the more government . .. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, the point I'm trying to make is that the more government take s unto itself to build this pyramid of authority that says that, you know, our old societ y must have the goals of being one of 17 Cabinet Minist ers, we're going to get more and more and more of this. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that this is a pretty feeble defence of Au topac that' s being presented with this two cent gasoline tax. I repeat again that it has not been a significant social measure and, Mr.

Speaker, the NDP may well have achieved a philosophical goal in bringing it in but they can take no satisfaction out of the financial ope rations of it. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. RUSSELL PA ULLEY (Minister of Labour)(Transccma): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one or two comments in respect to Au topac, the question of taxation, the quesUon of the increase required for the conduct of the financial arrangements so far as Au topac is con cerned.

For many years we attempted to have the then government of the day recognize its responsibility to the auto driver and those insured under automobile private insurance, we attempted for years to have serious consideration of the ineffective legislation that prevailed at that time, and if there were any rip-offs, Mr. Speaker, those rip-o ffs were given as a result of the inep tness of the Conserv ative Party of Manitoba to the automobile insurance companies for years. We may not have achieved all of the desire s, but one thing we did achieve, Mr.

Speaker, was a reduction in the premiums that were having to be paid particularly by the young driver under the age of 25. As the Leader of the Party at that particular time I pleaded time after time after time with the government of that particular day to even go so far as to set up an organization that would review automobile insurance rates. Did they accept that? They did no t. They reject ed it comple tely. And now they have the consu mmate gall, Mr. Speaker, to say that we should have done what they didn' t do .

I know thro ughout this whole sess ion the members opposite criticize us because we make reference to the ineptness of the Conservativ e Party when they had the rights and pow ers to do something. They failed to do it not only in respect of auto insurance but others as well .

How well I recall the debates that took place in this House, the rejecti on of the reason able propo sitions that we were making at that particular time for an assessment in auto ins urance in the Province of Manitoba, and the agents of the insurance company one by one, who at that time were members of a government, were standing up saying that everything was all right by our Old Nell because they we!re paying us. That is the history and if my honourable friends opposite would only take the time out to read Hansard and their own debates of that day ... We talk about deficits.

The automobile ins urance industry at that partic ular time that I'm speaking of were gouging from the people of Manitoba, the auto drivers, sufficient moneys to put into reserves for reinve stment which weren' t shown as revenue . What they were doing, what they were doing was milking the public for reinve stment

June 18, 197 5 4271 BILL 40 (MR. PAULLEY cont 'd ) ..... for the profits of the company . Sure they could show book losse s of certain amounts of money, but the profit was being made by those partic ular companie s by the investment of the automobile insurance payers premiums at that particular time. Now we have clean and open government. We have a clean report to the House and it doe s show a deficit. Of course it do es.

But we haven' t had the advantage , thus far, as was the advantage with the aL�tomobile insu rance companies of that day to use it for reinve st ment outside and the money that came in as a result of that reinve stment going into the pocket of the insu rance companies. Reference has been made, Mr. Speaker, to the incident this afternoon, and I suggest to honourable members in all quarters of the House that they do not make any further remarks in resp ect to that till they find out the true circumst ances.

It had no relationship al all to Au topac because - it did in this particular case it' s true - but it could have happened in respect of anything regardless of what government was the government of the day . I had the opportunity of speaking to the young man. He was dist urbed because of certain bureaucratic approaches, the like s of that; as indeed the rest of us have been from time to time . I recall another incident when somebody barged into this House who knew the rule s of the House and attempted to take over and was asked to leave. I say, Mr .

Speaker, that of a whole million people that we have here in the Province of Manitoba if one percent really knows that this is a holy ground, ju st for elected representative s and staff, that would be about the maximum. Ho w is it that anybody knows that these doors around here are really to keep us in here and the people ou t? And it's suggested that because of Aut opac we're going to have more - because of the incident this afternoon, we're going to have more . I'm going to say, Mr.

Speaker, that if we, as members of this Ass embly, use ou r common sense .and accept the differences, accept the fact that people do from time to time have emotional upsets - I'v e had them and every ot her darn member of this As sembly has had them from time to time - and to indicate that because one individ ual out of a million people came in here this afternoon, that that' s a reflection on the government 's conduct of Autopac is a bunch of damn nonsen se . I say, Mr. Speaker, let them be judged on what they didn ' t do.

We can accept their criticism, that' s what we come in here for each session to have them criticize what the government is doing, and it's their obligation and their right to do it. But for goodne ss sake keep it on a decent and high level instead of dirt and muck that is cons tantly being raised this session by the Conservative Party in opposition. MR. SPEAKER : Th e Honourable Member for Lakeside . MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to keep the level of debate on that decent level that the Honourable Minister of Labour requested to be kept.

Let me roughly paraphrase the words of the First Minister not so long ago when he sugge sted that a year or two or 12 months or 18 months from now Au topac would no longer be an issu e in the Prov ince of Manitoba - roughly those are words I think that the Minister at one time or another said. Mr. Spe aker, what concerns us and will cont inue to concern Manitobans at large is that despit e those reassuring words of the First Minister, Aut opac obviously still is an issu e in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, it' s also simply a question --(I nterjec tion) -- well that will be answered sooner or later. But, Mr.

Speaker, you know at the time of the introduc tion of Aut opac, at the time of the introduction of Autopac, it was not simply a question of competi ng with the then exist ing private insurers, it was the general position put forward by members of the government that a new Ut opia would be arrived at with the introduc tion of Au topac and that there would be no ongoing debate or ongoing question as to the validity of the scheme and as to its rightness or wrongness or as to its competiti ve features of the scheme.

And the savings would be apparent to all, the contributions, the efficiency would be apparent to all and it led the Fir st Minister to making that remark that it would ju st not be a debate any longer shortly after its intr oduction. Now, Mr. Speaker, we find several years after it s introduction, four years after its introduc tion , the Premier debating and defending Autopac - on what basis? On how it' s comparing to the private sector . The private sector raised its rates once or twice a year so that ju stifies Aut opac for raising its rates once or twice a yea:c.

The private sector runs a deficit, that ju stifies Autopac for running a deficit. The difference of course is if a citizen has a complaint, he has no other desk to go to, and I think the government showed an over

42 72 June 18, 19 75 BILL 40 ( MR. EN NS cont'd) ..... degree of sensi tivit y to the comments made by my friend, colleague, the Honourable Member for Riel in the sense that what he was simply saying is that the frustrations of any individual that may be felt against any company, public or private, will be voiced and vented from time to time, as it was this afternoon, and what my honourable friend the Member from Ri el was saying, as this government persists on moving more and more into the sector of general commerce that affects the live s of most Manitobans, you can expect more of that.

Well, so maybe that's , you know --(Inter ject ion )-- No, no, that's unless of course, that's unless of course you believe that the consumer should not have a legitimate complaint . Well, Mr. Speaker, I do n't want to prolong the debate except to say that that is not how Bill 56, how au to ins urance was introduced in this Chamber .

It was introduced in a manner of way that really and the Opposition at that time was illust rated, and it was demonstrated to be the kind of last ditch effort of a private sector fighting vainly to hold onto vested interests, that once over that hump, once the introduction of the public ins urance corporation was brought into being that the debate in the words of the First Minister would cease and diminish. Well, Mr.

Speaker, to bring this to more direc tly to the rule s of the House and to the bill that's in front of us, what I'v e said earlier on second reading on this bill, and I repeat again, what we now see of course is that the government is clev erly making sure that any honest comparison of rates will become more and more difficult. --(In terject ion)-- Well, we'r e now collecti ng premiums on gasoline consu mption, we're collecting premiums on how good or bad a driver I am, which the private ins urance company couldn't do except on preferred risk.

We're collec ting driver 's licences, insurance premiums for numbers of peopl.e that are drivin g, whether there's two or three drivers in a family, they're all paying to it. We'r e paying then the premium itsel f, so we'v e diffused the whole area of premium collect ion, and we can expect a greater diffusion of this premium collec tion, and it will become increasingly more difficult, increasingly more difficult to make that kind of an honest comparison . And you will invite, you will invite increasingly more critic isms on this particular point. Well now, Mr.

Speaker, whether or not, you know, I'm not prepared to argue at this stage the acceptance or non -acceptibility of the insurance scheme - I rather su spect the acceptibility factor is pretty high - but none theless it does not take away from the reasonable honesty in some of the debates that took place on the question as to cost comparisons .

It does not bring into question the kind of statements made on which the bill was introd uced orig inally, and which Autopac was introduced orig inally on the basis of kind of savings that were going to be made to the private individual buying this ins urance, and you, by introduction and passing of this bill, ju st ens ure that it'l l be made that much more difficult in the future . QUE STION" put MOTION carried. (On divisi on) RES OLUTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Ho use Leader. MR. GRE EN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Att orney-General, that:

WHEREAS the report of the Special Committee on the Rule s of the House presented du ring the current sessi on and concurred in by the House on Monday, March 17, 1975, recommended that the Special Committee be reconstituted with the same membership for the purpose of reviewing the application, effect and enforcement of the amendments to the Ru les, Orders and Forms of Proceed ing of the Legislative Ass embly of Manitoba; THEREFORE BE IT RE SOLVED THAT the Special Committee of Ru les and Standing Orders of this Ass embly composed of the Honourable Mr. Speaker as Chairman, Honourable Messrs.

Green and Paulley, Messrs. Johnston (Po rtage), Jorgenson , Shafransky, Sherman and Walding be reconstituted to examine and review the application, effect and enforcement of the Rule s and Standing Orders in the light of the experience of the current sessi on, and to recommend any further amendments which, in the opinioa of the Committee, are deemed to be in the interests of the orderly and efficient conduct of the business of the Hou se ; AND BE IT FU RTHER RES OLVED THA T the s�id "special committee be authorized to sit during the present session and in recess, after prorogatio n, and to report to this House

June 18, 19 75 RESOLUTIONS (M R. GREEN con t'd) ..... at the next session of the Le gislature .. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minist er. MR. SCHREYER: Mr . Speaker, I move ... MR. SPEAKER : The motion has to be made. It doe sn't have to be read. 427 3 MR. SCH REYER : Mr . Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Labour, that

WHEREAS the Standing Committee on Statutory Regulations and Orders was authorized, by resolution of the Leg islative As sembly in the First Session of the 30 th Legislat ure (

a) to under take a st udy of and report to the House with recommendations respecting standards with which employee-group, or employer sponsored pension and :cuperannuation plans should comply and methods by which such standards may be achieved or by which such plans can be brought to comply to such standards; and (b; to examine the statute s and regulations governing the di sclosu re of assets and int erest s of members of the Executive Cou ncil, Members of the Legi slative Assembl y, and of public servants in Manitoba and to consider the advisabi lity of enacting legislation to ensure proper disclosu re of information on the subject; AN D WHEREA S the following Bills were introduced in the Second Sessio n of the 30 th Legislatu re : No . 37 -

An Act respecting Disclosu re of Intere sts in Matters of Public Co ncern and Con flicts of Intere sts of Persons Holding Public Office; and No . 57 - Th e Pension Benefits Act; AN D WHER EAS Bill No . 37 -

An Act r.especting Disclosu re of Int erests in Matters of Public Concern and Conflicts of Intere sts of Pers ons Holding Public Office ; and

Part II of Bill No. 57 - The Pension Benefits Act were referred, after Second Reading, to the Standing Co mmittee on Statutory Regulations and Orders. THE REFO RE BE IT RE SOLVED THAT the Standing Committee on Statutory Regulations and Orders appointed on March 13, 1975, for the Second Session of the Thirtieth Legi slature be authorized to sit du ring recess, after prorogation, to consider Bill No . 37 -

An Act respecting Disclosu re of Intere sts in Matters of Public Concern and Conflicts of Int erest s of Pers ons Holding Public Office; and

Part II of Bill No . 57 - The Pension Benefits Act and to report to the House at the next session with any recommendations in respect thereto as are deemed necessary, and such other matters as may be referred to it. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER : The Hono urable First Minist er. MR. SCHREYER: If I may, I believ e it 's been indicated to honourable members opposite that there is an amendment to move to this resolution so as to enable the committee to also take under consideration Bill G4, which we are not proceeding with, namely the ·T c:achers' Pensions Act ,

an Act to amend the Tea chers' Pensions Act , and the Minister of Edu cation has the amendment to move formally. MR. SPEA KER: Is that agreeable, that procedure, adoption of that amendment as well ? No opp osit ion ? MR. HANUSCHAK: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Tou rism, Recreation and Cul tural Affairs, that reso lution be amended by adding in the last paragraph thereof the following words: "i ncluding specificially Bill No . 64,

an Act to amend the Teachers' Pensions Act introduced at the current sess ion of the Legi slature ." MOTION presented and carried. MR . PAULLEY: Motion as amended. MR. SPEAKER: Motion as amended agreed to ? So order ed. The H"n ourable Minister of Agric ulture . MR. USKIW: Mr. Spe aker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs, that

WHEREAS the Legi slative Ass embly of Manitoba, on the 30t h day of May, 1974, constituted a Special Commi ttee of the House consis ting of Hon. Messrs. Green and U skiw, Messrs . Adam, Barrow, Blake, Bostrom, Boyce, Ferguson, Graham, Henderson, Johannson,

42 74 June 18, 19 75 RE SOLUTIONS (MR. USKIW cont 'd) ..... Johnston (Port age), Jorgenson, Shafransky and Walding to enquire into matters relating to prop erty rights in lands within the provin ce; AN D

WHEREAS the said Spe cial Committee, in its report to the Legisl ati;re recommend ed that the Special Committee be continued in order to provide the citizens of Manitoba with further opportuni tie s to express their views on matters relating to the use and ownership of land in the provin ce; TH EREFORE BE IT RE SOLVED that the Special Committee appointed to enquire into matters relating to property rights in lands within the province on the 30 th day of May, 19 74, be reconstituted and re-appointed to enquire into matters relating to property rights in agricultural and recreational lands within the provin ce; AN D BE IT FURTHER RES OLVED that this Special Co mmittee shall consist of Hon.

Messrs. Bostrom, Green, Toupin, Uskiw, Messrs . Adam, Barrow, Blake, Enns, Graham, Johannson, Johnston (Portage), Jorgenson, Minaker, Shafransky and Walding; AND BE IT FURTHER RES OLVED that this Special Co mmittee be authorized: 1. to hold such public hearings as the Co mmittee deems advisable, 2. to report its findings and recommendations to the House at the next session of the Legislature . MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. GR EEN: Mr. Speaker, I think we were ju st awaiting the Adminis trator of the Province of Manitoba.

ROYAL AS SENT The Honourable the Administ rator of the Government of the Province of Manitoba, entered the House and was seated on the THRONE . MR. SPEA KER: May it please Your Honour, the Le gislative Ass embly at its present Sessio n passed several bills which in the name of the As sembly I present to Your Honour, and to which Bills I respectfully request Your Honour 's As sent. MR. AS SISTANT CLE RK: No . 2 - The Jnterprovincial Subpoena Act. No . 3 - The Extra-provincial Cu stody Orders Enforcement Act. No . 5 -

An Act to amend The Vital Statistics Act. No . 6 -

An Act to amend The Wills Act. No. b -

An Act to amend The Child Welfare Act. No . 10 -

An Act to amend

An Act to Incorporate Co-operative Credit Society of Manitoba Limited. No . 11 -

An Act to amend The Agric ultural Socie tie s Act. No . 13 - The Fatality Inquirie s Act. No. 14 -

An Act to amend The Unsatisfied Judgment Fund Act. No. 15 -

An Act to amend The

Summary Convictions Act. No . 16 - The Metallic Minerals Royalty Act. No. 17 -

An Act to amend The Dev elopment Co rporation Act . No . 20 -

An Act to amend The Heritage Manitoba Act. No . 21 -

An Act to amend The Horse Racing Commission Act. No. 22 -

An Act to amend The Horse Racing Regulation Act. No . 23 -

An Act to incorporate the St . Andre w' s River Heights United Church Foundation. No . 24 - The University of Manitoba Students' Union Act. No . 25 -

An Act to amend

An Act to incorporate The Inve stors Group. No . 26 -

An Act to amend The Liquor Control Act. No . 27 -

An Act to amend The Municipal Act. No. 28 -

An Act to amend The Employment Standards Act. No . 29 - Th e Payment of Wages Act. No . 31 - The Public Servants Insurance Act. No . 32 -

An Act for the Relief of Susan Thiessen. No . 33 -

An Act to repeal

An Act respecting The Town of Port age la Prairie . No . 34 -

An Act to amend The Real Estate Brokers Act . No . 35 -

An Act to amend An Ac t to Incorporate The Commercial Cl ub of Winnipeg.

June 18, 1975 ROYAL AS SENT (MR. ASSIS TANT CL ERK con t'd) . No . 36 -

An Act to vest Ti tle to Certain Land in The Cit y of Porta ge la Prairie . No. 38 -

An Act Respect ing Guaranty Trust Company of Canada. No. 40 - The Statute Law Amendment (Ta xation) Act (1 975) . 42 75 No. 41 -

An Act to amend The Manitoba Tele phone Act and to authorize the Expenditure of Moneys for Capital Purposes of The Manitoba Tele phone System and to authorize the Borro wing of the same. No . 42 -

An Act to amend The Child Welfare Act (2 ). No . 43 -

An Act to amend The Health Servic es Insur ance Act. No . 44 - The Pl anning Act. No. 45 -

An Act to amend The Co nvention Centre Corporation Act. No. 46 - The Gas Storage and Allocation Act. No . 47 -

An Act to amend Th e Social Allowanc es Act. No. 48 - The District Health and Social Services Act. No . 49 -

An Act to validate By-law Number 332 1 of The Town of Dauphin. No. 50 -

An Act to amend The Cit y of Winnipeg Act. No . 51 -

An Act respecting The Rural Municipality of Morris, The Rural Municipality of Roland, The School District of Kane No. 20 06 and The Morris- McDonald School Division No . 19 . Lt ee. No. 52 - The Dental Health Services Act. No . 53 - The Dental Health Workers Act. No . 54 -

An Act to amend The Municipal Board Act. No . 55 - An A'.:!t to incorporate La Centrale De s Caisses Populaires du Manitoba No . 56 -

An Act to amend The Landlord and Te nant Act .. No. c,•' ·· The Pension Benefits Act. No . 58 -

An Act to amend The Public Schools Act. No. 59 - An Ac t Respecting the transfer to Federal Busi ness Development Bank of all the Property, Rights and Obligations of Industrial Development Bank. No . 61 -

An Act to amend The Financial Administrat ion Act (2 ). No . 62 - The Statute Law Amendment Act (1 975) . No. 63 -

An Act to ame11d The Income Tax Act (Manito ba) . No. 65 -

An Act to amend The Health Services Act and

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-2-138
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 2nd hansardpdf 138.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e832a935f01981bd8fc05dfb90d70b1f0bd61a37

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