Manitoba Hansard — 17 June 1977 (Sitting 84B, 30th Legislature, 4th Session)

30-4-84b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 FOURTH SESSION - THIRTIETH LEGISLATURE of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 26 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable Peter Fox Speaker VOL. XXIV No. 848 FRIDAY, JUNE 17, 1977 2:30 p.m. Printed by P.N. Crosbie - Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba

TIME: 2:30 p.m. THE LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY of MANITOBA Friday, June 17, 1977 OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Honourable Peter Fox (Kildonan): Before we proceed, I should like to direct the attention of the honourable members to the gal lery where we have 39 students Grade 6 standing of the Bannatyne School . These students are under the direction of Mr. V. Krentz. This school is located in the constituency of the Honou rable Member for Sturgeon Creek. On behalf of the honourable members, we welcome you here this afternoon.

Presenting Petitions; Read ing and Receiving Petitions; Prese nting Reports by Standing and Special Committees; Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports; Notices of Motion; Introduction of Bil ls. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Fort Rouge. MR. LLOYD AXWORTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the First Minister in respect to the announcement he made this morning, a press release that was issued by Manitoba Housing on the proposed Inner City Hou sing Action Program for $20 milli on.

Can he indicate whether this 500 units of public housing that will be built in the Inner City is to be financed through a special public housing allo cation from Central Mortgage and Ho using or is it part of the normal public housing budget that has previously been announced in the MHRC Estimates? MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minister of Urban Affairs. HONOURABLE SAUL A. MILLER (Seven Oaks): Mr. Speaker, the initial moneys will be coming from the CMHC all ocation to Manitoba.

It is hoped, of course, as last year that when we approach them again in the fal l, they will increase their allo cation in Manitoba because other provinces are not using their al locations. MR. AXWORTHY: A supple mentary, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it then, that the program is part then of the alr eady designa ted number of public housing units that were being built, can the Minister indicate if there will be any additional provincial capital being spent in this program over and above the normal 10 percent al location that goes as part of the Federal-Pro vincial agreement? MR. MILLER: Mr.

Speaker, we certainly try to use as much of the federal money as possible. We were faced with that particular dile mma last year where if no further federal funds would have been availa ble, we would have had to use pro vincial capit al. Fortunately, the Federal Government, in October, made more funds availa ble to Manitoba and we were able to plug into

Section 43 of the NHA Act in order to get the necessary funds. MR. AXWORTHY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister indicate what the designation of these units will be. Will they be entirely for families? Will they be available for single people? Will they be available for senior citizens? Do we have an al location as yet? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Industry and Commerce. HONOURABLE LEONARD S. EVANS (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I can indicate thatthese units are essentiall y for famil ies.

These will be family units in excess of 500 suites, or apartments, or household units, in multiple structures. MR. AXWORTHY: Wel l, a supplementary from that then, Mr. Speaker. Can the province or any one of the Ministers indicate if there is to be any assistance given for the rehabilitation or upgrading of existing multiple units blocks, apartment sites, particularly to help those, or provide loans for those that need upgrading for fire purposes or other reasons. MR. EVANS: Wel l, Mr.

Speaker, as indicated during the Estimates of Manitoba Hou sing, the government is looking at a program to upgrade existing apartment blocks in the inner portions of the City of Winnipeg and we have had some discussions on that matter at some leng th. With regard to another element of your que stion, if I heard the honourable member properly, with regard to the existing tenants, I belie ve he asked a question with regard to those who are living in the existing buildings.

I can advise the honourable member and members of the House that of all of the structures involved, all of the parcels involved, the bulk of the m are either unoccupied land, under utilized land or placarded buildings, buildi ngs that are decl ared by the City of Winnipeg to be unsanitary. And I belie ve there may be about twenty families, at the very most involved, and these people will be given top priority and in fact we will assist them in every way possible to find alternative accommodation.

And I can assure the honourable member in every case, it will be better accommodation than they have now, because all of them are living in sub-marginal accommodation. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for St. Jame s. MR. GE ORGE MINAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Honour able Minister of Industry and Commerce who is responsible for the local group projects in The Employment Program. I wonder if the Honour able Minister can confirm that the People's Liberation Book Store 3881

Frida� Ju ne17, 1977 has received a grant of $3,080 on one of his projects. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. MR. EVANS: Wel l, I'll have to check that item, Mr. Speaker. There was an Outreach type of program being operated , I believe, through that fa cility, some type of Outreach program to disadvantaged people, as I understand. But I'll have to check the records. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable First Minister. HONOURABLE EDWARD SCHREYER, Premier(Rossmere): Mr.

Speaker, this morning I undertook, pursuant to a que stion from the Leader of the Opposition, to trace down the disposition of what was to thought to be seven or eight Orders for Return not yet filed. I'm told that the number is five. I've asked the Cler k of the Executive Council, Mr. Bedson, to trace it down. The procedure would be that when that is done, a copy would be file d with the Clerk of the Assembl y, and a copy sent to the mover of the motion, in the first instance. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Member tor St. Jame s. MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary que stion to the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. I wonder it the Honourable Minister would check to see if also the Liberation Book Store received a grant of some $5,900.00. Would the Minister check to see it the Peoples' Liberation Book Store and the Liberation Book Store are one and the same organization? Further, would the Ho nourable Minister seek out to find out what this store represents or whether, in fact, it represents a left-wing group organization as only a front? MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minister of Ind ustry and Commerce. MR. EVANS: Mr.

Speaker , such grants to community associations, of course, are notavailable to commercial operations. In this case I belie ve, if I recal l properly, there was a social service program for that neighbour hood involving some people the Ho nourable Member from Swan River should be concerned about - some disadvantaged people. As I said, we will check it, but it was some type of outreach program if I recal l. I might add, Mr. Speaker, we have approved hundreds of grants all over this province for many many very worthwhile programs and I bel ieve, if I recall, this was an extre mely worthwhile program. MR.

SPEAKER: The Hono urable Member for Assiniboia. MR. STEVE PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Ind ustry and Commerce responsible for housing. I bel ieve early in the Session itwas annou nced in The Throne Speech that there will be some thousand lots coming on stream in the ln kster-Keewa tin area that will be available for people sometime during the summer. Can the Minister indicate to the House are these now ready and are the services in, and it they are not ready yet, will they be available tor this construction seaso n? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. MR.

EVANS: Mr. Speaker, the engi neering design has now been completed and either today or tomorrow, I believe, the corporation will be award ing the contract tor the installation of water and sewer services. So we are proceed ing forthwith. MR. PATRICK: Can the Minister answer my second part of the question: Will any of the lots be available during this year because I bel ieve it was indicated early in the Session that they would be availa ble this year? MR. EVANS: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, this is our hope and our plan but we are in the hands of the ability of the contractors and of course right along it has been a matter of working with the various levels of the City government and so on and they have been very co-operative but it all takes time. We are hoping that we will be in a position, as we said earlier, to be able to sell these properties, these lots, at a very good price to consumers in this area this year. So, agai n, however, I would have to reiterate, it partly depends on how successful we are in actually getting the engine ering works in place but work is about to beg in. MR.

PATRICK: Wel l, I appreciate that answer because I was somewhat concerned. MR. SPEAKER: Ques tion. MR. PATRICK: My supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is in respect to the program that was announced this morning about housing tor 500 new families in the inner core of Winnipeg. Can the Minister indicate to the House if any consultations have taken place with the Winnipeg School Board and the Recreat ion and Parks Board in respect to recreat ion facilities and educational facilities for these new families? MR.

EVANS: I can't say to what extent there have been consultations at the staff level but we have certainly worked, I think, in an optimum way with the various people in the City administration. As a matter of tact, the City ad ministration largely hel ped us identify the particular properties in question. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that these properties are well scattered albeit in the inner city portion of the City of Winnipeg, neverthel ess they.are scattered about, so I would hope that there would not be any serious proble ms posed that the member may be implying in his que stion. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for Bir tle-Russell. MR. HARRY E. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Honourable Attorney- 3882

Friday, June 17, 1977 General the , Minister responsible for the Liquor Control Commission. I would like to ask the Minister if the Liquor Control Commission has phased out their computer operation. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Attorney-Gener al. HONOURABLE HOWARD PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I would take that question as notice. MR. GR AHAM: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should ask that que stion in another manner. Has the Liquor Commission changed over their computer operation to the government's computer centre? MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I believe they have; I certainly hope they have so arranged. MR.

GR AHAM: A suppleme ntary. Can the Minister indicate what has happened to the operators of the computer program at the Liquor Commission? Have they been transferred also or have they been reclassified and given other jobs in the Liquor Commission? MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I did take that question as notice. I wonder if I could jus t ask, with the leave of the House, that I get an opportunity to table the information which I ag reed to table in connection with wire-tap guidel ines. Now this is the original, the document received by me, and I will be asking the Cle rk to photocopy copies of it. MR.

SPEAR: The Honourable Member for Wolseley. MR. ROBER T G. WILSO N: In the absence of the Minister of Education, I wonder if the First Minister could maybe answer. Would the Minister advise the House how the Seine River School Division expended its $300,000 French 1976 lang uage grants, the federal and provincial ones, and have proper records been kept of this expenditure? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHR EYER: Mr. Speaker, a question having to do with the internal operations of a school division clearly will have to be taken as notice. MR.

WILSON: Wel l, my supplementary question is, then in the April 26th issue of La Liberte, Mr. Hebert stated that matters of policy pertaining to French langua ge would be made by the Bureau de L'Education Francaise and not by the Minister of Education. MR. SCHR EYER: Wel l, Mr. Speaker, I am aware that that kind of a statement was reported. I cannot vouch for its authenticity, but even if authentic lve already indicated that that most assuredly cannot be the case by definition. MR. CHAI RMAN: The Honourab le Mem ber for Crescentwood. MR. WARREN STEEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier today I asked the Minister of Public Works a question regard ing the catering facility at Thompson in the gove rnment building. It has come to my attention that the caterer, who the Minister referred to this morning, who has been suspended, has issued N. S. F. cheques to his personnel. Does his department, the Minister's de partment, have any moral or legal obligation regard ing the employees who worked for this caterer? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister for Public Works. HONOURABLE RUSSELL DOERN: Wel l, Mr. Speaker, this is another instance of a free enterprise fail ure.

I do not know whether we have an ethical obliga tion, but I would certainly check that out. All I know is that we have hired a private firm and they appear to have not fulfille d their commitments. MR. STEEN: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister, when the firm was appointed to undertake the position as being the caterer, did they have to put up a bond? MR. DOE: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as notice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct my question to the First Minister.

I wonder if the First Minister could confirm that the original estimates to install the No. 6 turbine or gen erator at Jen peg, which was the first one to go in, the estimate of hours was 33,000 hours and it has now taken over 200,000 hours to install it. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHYER: Mr. Speaker, that may be the case. The cost, of course, in terms of the actual cash outlay implications of any delay are a matter as between the supplier and the installer, and not Manitoba Hydro. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, with the other turbines yet to go in, could the First Minister explain why the camp there has been reduced from over 400 to approximately 210 men? MR. SCH REYER: Wel l, there might be several reasons, Mr. Speaker. One of them, however, would be the fact that the civil works have been completed and now what is involved is the installation of the mechanical work, so there is obviously quite a diminution of onsite labour activity. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HONOURABLE STERLING LYON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the First Minister, which I bel ieve he took notice of some time ago.

Is the First Minister yet in a position to advise the House as to the amount of the cost overruns on the instal lation of the Soviet gene rators at Jenpeg. MR. SCHYER: Mr. Speaker, whatever the cost overruns they certainly do not bear on Manitoba Hydro's obli gation to pay out cash. Any cost overruns is a matter of, and indeed it is at the present time, a matter of some dispute as between the supplier and the instal lation company Flanders Limited. 3883

Friday, June 17, 1977 MR. LYON: A further question, Mr. Speaker. I believe it was also taken as notice some time ago. Has the First Minister been advised as yet as to the dol lar val ue of the loss of power from Jen peg for the approximate one-year period which it is now behind schedule. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for some estimating of that and when I obtain the information I can forward it to my honourable friend. MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, reverting to an answer that the First Minister gave with respect to Orders for Return, five of which we understand and he acknowledges are still outstanding, can the First Minister give a time frame in which the members of the House can expect to receive these Orders for Return, which are now at least a year old. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that I have asked the Clerk of the Executive Council to apply himself to this task. Some of this can be, I would imagine, done relatively soon.

I cannot, however, dismiss the possibility that one or two may be somewhat in the nature of the kind that my honourable friend, the Minister of Ag riculture, was refe rring to this morning requiring considerable detailed researc h, pulling together of information. But even so I would hope to be able to do so in the next thirty days. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, my que stion is to the Minister of Industry and Commerce, regarding the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation.

Is it the practice of the Housing and Renewal Corporation to have a contractor working on projects for as long as four months without a signed contract? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. MR. EVANS: I would not think so, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the honourable member would like to give me some details, I'll pursue the matter. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I would ask and give the details maybe in the form of a que stion and just briefly say that I don't know that it would do anybody any good.

Maybe I would just ask the Minister if he would check with the Housing and Renewal Corporation and see if this practice is going on. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. MORRIS McGREGOR : Mr. Speaker, I'd like to directthis to the First Minister. Some six weeks ago I requested him to instruct his Minister of Public Works on a certain action and seven weeks later we real ized how extre mely succ essful that was. I, myself, never being one to change course in midstream ... MR. SPEAKER: Qu estion. MR.

McGREGOR : ... would he now instruct his Minister of Public Works to turn off the solar energy because excess water is becoming a problem. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I hardly know how to answer. The Minister of Public Works is a colle ag ue. One does not instruct colle agues; one merely asks col leagues. I bel ieve that the Minister of Public Works probably would not be adverse to accepting some responsibility for what has happened in the past six months. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Rhineland. MR. ARNOLD BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My que stion is to the Minister of Health. This morning I asked him whether a personal care home was sla ted for Pine Fall s and he said he would answer this afternoon. I wonder if he could give us that answer now. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Healt h. HONOURABLE LAURENT L. DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was waiting to have a chance to catch your eye to give the answer and that is the Pine Falls personal care home, as I stated a few times in the House, that Pine Fal ls was not on the list of the five-year construction program that I had announced last year. I had a meeting with a Dr.

Siddal and Mr. Munro, the Chairman of the District Board of the Pine Fal ls General Hospital, some time in either November or December of 1976. What was discussed was confirmed by a letter from Mr.

Edwards, the Chairman of the Com mission, on the 22nd of December, 1976, and that is that starting this summer of 1977 there wil l be discussions between the Board and the Manitoba Health Services Commission to start the planning so we could proceed with this at least immediately after the five-year program -t hat is in four years from now - or possibly a little before that but it will take a couple of years to plan, anyway. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Flin Flon. MR. THOMAS BARROW: I'd like to make a change on the Statutory Reg ulations Committee, Mr. Speaker.

The name of Adam to replace that of Mali nowski. MR. SPEAKER: Ag reed? (Agreed) The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the First Minister if he is waiting with anxiety, the same as we are, for the Member from Rad isson's que stion? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. 3884

Friday, June 17, 1977 MR. SCHREY ER: I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be more correct to say that I am waiting with trepidation. Frankly, I would sooner not face that prospect either. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I posed a question yesterday to the Honourable the Minister of Tourism with respect to whether campers on Crown lots would be allo wed to pitch tents this coming summer, and I showed him later a copy of the bul letin.

I was wondering if the Minister has been in a position since that time to convince the bureau cracy that maybe people should be al lowed to pitch tents On their own property. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HONOURABLE BEN HANUSCMAK (Burrows): Wel l, Mr. Speaker, I think one would be well divided to be very careful in choosing a site for pitching a tent today. I did check the matter out with my department, that was raised by the Honourable Leader of the Official Opposition- lnterjection} The Leader of the Official Opposition.

It is not the intent of the regulation or, as ii was paraphrased in the instructions given to cottagers, to prohibit the pitching of tents for strictly recreational purposes for the use of their families. In fact, even if one wished to pitch a tent for the use of friends or relatives staying overnight, that could be checked out and clearance could be obtained from the park ranger for a short period of time. It's not even the intent to prohibit the pitching of a tent to accommodate friends or relatives who may not be accommodated within the cottage.

But the intent was to prohibit the pitching of tents and setting up of mobile homes and so forth for rental purposes for season use. However, that regulation will be clarified for the benefit of the users of our campground and cottage areas. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. STERLING R. LYON (Souris-Killarney}: Mr. Speaker, do I take it then that the Minister is saying that a letter of explanation will go out to all property owners holding Crown leases, explai ning that they can pitch tents which is contrary to the first letter that went out, which the Minister saw? MR.

HANUSCHAK: No I don't think that there's need for any letter of explanation going out, but come the next season the instructions that are given to cottagers will be redrafted and if there's any problem that may arise during the balance of the camping season for the year that matter will be dealt with on an individual basis.

But as I've indicated, it is not the intent of the reg ulation to prohibit the pitching of tents for recrea tional use by the family for use by children to play in, nor even is it the intent to prohibit the pitching of a tent to accommodate friends staying overnig ht, who could not be accommodated in the cottage. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister could open another flap of investigat ion in his department - did I understand him to say that persons wishing to pitch a tent would have to get prior permission from somebody to pitch a tent in your own backyard? MR. HANUSCHAK: Mr.

Speaker, it was not the intent of the regula tion to prohibit the pitching of a tent for recrea tional use by the family so that regulation isn't relevant to the pitching of tents for recrea tional use by families. But insofar as pitching of tents for overn ight accommodation, then that can be cleared with the park ranger by those who wish to do so. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. Final que stion. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of further confusing a problem that we thought was fairly simple, can I ask the Minister one final question.

Can the Minister advise ifthe letter which went out to all Crown lessees saying that they could not pitch tents on their own property will be revoked so that they will be under no misapprehension as to what the law of the land is? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. Order please. The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, assuming that such a letter exists and assuming that it has been correctly interpreted , if that is the correct

interpretation, then it will be changed. There is no intention to have regu lations having to do with whether or not there can be the pitching of a tent in a casual way next to a cottage in a cottage lot in a recrea tional park. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Radisso n. MR. HARRY SHAFRANSKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the Minister of Health and Social Development. I wonder if he could recommend to the Member for Sturgeon Creek where he could see a doctor to remove his pangs of anxiety that he exhibits so much in this House? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR.

GR EEN: Bill No. 86 please, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Bill No. 86. Report stage .. The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. 86 you said. MR. GR EEN: No, I'm sorry' I was wrong, Mr. Speaker. The honourable member apparently still has a question. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rad isson. MR. SHAFRANSKY: Yes I have a que stion, Mr. Speaker, as upplementary question to the Minister of Health and Social Develop ment. I wonder if the Minister could recommend to the Member for Sturgeon Creek where he could get a frontal lobotomy 3885

Friday, June 17, 1977 ORDER S OF THE DAY - SECOND READ ING S MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 88, Second Rea ding, Page 2. BILL (NO. 88) - THE STATUTE LAW AMENDM ENT ACT (1977)

(2) I MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. PAWLEY presented Bill 88, The Statute Law Amend ment Act (19 77)(2) , for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, in order to expedite time, I think honourable members have the bill and we would be just as well to permit the bill to proceed on its way to committee for the clause by clause analysis. • MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Birtle-Russe ll. MR. GRAHAM: Mr.

Speaker, I can assure the Attorney-General that there is no wish on behalf of our party to hold the bill up any longer and whenever you want to call the committee, we will ende avour to do what we can to move this bill forward. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition wish to speak to Bill 88? MR. LYON: Just a procedural question on Bill 88, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not the House Leader would want to refer that to Committee of the Whole rather than Law Amend ments? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines. MR. GR EEN: Mr.

Speaker, I think it will be Law Amendme nts. We just go out and come back. It will be just as quick. There are less people on Law Amendments. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I would want to call Bill No. 14 , Page 1 of the Order Paper. REPORT STAGE BILL NO. 14 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAN DLORD AND TENANT ACT. MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 14 adjourned by the Honourable Minister of Mines. Report stage. MR. GRE EN: Mr. Speaker, I think that some of the difficulty that we're having with this bill arises from the fact that it was not dealt with at the committee stage in the ordinary way because it was not in the original bill, it was sent by committee and introduced at the report stage. Under those circumstances I think, Mr. Speaker, that there is confusion as to what is desired by either side and we get into the kind of a rather hostile deb ate that started this morning.

We can't deal with a word, we can't change a word, we can't do the things that can be done rather more informally to make sure that there is no problems arising and therefore, we have, I think, a misunderstanding as to intention. I can assure the Honou rable Member for Sturgeon Creek that both the Minister and the members who spoke clearly do not wish to interfere with landlor d and tenant relation ships in the normal way, nor do they want a landlor d to prevent a tenant from being able to deal with reasonable information. But there is this problem of debate.

It is a problem having been brought in at this time, when it can't be dealt with by the committee in that way. We have a law which now guarantees some information being received by the tenant and rather than try to deal with that kind of amendment in this kind of setting, we would want consent of the whole House to withdraw the amend ment and not proceed with it at this time. -(I nterjection)- The amend ment deal ing with the literature. -(ln terjection) Yes, but I want honourable members to be made quite aware that we do not attribute to the intention of the amend ment some of the suggestions.

I think if we had been sitting in committee discussing it around a table, we would probably find a way of dealing with it, and more particularly, in deal ing with a landl ord preventing a tenant from receiving any kind of information other than election material so it might be better to do it in that way because I don'tthink it is a contentious issue and we are making a contentious issue out of nothing So I would request the members of the Opposition to give me consent to have this amend ment withdrawn. MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed? (Agreed) BILL NO. 14 was read a third time and passed.

BILL NO. 18 - THE RETAIL BUSINESS HOLI DAY CLOSING ACT MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines. MR. GR EEN: Bill No. 18 , Mr. Speaker. Adjourned de bates on Third Read ing, Bill No. 18, The Retail Business Hol iday Closi ng Act. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. _,. MR. SHERMAN: The Minister of Labo ur says, "Keep it cool," Mr. Speaker. It maybe hard to do that 3886

Friday, June 17, 1977 but I will attempt to restrain my opposition to the bill to as great a degr ee as possible but I will certainly not withdraw my opposition to the bill. Sir, I think our position on the bill was made abunda ntly clear on second reading and in committee. We find that in h consultation with members of the economic community and particula rly those who are smal l independent store operators since that time that our position has been justified and reinforced in our own minds.

I have had individual inde pendent store owners and their wives phone me, get in touch with me, in substantial number in the last few days, in the last few weeks, since the bill went through the committee stage' al l of them greatly upset by the kind of impact, the kind of effect, that they feel this leg islation will have on their lives and on their liveli hoods. We said at the outset that the legislation does nothing for the emplo yment situation in this province and we reiterate that with all the emphasis that we can summon.

What is going to happen, Sir, and I have personal evidence of that from individual merchants and store owners in my own constituency and elsewhere, is that people are going to lose jobs under this legisla tion. I had a store owner - and this is only one of the many cal ls that I have received - who told me that he was intending to open a new store, he has a smal l grocery store, and he was intending to open another one in which he would have provided employment to somewhere between five and nine people. Now he is not going to do that.

He feels that the kinds of directions that are embodied in this type of legislation are too discourag ing and have too much potential for difficulty for him to embark on that kind of an investment.

I have had store owners and their wives phone me, one of them literally in tears, Sir, over the fact that she and her husband had scrimped and saved, had sold what possessions they had to purchase a small store, put their business together, build it up over the years by working seven days and seven nights a week, when necessary, to expand it a little bit and add a few emplo yees, arrive finally at a situation, at a position where they had a viable business and a viable livel ihood, and now, because of this legisl ation, they are faced with a serious cutback in that business and liveli hood, so much so that it might prompt them to address themselv es to the inevitable and close and go out of business, move elsewher e to operate a business.

Now I know the Minister will say that that is not a val id argu ment to use because operators of this type only have to close one day a week and they can pick their day, Saturday or Sunday. But, Sir, the legis lation is such and the normal course of econo mic affairs in the marketplace are such that Sunday is an extre mely important and crucial business day to independent operators, small merchants, small entrepreneurs. It is the only way that they can derive viabl ity agai nst the pressures of the conglom erates and the multi-nationals and the big chains who command so much of the market.

We feel that this leg islation is really an effort and an attempt on the part of this Minister to do the bidding of the major supermarket chains and the Retail Cler k's Un ion, neither of whom wants to work on Sundays, for reasons of their own. The reasons aren't necessarily the same but the major chains don't want to operate on Sundays and the Retail Cler ks' Union doesn't want to work on Sundays so they decide among themselves that nobody is going to work on Sundays, in effect, that nobody is going to be able to compete with them by commanding the Sunday comme rcial opportunities that are available.

And that is one of the most repugnant ele ments of the legis lation to us, Mr. Speaker, that there should be legisla ted protection for vested interest gr oups in the economy which works against those small independents who make the effort to work hard, make a living, provide a service, provide emplo yment opportunities, provide a source of taxation and revenue for this government and through this government the people of Manitoba, and who, in short, Sir, help very very potently to make the eco nomy go. So, Mr.

Speaker, our position remains where it has been, that this legisla tion is harmful and destructive to the spirit of people, to initiative and enterprise and freed om of choic e and beyond those important abstractions, harmful to the condition of the eco nomy in this province today. It is going to hurt employment; it is going to hurt business; it flies in the face of the kinds of programs in terms of emplo yment development and job creation that members of the treasury benches opposite strut and boast about.

It is a total antithesis to the kinds of things which the Minister of Industry and Commerce and the First Minister and the Minister of Finance protest that they are attem pting to do, to shore up and reinforce our economy. The facts speak a lot loude r, Sir, than their words do and not many Manitobans are going to be fooled by that kind of speech-making when they feel the impact in the economy, in difficulty as it is today, and see it extended in its difficulties and made worse in its difficulties as a consequence of legisla tion of this and other kinds.

Sir, the one other aspect that I would like to make reference to in the bill is the fact that individual rights are not respected to the degr ee that they should be and I think that's an important indictment of this governme nt. I recog nize that the Minister was caught in a rather wide-ranging social argument a few months ago because of the intrusion of some major supermarket operators into the field of Sunday commerce but in my view, Sir, he has over-reacted seriously and is responding to a difficulty that I belie ve could have been solved by adheri ng closely to legisla tion al ready in place in this 3887

Friday, June 17, 1977 country and other jurisdictions and by bringing in this kind of discriminatory leg islation. There were a number of amend ments proposed by our party at the time of the study of the bill at committee stage , Mr. Speaker, and I think you are familiar with the fact that al l the important ones failed. Only one was successful and it really does not have the improvement effects, does not have the beneficial effects that we believe are necessary to make this reasonable legis lation that some of the other amend ments we proposed did possess.

Lastly, Sir, the penalty cla use in the bill is one that I cannot permit to pass by without one further comment. We have here an extremely punitive

section which, in effect, says that if a small store owner makes a mistake of viola ting this Act, that he is liable to the kind of fine on

summary conviction that can put him out of business. He is liable to a fine as high as $5,000 which, Sir, would smash - completely destroy..._ many small enterprises of the type to which I have referred and of the type that are most seriously affected by this legisla tion. The other day, Sir, we had a case in this City of two persons being convicted on nine counts of fraud - on nine counts of fraud - and the fine, Sir, was $1,800.00. That works out to ... MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines. MR.

GREEN: The honourable member is comparing the maximum fine with the fine that was given by a judge in a particular case. Does the member know what the maximum fine for fraud is? Because those are the comparisons. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I recog nize what the Minister is saying, but we had very firm evidence from the Minister of Labour in committee when we tried to move an amend ment reducing the maximums and minimums here, that he thought they were far too low. So it does not detract from my argu ment.

We are looking here at a penalty that could drive a smal l merchant, because he made a mistake, or she made a mistake, or attempted to experime nt with a particular choice, that woul d destroy that business. I suggest to you that that fl ies in the face of the whole trend of justice in this country today where we have almo st, through many of the measu res introduced by this govern ment, said, "The first one is on the house." You can get away with the first offence; you will get a light sla p on the wrist but don't do it agai n.

There is no such consideration shown to a small merchant, a small store owner, who has worked and sl aved to put that enterprise together. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines. MR. GR EEN: Would the honourable member say that under Bill 18 that a magistrate could not impose a very light sentence and say don't do it agai n, the same as he does now, with any other offence under the present Act? MR. SHERMAN: Of course he could, Mr.

Speaker, but the evidence as expressed by the Minister of Labo ur in committee is that as far as this government is concerned , if there are any future amendments to come in, they will boost these minimums and maximums. -(I nterjection)- Wel l, this is a reflection of an attitude that is found in this bill, and I sugge st to you the attitude is clear, that the attitude brooks no errorson the part of a small businessman.

There are attitudes of this government expressed in other legis lation that brook widespread errors in other fields, but the attitude expressed in this legisla tion and in that cla use says, "We will countenance no such error on the part of a small businessman or businesswoman, because we don't like small business or medium business or any kind of business unless it is controlled by governme nt." That is what that clause says, that is what the attitude of the Minister reflected in committee study.

Wel l, Sir, the Minister of the Environment may say, "That is not so" - I suggest to him there are many small businessmen in this City today who bel ieve it is so because of the legis lation, because of the attitude of the government in putting this legisla tion through committee. I want to register our most vigorous opposition to legisla tion of this kind, more vigor ously, if possible, than we expressed it earlier, and our intention, Sir, to have a recorded vote so that we can vote in a recorded manner against this discriminatory and destructive bill. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR.

F. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, when we were in committee on this bill, I have never seen anything railroaded through like this bill was in my life. I have only been in the Legislature for eight years but, Mr. Speaker, when we were discussing one clau se of this legis lation, the Mem ber for Flin Flon moved that the question be put. The other day in the House he said he did it because he wanted to upg rade the debate of the committee at the time. I have read Hansard and the reference he makes to bad de bate was debate presented by my colle ague, the Meer for Fort Garry.

There was an answer from the Minister of Labo ur and the Attorney-General regar ding this subject. The debate was only spoken on once basically by our side, if you take a look at the record. But, Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Flin Flon moved the question be put and there was the Minister of Labo ur who was supposed to be the Dean of the Legislature and who has basically been the House Leader and would have probably been the person to direct that committee at that time, doesn't even know that he was ille gal and should have mentioned to the Chairman that the que stion could not be put, but yet he al lowed it to go through. 3888

Friday, June 17, 1977 Mr. Speaker,

Section 196 of Beauchesne - I won't read it all - but in the fourth line, it talks about "That the que stion be put." The very last sentence: "The motion for the previous question is not admitted in Committee of a Whole or in any other Committee." Yet the Minister sat there and allo wed that closur e to happen just so he could rail road his legisla tion through this House. And the Member for Flin Flon has the gal l to stand up and say that he did it to upgrade the debate. Mr.

Speaker, I would also like to mention that the Minister of Ind ustry and Commerce should have left the room because he probably should be ashamed of himself for not getting up and opposing this legis lation. This leg islation says "e mployees of three at all times." I don't know of many grocery stores - whether they are Mom and Pop organiza tions or not - that do not emplo y more than three people at all times. There are del ivery boys, there are clean-up boys; there is extra help, so that they can get maybe one or two days off during a month. Mr.

Speaker, that's the type of leg islation that is being put forward only to help the large union and the large chain store in this province. The Shel l Oil Company can have their service stations open sel ling groceries on Sunday and yet we close a man who has borrowed money from the bank, put his own signature on the line, born and raised in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, it is terrible leg islation and I make one more point. The Minister was told by legal counsel that came before the Leg islative Committee, that this was ultra vires legisla tion. There were as many as three opinions given and, Mr.

Speaker, any lawyer knows that in this province and in this country, we dwell on case law. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the opinion of very good legal counsel was that this bill was ultra vires and could not be put through on the basis of the present legis lation in force with the Federal Govern ment. The Minister who has been asked to take the channel that he has which is provided for in leg islaton within the Manitoba Leg islature, that he could find out and have this Bill proved before he puts it into effect as to whether it is ultra vires or not.

But, he prefers to go to the Supreme Court and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that is where he is going and he is goi ng to cost the people of Manitoba one heck of a pile of money doing so, and if he has taken the trouble to read the opinions of the three lawyers that have given him the case law on this subject, he just might take the out that he has to find out if this legisla tion is ultra vires but I don't think he will. -(I nterjection)- There you are, Mr. Speaker. I don't think he will. I know he won't now and I know that he is going to cost the people of Manitoba a fortune and he doesn't give a damn. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, on second reading, I indicated that I bel ieved in the principle that we should try to limit commercialism as much as possible on Sundays, but I also had some reservations, and I said I would let the Bill go to Committee and perhaps have the wisdom of all the representations, and I did that. It wasn't difficult for me to change my views and my mind in respect to what I will be doing in the Bill at this stage. I am concerned particularly in one area.

I am concerned about the small independent businessman in this community and I think it will have a very serious effect on him. Because, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we are all aware that it is the small entrepreneur, the small businessman that employs 75 percent of the people in this province, and I think that we should not make it any more difficult than it is at the present time. We know that we have the 7-Eleven Stores, who are owned by a large corporation and open twenty-four hours a day.

The Mac Stores are owned by a large corporation and are open, which creates very serious competition for the small local that are still left. I bel ieve there is something in the neighbour hood of forty independe nts that are left in the province, and if that is all there is I feel that we should n't do anything to put any of those people out of business. Because, Mr. Speaker, really the cornerstone of a strong local community is the small businessman.

I know if anybody had the opportunity to colle ct money for any social or community project, and I have on several occasions for several projects, it seems when you go to a large corporation al l you get is a quick brush off and they say, I'm sorry, we have to do it through head office or we have a certain amount of money given to United Way - and that is it. You can't raise any money be it for a community club or for any social or community project that are very important in that community.

But you go to that corner grocery store, independent service station, or any smal l business and that is where you will be able to get $25 or $50, who have a very strong feel ing for that community. I am concerned what is happening, Mr. Speaker, because right now the oil companies, the large oil corporations are going in, adjacent with their self-serve units, that they have completely put the small service stations out of business and are now starting to construct grocery stores in conjunction with their self-serve service stations. So this will be another.

The Minister of Labou r's head but that's I can point it out. He can true, come out to my constituency and he'll find they're just under construction now, just starting to build. So that's a further concern that I have in respect to the small independent businessman. I'm sure that the Minister must realize that it's not too many years ago when we had very many independent small service stations that people enjoyed going two blocks down from the neighbour hood and getting the services that were req uired. They can't do it today anymore. You can 3889

Friday, June 17, 1977 go two or three miles. In our constituency there,s one independ ent service station left The others have all switched to se lf-serve and you cannot get any mechanical work or anything. So concern, Mr. Speaker, is real ly while the principle is great, and I think if we can limit commercial ism at least to a minimum, that's great. That's fine. On the other hand, I think we have to also be concerned with is happening with the small indepen dents that are left in this province and they're disappearing pretty quickly and if there is a way that the Minister can protect them, fine. I can support them. But in this Bill, I would ask him to amend that

section that this legislation would not include independent . If that cannot be, I cannot support the legisla tion. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mem ber for La Veren drye. MR. BOB BANMAN: Mr. speaker. I would also like to say that as mentioned by' the Member from Assiniboia that at second reading the principle of the bill was one that I think many of us supported and supported it with the hope that during the Committee we could qet certain changes on some of the espects of this particula r hill.

I think one of the reasons, and I spoke during second reading r supporting the bill, is I was in full agreement that we should have one day of rest, one ccmmon day of rest, a fay where tarn i lies cou Id be together to worship together and to try and maintain the tarn i ly tiea and the family unit and strengthen that. I don,t think this bill is it s present form is going to do that. , I think that one of the claus es that I was very keen on seeing imple mented in this legis lation was the opting out clause on religious gr ounds.

In other words that it was mandatory for everyreli to be clo sed on Sunday, unless by his oi her own personal rel igious bel iefs they could opt out of that particular qual ification and then be open on a day preced ing that or immediately thereafter. This is much like the Ontario amend ment and that's been debated and I don't think we should belabour that. But, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the bill does not accomplish what I think it should and I think that for those reasons, I can't support the bill in its present form. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR.

PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a matter of too much importance to just pass by without some reply from myself as the sponsor of the bill. I feel that if I did not say something then after the Session was over that the opposition to the bill would go out on to the hustings and say that there was no reply from the Minister of Labour, the sponsor of this bill. And knowing the calibre and the capabil ity of members opposite, I'm sure that that would be true because quite frankly, Mr.

Speaker, I have no great faith in the approaches that are made from time to time by old politicians, altho ugh in saying that, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to depreciate or be deroga tory of the place that the politician plays in our democracy. , I think, Sir, that it would only be proper for me to point out to the House and hoce again to the public that when the bill was introduced into this House for second read ing, I called a vote on the principle of the bill and at that particular time I received, or the bill received not necessarily self, the unanimoss approval of thi s Assely. Now it seeem to me, Mr.

Speaker that the opposition are attempting to have the best of two worlds, that they're actually being Jekylls and Hydes insofar as this bill is concerned. -(I nterjection)- My honourable friend from Sturgeon Creek says that we shouldn' t have Law Amendments. We went to Law Amendments and there were certain alter nate proposals that were made. There's no question or doubt about that. But in accordance with the democratic system of government that we have, the amendme nts as proposed by certain members of the committee were defeated, just as surely, Mr.

Speaker, as proposals in this House from time to time have been defeated . While I realize, Mr. Speaker, that one should not reflect on a vote that has al ready been taken, I think that we had an ill ustration this morning in a vote whereby apparently the Party Whip of the Conservative Party was going to deny natural justice to somebody who felt that under the laws of the Province of Manitoba they were denie d the right of statutory exemptions in order that democracy should prevail.

May I sugge st to the Honourable Member for Minnedosa that our party had a free vote, unlike the apparent vote of the Official Opposition on that particular proposal, in order that justice may be reconsidered. But here we have it this afte rnoon, Mr. Speaker, the spokesmen for the two opposition groups talking about the denial of justice insofar as the small storekeeper is concerned . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. J.F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, my question to the honourable member is that his statement regard ing the Whips, I wonder if the member would ag ree that that's an assumption, because I didn't see him at any caucus meeting of ours. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: No, Mr. Speaker, my answer to my honourable friend is: I didn't have to be at the caucus meeting of the Conservative Party. It was evident and it was obvious that every jack man that sat on the opposite side to me voted against the proposition raised by the Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. That's an assumption? Evidence.

Evidence. -(Int erjection) - Not one of you had the guts to evade the that Party Whip, which I'm sure was on there. I want to say to my honourable friend, the Member for Sturgeon Creek, that I have been around here long enough to know that when 3890

Friday, June 17, 1977 everyone stands up in a political party the Whip is on. MR. F. JOHNSTON: That's nuts. MR. PAULLEY: You're nuts. MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order please. Order please. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, after having voted unanimously on a matter of principle on this bill, apparently some sections have got to the Honourable Mem ber for Fort Garry in respect of Bill 18. He tell s me, and he tel ls this Assembly, that literally tears were coming out of the eyes of the poor smal l businessman that is going to be prejudiced against as a re sult of this bill. I say, Mr.

Speaker, that this bill is going to enhance the position of the smal l businessman in the Province of Manitoba. I think that was made amply clear when the represe ntativesof the associated small business people appeared at the committee and asked us, and pleaded with us, and begged with us to continue and to put into force this legisla tion on their behalf. My honourable friend, the Member for Fort Garry, says, "He was a ringer." I wonder if he would say that outside of the House where he hasn't got the immunity that he has within it.

Because I think it's a bunch of tripe for my honourable friend, the Member for Fort Garry, to accuse honest people who appear before committee to express their views. If this is the attitude, Mr. Speaker, of the likes of the Honourable Member for Fort Garry, then is it any damn wonder that people lose faith in politicans when such utter garbage is used by the likes of the Honourab le? Member for Fort Garry. He accuses me of being the tool in this particula r case for both big business and big unions. And the honourable friends agree with him.

Now this is an incompatible position for me or any honourable member to be in. It is another one of those cases I would sugg est, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Labour is damne d if he does and damne d if he doesn't. I'm not concerned with big business; I'm concerned with smal l business. And the evidence that we presented -(l nterjection) Oh, you wouldn't know, you old retiree -l ike I'm going to be one of these days myself -t he Member for Swan River. But anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am not the agent for either one of them.

This bill was proposed in this House because it was a matter that had been under consider ation for a considerable number of years, even going back to the times of the dark, dim dread days when ... -(I nterjection)- Yes, and dismal, too. When the Conse rvatives happened to be in power in the Province of Manitoba, and their previous representative from East Kildonan by the name of Jim Mills attempted to bring in some semblance of legisla tion and regu lation in the very area that I am doing it here now.

On a very, very close vote the free entrepreneurs, the right-wing Tories of the Conservative Government rejected the proposal - not initiated by a New Democrat, initiated by a then Conservative, who eventually went out because the people realized the incompetence and the inefficiency of the Conservative Party. And woe betide Manitoba if in some lapse of memory or of intel ligence they happen to elect the Honourable Member for Souris-Killa rney as the Premier of this province, which we all love, called Manitoba.

So my honourable friend, the Member for Fort Garry, says that this is legislative protection for the big business - big industry. I say to him and I say to the people of Manitoba, it exhibits our concern for smal l business in Manitoba despite the utter nonsense of the Honourable the Mem ber for Fort Garry. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the approach of the Honourable Member for Fort Garry, and to some deg ree the utterances of the Honourable the Member for Assiniboia, is a bogey-man approach to a serious situation that we have in Manitoba.

I have already referred to one statement of the Honourable Member for Fort Garry about the matter of the individual rights not protected in this bill. By their denial this morning of the individual rights of a person to have a case heard once again ... He referred to the penalty clause as being exorbitant. Wel l, darn it all, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to have legi slation to achieve something that is desired , should we not have penalties that wil l achieve that end? Under The Lord's Day Act of Canada at the present time a viola tion of the Act by a business is a paltry $25.00.

What the heck sort of a barrier is that? -(In terjection)- Now, now, now? Yes, it is now, now, now. 25 bucks -y ou think that that would bother those who are in violation of The Lord's Day Act? And then the Honourable Mem ber for Sturgeon Creek, who apparently has left the Chamber now and it is a good idea, accused us of railr oading and he sug gests that what we should have done was to refer this legisl ation for legal opinions of the courts before enacting the same. Mr.

Speaker, should we do that with every piece of legislation that we pass? -(I nterjection)- My honourable friend, the Member for Lakeside says, "Your legisla tion, yes." The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek referred to three legal people who appeared before the committee and expressed the opinion that this might be ultra vires of the Province of Manitoba to enact. You know, Mr. Speaker, this legisla tion has been in effect in the Province of Ontario for over a year and with all their legal talent and knowledgeabili ty in the whole of the Province of Ontario, a similar bill has not been contested.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I sugge st to the Honourable Mem ber for 3891

Friday, June 17, 1977 Sturgeon Creek who is not here, that it is utter and absolute nonsense in view of the experience in Ontario to sugge st that before adopting this bill that it should be referred to the courts for adjudication. You know, my honou rable friend, the Meer for Assiniboia made reference to gas stations going into the grocery business and the likes. I don't think I need to say to him that such is the case insofar as drugstores are concerned. Many drugstores now are sell ing bread and cheese and other commodities that were never ever sold before in drugstores. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Speaker, some of them are selling outboard motors and oil and gasoline components on Sunday as well, and my honourable friend, the Member for Assiniboia smiles, and well he might, because it is a truism. But I do want to say this, that if it is a fact - and I don't dispute my honourable friend - if it is a fact that the service stations are 'Qoing into the grocery field business, they will come under this particular Act insofar as the conduct of their business is concerned. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this.

This Act is produced in good faith; this Act is nonetheless a continuance of the endedvours of certain Conservative members that I sat with in the House to bring about the protection for the small entrepreneur and to preserve as much as we can, the stores and also to prohibit a further intrusion into the operation ou their businesses. It is true. Mr.

Speaker, their has been a change in the way we conduct our society today; it is true that the 7-Eleven and Mac Stores may be unferthis present Act allowed to continue because they are convenience stores, empl oying in most cases less than the three provided for in the Act, and it can conceivably be, Mr. Speaker, that one of these days, this Assem bly will 5ring in leg islation to prevent the continuing of the likes of the 7-Eleven stores and Mac,s and others based on the fact that they have a coon ownership on high but award out contracts for operation to individual managers. I do not think, Mr.

Speaker, this is bad legislation at all. I think it is good protection for the small business entrepre neur and the approach of the Conservative Party and the approach of the Liberal Party in this particular instance is an approach for the protection, not for the small entrepreneur but the large outlets that are conducting business at the present time and are intruding into the Mama and-Papa store ambit. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the Nays have it. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Does the honourable member wish to challenge that? - ... MR. SPEAKER: Very well.

Cal l in the members. A STANDING VOTE was taken the results being as follows: YEAS: Messrs. Adam, Barrow, Burtniak, Cherniack, Derewianchuk, Desjardins, Dillen, Doern, Evans, Got tfried, Green, Hanuschak, Jenkins, Johannson, G. Johnston, Malinowski, Miller, Osland, Paulley, Pawley, Petursson, Schreyer, Shafransky, Toupin, Uruski, Walding. NAYS: Messrs. Axworthy, Banman, Bilton, Blake, Brown, Craik, Einarson, Enns, Ferguson, Graham, Henderson, F. Johnston, Jorgenson, Lyon, McG ill, McGregor, McKenzie, Minaker, Patrick, Sherman, Steen. MR. CLERK: Yeas 26; Nays 21 . MR.

SPEAKER: In my opinion, the Ayes have it, I declare the motion carried. Before we proceed, I should like to direct the attention of the honourable members to the galler y where we have 26 students of Grade 6 standing of the Winnipegosis School. This school is from the constituency of the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. On behalf of the honourable members, we welcome you here. BILL NO. 86 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE ELECTION ACT MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. GRE EN: Mr. Speaker. I wonder if you would call the Report Stage of Bill No. 86 please. MR. SPEAKER: Report Stage Bill No. 86. The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Member for Assiniboia, proposed amend ment to Bill 86: THAT

Section 7 of Bill 86 be amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of clause (

a) thereof, by rel ettering clause (

b) thereof as clause (

d) thereof and by adding thereto, immediately after clause (

a) thereof, the following clauses: (

b) by striking out the words "or other British subject" in clause (

a) thereof; (

c) by striking out the words "twelve months" in the lst line of clause (

c) thereof and substituting therefor the word and figures "90 days"; and. MOTION presented on the amend ment. 3892

Friday, June 17, 1977 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Speaker, if I may be allo wed to provide a few words of explana tion. As we indicated on second reading of the bill, we felt that the Election Act could have withstood a number of major overhauls. There probably are a number of reasons why it wasn't done and we regret all those but we still feel that there are a number of very specific areas where certain changes could be made to alle viate problems that were encou ntered in the last el ection. Problems, Mr.

Speaker, I don't know how widespread in all constituencies they are but certainly in those constituencies that are represented by members in this caucus and by discussion with others, that are caused by a fairly major mobility in the population and the fact that a lot of people move around in many ways.

So that one of the major points that we are trying to bring forward is that the residency req uirement be changed from twelve months to three months, in effect, which would, therefore, allo w people who are Canad ian citizens, who have moved to Manitoba, who would like to exercise their franchise because they pay taxes and are involved in the community, that are so deprived because they may not have fallen within the legal date. Many people in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, were dep rived of the vote and certainly brought it to my attention.

I know the Member for Assiniboia had exactly the same circumstances so we felt that the change to a three-month residency requirement would prevent anyone who is a mere transient from voting but, at the same time, not prevent those who have settled in Manitoba and wou Id Ii ke to exercise their franchise so we wou Id propose the amend ment to reduce the residency req uirement. We also feel that to bring this bill up to date, and we just include it because it was deal ing with this clause, that the phrase "or other British subject" is a little bit of an anachronism.

It is really bringing into line with the Federal Election Act that one must be a Canad ian citizen. We don't feel that that creates any hardships particularly because they have now reduced the req uirement for citizenship down to three years and we feel that those who have come into Canada and wish to vote should all be placed on an equal basis. There shouldn 't be, in a sense, two groups of people sing led out. I certainly know, Mr. Speaker, again from my own experie nce in my constituency that there is a great deal of confusion as to exactly what does that mean, "a British subject"?

Does it include someone in the old notion of the British Commonwealth or British Empire? Does it include people from countries like Guiana that were one time ... British subject or from the Caribbean or whatever. There is a great deal of confusion in those areas that causes a lot of problems for the returning officers, it certainly causes a lot of problems for enumerators. We feel that that confusion could be elimi nated if we simply elimi nated that clause and went on the basis of Canadian citizenship being the basic req uirement for the vote. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, perhaps I could say very briefly that the amendments that are brought forward by the Honourable Member for Fort Rouge could be described as being reasonable. That is not to say, however, that anything major rises or falls on them and we consider it the better part of prudence to, without discourag ing the honourable mem ber too much, to advise that we do not see fit at this time to accept those amend ments. We would not want to be interpreted as discouraging him from bringing them forward again next year.

Certainly, to be more specific, the reference to "a British subject" as that is provided for now in our present leg islation, I am wel l aware of the arguments pro and con about that; however, I repeat that we do not see anything significant rising or fal ling on that point. One could even arg ue that it is one of the few tang ible remnants and perhaps desirable, remnants of the meaning of Commonwealth and commonweal British subject. What practical problems has that

interpretation or provision rather, caused us. I venture to say none. If my honourable friend feels that that is an anachronism, I say that perhaps some anachronisms are harmle ss and have a rather nice touch. With respect to the matter of red ucing the residency requirement and it is true that this bill does treat of the matter of residency to provide for more practical definition but reducing the initial time period with which a person has to be living in the province to be eligib le to vote in a provincial ele ction, we feel that twelve months is a reasonable standard .

I know one could arg ue that perhaps it should be six months. I am aware that one other Canad ian province, one Canadian province, has a six-month thresh hold. I am not aware that any province has a three-month thresh hold . So , for that reason, without indicating in any way a permanent attitude on this, we feel that at this time, it would not be, there is no compellin g argument and it is more prudent to remain with the twelve-month req uirement.

Finall y, the third aspect of the amendment which has to do with, not concurrence but the consecutive days upon which advance polling can take place, it is my understanding that that is the case now. -(I nterjection)- I'm sorry. Wel l, I was dealing with them on the list, Sir. I will desist then for the moment. QUESTION put on the amendment and lost. MR. SPEAKER: Second Motion. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Speaker, I rise with a sense of futilityactual ly but I would pursue anyway It's 3893

Friday, June 17, 1977 . not the first time I have risen with a sense of futility. I would move, seconded by the Member for Assiniboia, the foll owing Motion, that Bill 86 be amen ded by adding thereto immediately after

Section 9 thereof, the foll owing section: Subsection 65(5) of the Act is amended by striking out the word "one" in the last line thereof and substituting therefor the figure "2". MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I will not take time in the House other than to say that when the Minister said he saw no compellin g reason, I thought that the compel ling reason was obvious.

We're probably going to have an election before this House meets again and that's seems to me a pretty compelling reason to clean up some problems in the Election Act, so that we can el iminate those problems we had before. I don't know what more compelling argume nt or reason one can have than the fact that we would eli minate some problems. But perhaps I'm assuming too much but I always like to be optimistic, Mr. Speaker, about the future.

I would only say that this particular motion was designed, I think, to cure another really serious problem and that is that many people become disenfranchised because of the way that the advance poll system has worked in the past few elec tions. The many people who leave town a week or two in advance of an elec tion generally find themselves unable to vote in the advance poll. I would have liked to have been able to propose a more extensive amendment dealing with continuous advanced polling in each of the constituencies, arising a few days after nominations.

As it is, it was pointed out to me that because of the short term date - I think it's 14 days between the closi ng of nominations and the election date - that would be difficult but if we introduced the idea that there would be three days of advanced polls, two of which would have to be on Saturdays, it would have stretched the period of advanced polling out to at least a seven day period and therefore would have provided greater opportunity for people to vote. I gather the Premier again doesn't feel compelle d to accept that. I feel it's unfortunate.

It will deprive people the opportunity to vote if the record of last election will hold true again in the forthcoming elec tion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Agai n, Mr. Speaker, it is not a major problem unless an election is call ed on a day of the week that is late in the week. My understanding is that the law does not preclude the ele ctoral authority from providing for advanced polls on two Saturdays plus one other day even as the law stands now, if the election were to be held on a Monday, Tuesday, or even on a Wednesday.

It becomes a problem of practical time if the election is on a Thursday, Friday or Saturday - then the problem referred to by my honourable friend would arise.

But even so, I would say to my honourable friend, that even if the kind of change that he was proposing was to be adopted, it would perhaps ensure some greater minute deg ree of availabil ity or of access to advance polling but it still would not reach perfection because any advance polling that is still confined to, even if it be continuous, for a period of a week or two or even three, there will always be some who, because of contingencies of their own particular time

schedule - being cal le d away from home for whatever reason for an extended period of time - would not be able to vote. We acknowledge that this change, if made, might to some deg ree amel iorate the matter but it would cause other problems unless we were prepared to amend the time between official nomination day and election day so as to be instead of 14 days, 21 . But that is a more major change and we do not see our way clear just now to make that change. QUESTION put, MOTION lost. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. GR EEN: Mr.

Speaker, is there any objection to my moving third read ing of Bill No. 86, which is The Election Act? MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed? (Agreed) BIL L NO. 86 was read a third time and passed. MR. GR EEN: Mr. Speaker' I move, seconded by the Honourable Attorney-General, that Bill No. 26 . Oh, excuse me, I'd like you to call Bill No. 26 standing in the name of the Member for Fort Garry, who is not here. MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 26, Adjourned Debate, Third Read ing. The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. GREEN: Can we pass it by, Mr. Speaker. They are going to get the Member for Fort Garry.

We can deal with Bill No. 60, The Family Maintenance Act. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell. Third read ing, Bill No. 60. MR. GR AHAM: Mr. Speaker, may I have a couple of minutes to pick up my papers? MR. GR EEN: The Minister of Ag riculture was very anxious to hear what you have to say. He's going to be back later in the afternoon. If he's not back by the time we've dealt with the others, then I 3894

Friday, June 17, 1977 would call it, but he did indicate an interest. BILL (NO. 62) -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CITY OF WINNIPEG ACT. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Wel l, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've been sitting in committees so long I'm rather enjoying it back here to do a little yel ling at you fello ws. Mr. Speaker, I think our position has been made very cle ar on Bi ll 62. I looked at the papers this morning and I think that we got the message across when one head line said that Bill 62 has raised the ire of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, the bill basically will be thought of as the bill that lowered the number of councillors in the City of Winnipeg.

That's what everybody will read and that's what everybody is concerned about, regar ding the City of Winnipeg . I don't hear too many other things said other than, "We've got too many council lors." They're not really thinking over that particular statement when they say it, because, you know, when people say they want to give up something, you sometimes wonder why. Here you have a group of men and by cutting them down it is not going to save the city any money to speak of whatsoever - it .

And won't reflect in their taxes here the people have in their grasp a group of men that they can call up at any time to give them service. That's what they're el ected for and I sometimes wonder why the people all of a sudden say, "I want to get rid of something that's very useful to me." I find it hard to understand, Mr. Speaker, but certainly it's something the people of Winnipeg are saying, that they want to have less councillo rs. I can see the logic of it in the size of the city, that 50 would be very high and it's hard to work with. But we have cut it in half and, Mr.

Speaker, I would say that we said in the beginning of this legisla tion that we were not opposed to it and one of the reasons we're not opposed to it is that it's one of the least important things in the bill. We've changed the community committees to six and with the six community committees, you know, it makes it very easy for legisla tion next year or two years from now, that if they find thatthe people of the city are not getti ng the good representation they deserve, if they find that a man is not capable of taking care of 20,000 people on the urban scene, it can be changed.

It's a trial thing at the present time and, you know, our side has never been adverse to taking a look if there's trial. If it can work in numbers, that's fine, but it's not going to save any money and possibly it will take away better service to people. We'll see how it operates and if we have to say to people that it should go down to 12 to be good, it should go down to 10 to be good, we're going to have that opportunity in later years. It's a very easy change to make while we're in the structure of the six community committees. Mr.

Speaker, we oppose this bill because it does nothing, nothing - and I know the Minister and I have not ag reed on this through the whole session of it-t hat gives the local areas more autonomy or more control over their affairs.

Even the fact that there has to be a second meeting on the planning, etc., the community committee can have a meeting, the meeti ng is held in front of councillor s that are involved in that area and know the problems and yet it has to go downtown fora second meeting with a different group of councillors who may not even be involved, may not even be involved in that area to make the final decision.

As I said last night, I would far prefer that that final decision be made at council and I still think the municipal board is a body that is capable of looking at these situations very very log ically, or the mediation board as we used to have at Metro, I thought, was a very good working body. But, Mr. Speaker, the government does not see fit to leave this legis lation in a position of having the people within the areas make decisions over their own affairs. Mr.

Speaker, the other thing that happens very obviously in the bill, is that the City Council, although they are going to be allo wed to make up their own committees - I think that that's a step in the right direction - but the City Council still hasn't been left the real discretion as to what decisions can be made in the community committees. Those discretions are still laid out by the Provincial Government in a very wide range. I don't see that much change.

In fact, as far as the services go, the councill or is probably not going to be able to work through his area as he has been before -t hat was brought up last night in committee by my col le ague, Mr. Wilson. I've checked with councillors and as far as this is working out, they are going to see a difference of who they have to contact to get things done in their area. So we are just moving again towards large central ization. We moved . the bill along to the six community committees, which is probably not a bad idea. It might be a bad idea to have cut down the councillors - we' ll find that out.

But we didn't move along in the way we should have. Here we made the areas bigg er and really gave them less authority over their own affairs. So, that doesn't really make common sense. I know it is true, Mr.

Speaker, that it is very unpopular with the City of Winnipeg councillors and the Mayor of Winnipeg, that we would still like to see the Municipal Board involved in the financial decisions regard ing the spending of money in the City of Winnipeg and I explained last night that I'm well aware that the Municipal Board can only look at this from the point of view that the City has the abil ity to raise the money or spend the money that they are asking to borrow. And I guess the proper word is raise the money and pay it back.

The board does not really get all that involv ed with what the money is being spent for and I think I can show that in the other legisla tion. 3895

Friday, June 17, 1977 Mr. Speaker. so why not have the quasi-judicial board that we've had operating so well in the Province of Manitoba throughout for years and if it's not a good situation, why do we leave Brandon and other areas under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Board? The other area is the planning. Mr. Speaker, there is no reason for this government to have that much control over the planning. In fact, there's lots of reason why they shouldn 't and as I said last night, al l provincial govern ments are purchasing property.

This provincial government happens to have purchased a lot of property around the City of Winnipeg and I bel ieve that it would be upon the Minister of Ind ustry and Commerce, who is in charge of the Manitoba Housing and Development Corporation, to say to the Minister of Urban Affairs, "Look, I've got to have that land. I've got to have it in production." And the City of Winnipeg says, "Well, it's not really within our plan.

It's going to be too costly to do it." The·Minister of Urban affair s, the Cabinet and certainly the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of the Province of Manitoba is going to be able to say to the City, "If you don't do it, we'll do it or we' ll make you do it." That is not good legislation. That's poor leg islation when you have the two conflicting situations. Mr. Speaker, we didn't get the chance last night to speak too long on it. I think we were all very tired.

I think we all worked very hard and I would blow our own horn to say that we all deserve credit for the amount of work that's been done in this legisla ture for the past week and a half. Mr. Speaker, we did not mention the fact that the province has now le gisla ted itself out from under the jurisdiction of the City of Winnipeg as far as the provincial buildings are concerned. Mr. Speaker, it has been said in this House by members opposite that we tried it, it didn't work, we could n't live with you.

We were the first ones to give that privilege to the city to put the government under the jurisdiction of the city, but you know we couldn't get along with them. Mr. Speaker, I say that there has got to be some getting along and the getting along was starting. The Minister of Mines always brings up an area of my constituency. Did you know that that has changed so drastically that the council in St. Jame s Assiniboia voted, voted, turned down commercial and other and voted to have the public housing and senior citizen go on Country Club Road. The co-operation was starting to be done. And, Mr.

Speaker, the fault has not always laid with the city. The fault, as far as the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation is concerned -t hey blame the city for zoning and the people that they can very seriously blame is the Land Acquisition Branch of this province and the Manitoba Housing Renewal Corporation who have been having a running battle for eigh t years. And, Mr.

Speaker, I can produce the report that was done by the Management Committee for the govern ment that absolutely shows that the holdups gener ally of the MHRC were caused by the dispute going on between two departments of government and the ministers in charge of those departments have never cleaned that mess up. It's still available today. Mr. Speaker, I heard the Member from Radisson say, "the former administration" and I assure you it was not like that before, but he would n't know.

The Member from Radisson has completely fli pped in the past two months and he really doesn't seem to be responsible for what he's saying. Mr. Speaker, I say to you the other reasoning that I heard that was very good, is that the MHR C approach councils in such a way that they can't deal with them. Councill or Skowron said other people come walking in, they have worked with us, they know how we work within this community, we get things done, we have no problems.

The people representing MHR C at counsels within the city or community committees come in unprepared with an attitude that we can do whatever we damn wel l like. That was stated in Committee by councillors and I don't have to say, Mr. Speaker, that the councillor s that stated that are certainly not members of our party, and I would like to say this- that I respect them sincerely for coming forward and giving their opinions the way they did to the government. Mr. Speaker, so the Minister of Mines says, we tried it and it didn't work.

We ll, it has been starting to work and with a little more effort on the government's part, it could work. -(I nterjection)- And why couldn't we still be the first people or the first province to put that through and make it work instead of saying, "We tried it, we can't get along with you, we're not taking that nonsense from you people, out it goes." -(I nterjection)- Leg islate it out agai n. I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that that's the type of attitude that we want between the Provincial Government and the City of Winnipeg. So, Mr. Speaker, we don't support this bill for the reasons that I have stated .

The reasons are very clear that the government is not working with the city. They bel ieve they need more control over them to do as they please, and Mr. Speaker, as I said the number of councill ors is a red-herring in this bill. It's not the important part of the bill, because it's a thing that will be tried, tested, and maybe have to be changed and a very easy thing to be changed before the next elec tion. And as the city grows, I think it may have to be, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, we are opposed to this leg islation for the basic reasons that the province has done nothing to allo w people to have more control over their own destiny, but as a matter of fact, the province has taken more control over the city. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on third read ing of this bill, I think there is one basic message that we would like to convey and that is that this bill really marks , I think, a very major 3896 I

Friday, June 17, 1977 turning point in the development of local govern ment in this province. Because what it marks is a complete retreat by the Provincial Government from the ideals, principles and objectives that were set forward in the original White Paper establishing Unicity back in 1971. It will be loo ked upon, Mr. Speaker, with a great deal of reg ret by many people, because in that White Paper there were many very important and in many cases, exciting ideals and objectives.

But this retreat of the Provincial Government from its own position makes Napoleon's retreat from Moscow look like a picnic hayride in comparison. They are going much farther back in a much more torturous way than that honourable gentleman did some hundred years ago. At that time, Mr.

Speaker, the Government of Manitoba - I guess because it was still able to have a degr ee of understanding of what was going on in the urban area, its own roots hadn't become deadened, it still ha d a sensitivity to the concerns and aspirations of the people in the City of Winnipeg - understood that there were major changes going on in the city, and it needed a new and different kind of government to respond to that.

They also realized that there had to be some very skillful and important changes made from the traditional style of City Gove rnment and from the traditional set of relationships between the Provincial Government and the local government. They recogn ized that we needed a unified system that had a certain deg ree of central authority, but would also try in its utmost to maintain an opportunity for individual citizens to have access to government, to participate in its decisions , to maintain a deg ree of control and accountability in their own local areas.

So, the trick at that time and one which I think Unicity in its original construction attempted to deal with, was to have a form of be ing able to make a degr ee of central decisions, have a central administration, but maintain a decentralized political system so that there could be a high degr ee of decentralization of political forces and representa tion. We ll, Mr. Speaker, that principle has obviously been abandoned , full scale retreat from that basic principle' that they have without saying so in direct words, by their actions indicated that any attempts to decentralize the City of Winnipeg.

To al low individual citizens to have the opportunity to maintain a respon sibility for their own communities, to have some judgment and role in making decisions in their own communities has been lost. I don't need to refer, Mr.

Speaker, to any authorities other than the ND P Civic caucus that appea red before a Committee which said in very clear, unmistakable terms to the Minister and to the governme nt, "You've lost touch, you don't understand, you're going to ruin what we think is a good thing." Because, I think as councillors they understood that in its own curious, strange, awkward way, Un icity was beginning to work. It had gone throug h some very difficult periods, but it was beginning to shape out into some acceptable form of arrangements between Community Committees and Resident Advisory Groups, and the central administration.

There were problems nonethele ss, but what happened was that those problems be corrected and that the concept of the Community Committee-Res ident Advisory Group be improved upon, not destroyed. Well the end result of the amend ments on this Act will be to destroy the Community Committees and the Resident Advisory Groups. It will be virtually impossible for any sense of local dem ocracy to operate when you're dealin g on a scale of a hundred-and-some-odd thousand people.

Any attempt, and I speak for my own area, any attempt to establish a community of interest and communication between individuals stretching you know, from River Avenue to Selkirk Avenue, or to CPR bridge will simply be elimina ted. It will be very difficult to bring such large groups of people, and assume that as Resident Advisors, they are going to be able to maintain a deg ree of local concern they had about who was picking up the garbage, and the problems with the street variations in one area, and other kinds of detailed but important aspects of the ongoing lif e of a city.

The six district system as it's been establ ished will become simply a form of administrative arrangement, and that any abil ity to maintain a line of responsibility between individual citizens and those six districts, I think will be - perhaps - there will be attempts at it but over a period of time that we erodethem and perhaps I think that's really what certain members of the government certainly wanted. We know from statements having been made, that there is not a great deal of sympathy by certain senior members of the government with any form of participatory democracy as it was once understood.

They want central ization, and they want a high degree of insulation from that kind of daily representa tion and accountability of individual citizens. Wel l, Mr. Speaker, they are going to achieve that under these amendm ents, that that conceptthat was elabor ated on, and I think honestly and sincerely by the former Minister of Finance, the present Mem ber of St. Johns, has now been taken away. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, for many of us in the city who felt that that was an interesting, exciting proposal whe n it first came out, we could probably declare a day of mourning for that lost . cause.

It just simply is one more example of how this government is trenching and retreating from some previously held principles that gai ned it some applaud by people in this province. I think that they will also lose that applause very quickly as they've certainly lost the applause of their own civic members. Another basic principle tha t was elabor ated in the Un icity concept and which I think was 3897

Friday, June 17, 1977 important, was that there had to be in the new era of City Gove rnment, a deg ree of executive direction. There had to be some consistent line of policy and progr am ela borated by civic politicians. The City Government was no longer a caretaker operation, which was simply looking after the maintenance problems of an urban area.

Increa singly City Governments were going to have to get into devel opment areas, get into areas which were going to req uire long term programs, whether it's Unicity . developm ent or transportation programs, or develop ment of major water works, but it's not something that could be done on the basis of a serie of ad hoe arrangemen ts developed by sort of a log-r oll ing between individual politicians the night that council happens to meet. And therefore, it was going to req uire a different kind of executive arrangement.

I can recal l the debates that took place in this House when the Unicity principle was introduced about the form of trying to set up some sort form of paral lel to the parliamentary system. The reasons that members opposite argued - I think the Minister of Urban Affairs himself or certainly the Member for St.

Johns argued - that unless you've got that degr ee of executive direction, the abil ity to make long term decisions, to have programs that you would stick to, and that people could understand because they'd be clearly identified with one set of politicians versus another, that City Government was not going to be able to exercise its mandate to bring about more sort of entrepreneurial development activity to give the kind of program and policy that a modern day City Government requires.

And the government backstepped in one major way even during that debate, when they elimi nated the elec tion of mayor from a group of councill ors and went to the direct election of mayor under politic al pressu res at that time. Wel l, that was a step. The Taraska Report, four years later, comes alon g and says, "That has become a major problem in City Government. There is no consistent line of policy, there is no executive accountability, no one knows who's responsible for Trizec.

Is it the Mayor, is it the Executive Pol icy Committee, is it the Committee on Environment, is it individual councill ors, is it the Board of Commissioners?" There was no way of tel ling who was making decisions because everyone was blaming somebody else or saying that it was somebody else's responsibility. The Taraska Report pinpointed that as a major difficulty in City Government. Mr. Speaker, this bill does nothing to correct it. In fact, as we tried to arg ue last night, it simply exacer bates the problem. It will now create not one executive centre - it will create two executive centres.

It will create competing polls of influe nce and authority. You will then have a mayor who will be a director el ected by the people as well as by an individual group of people in a constituency, but without any direct authority for many of the key committees. He'll be a member we say. Wel l, he can also be outvoted by those committees consistently but has no way of reacting. So, people are going to say to that person, "Well, we ele cted you to take those policies and programs out, why aren't you doing it?" He says, "Sorr y, because council is different, they keep overr iding me.

All I've got is a twenty-four hour reservation" - that's the only power that the mayor has under the Act . The only power he has under the Act, the one and only power is to reserve matters for twenty-four hours. Now is that the kind of power the Premier of the Province would want to have? Would the Premier of the Province like to get along sort of in those kind of circumstances? I doubt it. The Premier of the Province, Prime Minister of a country, and a parliamentary assistant has a much greater deg ree of powers to bring about decisions than the mayor has.

And yet, the recognition at that time was that we had to change the way decisions are made at City Council. Wel l, this bill has not done that. Further, Mr. Speaker, going back to those original halcyon days, I can recall reading the report again saying that there must be a new era in the rela tionship between the province and the city. We can no longer look at each other as adversaries, that we must work out a new set of co-operative arrangements, we must give a higher degr ee of autonomy to the city so that we can deal as equals, that we can attack proble ms in a joint partnership way. Wel l, Mr.

Speaker, those things were said, they were enunc iated, they were announced and now there's been full retreat from that principle. The province has said, "Sorry, we're tired of trying to make co-operation work; we' re tired of having to try to work things out in a partnership arrangement." We are simply going to, really when you look at it, take most of the powers of City Hall, and put them on Broadway Avenue. If people really want to know, Mr. Speaker, where the real decisions are going to be made affecting the City of Winnipeg, then they are going to start looking within these corridors not down at City Hall.

Because the real abil ity, the both latent and real abil ity to make decisions, financial ly, fiscally, and in program and planning ways, will reside in the Provincial Government. So, there's no longer a question of equal arrangements. It is now superior, inferior relationships' and that is very very clear in terms of the way that this bill is constructed. They have decided they no longer want to follo w those precepts of 4 or5 years ago. They want to establish a fact, and again, I suppose that there has certainly been a deg ree of frustration. But again I think the Member from Sturgeon Creek was right.

Certa in accomodations were being made, changes were being altered and, agai n, just at the time when they were be ginning to work themselves out, there's been a total rupture of those arrangements and in fact I think that it's been gone at with a vengeance. It hasn't even been returned to the status qua, they've in fact I think, gone 3898

Frida� June 17, 1977 further. And, frankly Mr. Speaker, I'm predicting really serious trouble as a re sult of the kinds of amend ments that we've brought in in terms of the tremendous arsenal of provincial powers. The Member from Sturgeon Creek referred to the ab ility now of Manitoba Housing Renewal Corporation to basically do what it wants to do without much reference to the planning laws, and if they find those planning laws restrictive, they simply decide that they won't obey them.

There's another area that has to be eq ually looked at and that is that the whole interve ntion by the Department of Health and Social Developm ent, and the Minister of Health and Social Devel opment made I think an interesting confession during his Estimates Debates some months ago.

He admitted that one of the most perple xing problems he had to deal with is that as a govern ment they adopted the whole notion that treatment in areas of child care, penal reform, mental health, and several others like senior citizens, was going to be done on a community base, which means that you had to acq uire properties in a community area and put sort of treatment centres, day-care homes, half-way homes, etc. throug hout the city and the confession he made is, they didn't know where they were going to get all these places from.

The demand far exceeded the supply and that in certain key areas of the city, places Ii ke Wolseley, Fort Rouge, Crescentwood and those areas, you were finding some forty or fifty instal lations within 10 or 12 square blocks. I have one street in my riding, Mr. Speaker, which al most 75 percent contains different kinds of institutional care homes. There's nothing wrong with institutional care homes, but they can't all be concentrated. What this amend ment does is say that the province can decide where it wants these things to go. He doesn't have to refer it to the city, the Community Committee.

If they find that those restrictions are there, they'll just sla p them on. And I can see now individual departments without any co ordination - they may not even tel l the Minister of Ur ban Affairs what they are doing.

They simply say, you know the mental health people are going to be putting all theirs in one place, and say, "Hey, you know something, we've got a bunch of people in the child-care places next to us." There's going to be that tremendous placement of all kinds of care facilities which is going to take enormous problem of co-ordination and right now, they will not be in any way susceptible to the city responding to its own ... saying let's balance them out. It gives an awful lot of overrides in this bill, Mr.

Speaker, that I think wil l cause serious trouble s and it means that this legisla ture is now going to be the one that is going to have to be making decisions on this go vernment, not the City of Winnipeg. And yet, I would think that the City of Winnipeg is better placed to make those because that's where that kind of local grass roots decisions can be more effectively made. So, Mr. Speaker, I look forward with some expectation to the review of the City of Winnipeg Act.

I felt that it would have been an opportunity to improve upon those original principles, but I never dreamed that they would abandon the principles and retreat from them. And yet that is going to be the end effect of these laws, these amendmen ts, and therefore, Mr. Speaker, we will be voting against the bill. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I just want to participate briefly at this stage before the bill moves through the final stage in the House, because I want to register my objection to it based on one particular feature, or misfeature and that is its implied destruction of the means of local representation and local communication; in effect, the end of local govern ment. I said in debate on second reading that I regarded it as anti-people leg islation and what I meant by that and still mean by that is that it takes people out of the local govern ment picture and takes the local government picture away from people.

I want to give you an exa mple, Mr. Speaker. Seven years ago, the people of Fort Garry were about 20,000 in number and they were represented by five council lors and a mayor. Now I'm not arguing the merits of whether there should be five councillor s and a mayor or not. I want to give you an example of what's happening to the representation. Seven years ago, 20,000 people were represented by five council lors and a mayor. Tomorrow, under this legislation , 40,000 people in Fort Garry are going to be represented by one council lor.

Now, Sir, that just simply does not permit for the kind of local representation and local service that is part and parcel of municipal govern ment. I don't need to belabour the members of the House with the truth of the fact that municipal government is where everything is at; that's where individuals are able to communicate with and participate in their local community problems and talk directly, eye-bal l to eye-bal l, with their local representatives. It's crucial ly important that that kind of process, that that environment, that that capacity be maintained in a democracy.

And what we're doing, Sir, here is throwing that right out the window. Last Sunday, the three councillors in Fort Garry, who hold office at the present time under the present legisla tion, all three councillors in Fort Garry were out tal king to different residents in the constituency. I made it my business to be involved in some of the affairs of the day just to re-acquaint myself with their attention to certain problems.

All three councill ors were out working with residents, with individuals on specific local proble ms, one of them in the area of Wave rley Heig hts, the other two in other areas of the constituency. Sir, when there is only one councillor for the entire area, which is what is going to happen under this bill, that will become quite 3899

Frida� June 17, 1977 obviously quite impossible. And this is what's happening. We are goin g to see that service, that representation, that communication destroyed, gone, finished, and so it is the end of local government; and so is anti-people legis lation. I mentioned in my earl ier remarks that the deterio ration of services in areas like Fort Garry under Unicity has been marked and highly noticeable, and I am not going to belab our that point.

But there is no question that in terms of individual service, whether it be ga rbage pickup or snow removal, there has been widespread deteriora tion, there is wi despread dissatisfaction and frustration among residents of areas like mine, with the way that Uni city operates. But the bigg est deterioration comes in the abil ity and the opportunity to communicate with a representative who can do something for you. And that's going to become worse, and I submit the situation that I presented to you, Sir, as irrefutable evidence of that.

I am not going to take up any more time of the House, but I say to the Minister that this is what he is doing, he is taking local government away from the people and the people out of local govern ment. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs. HONOURABLE SAUL A. MILLER (Seven Oaks): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comme nts made by members opposite; I am not surprised at what I heard because some of it has been said before. However, I have to reject a lot of what they said. I find that there is some ambivalence, and I have to put the question. Are they for a reduction in council or aren't they?

You can't have it both ways. You cannot talk about lack of accessibil ity and lack of representation on the one hand, and then say, "Yes, we ag ree there should be a reduction in council." So you can't stretch this thing both ways. They can try it and if they want to vote against the reduction in council by voting agai nstthe bill, of course that is their privilege, and I don't question it on that basis at all. But they did make some statements which 1. think have to be responded to.

At no time did I say or did I indicate - and I want the Mem ber for Sturgeon Creek to know this - I never said that there would be savings in the administration of the City of Winnipeg because of this. That is not why it is being brought in and I wouldn't want him at any time to sugge st thatthe reason for these amend ments is because it is going to lead to a savings in somebody 's tax bill by a nickel or a dime. That was not the intent. The position being taken by some members opposite is that they deplor e the lack of autonomy within the communities.

And what they are really saying behind their words, I detect a desire to go back to the Metro days, the salad days when there were municipalities and a Metro govern ment; and annually there'd be a bickering and fighting, headlines in the paper and backbiting as between Metro and the various municipal ities because Metro was a big spender and was, in those days, to quote some of the local representatives of those days, "Metro was spend ing money like it was going out of style and not responsible to anyone" - because they didn't levy; they simply sent the bills along to the various municipal ities.

Now maybe they want to go back to Metro, and I think if you'd foll ow what they're saying to its logic al conclusion, this is really what it would end up with. It would go back to giving the communities greater power to do things within their own community, which means agai n having dif ferent programs, different levels of service, and different communities taxing accordingly with a central administration just deal ing with those common services like sewer, water, transit and so on. Wel l, those days are behind us. I don't think today anyone would want to go back to those days.

You know, in retrospect, one always looks back to the old days as being good days, but I'd remind members how they felt about the days under Metro and the friction and fighting and constant arg uments that took place between the existing municipal ities, including the City of Winnipeg and the Metropolitan Council of Greater Winnipeg. One of the members mentioned that the province has turned its back on the city. The fact of the matter is, Mr.

Speaker, I sugge st this: That what I heard it's the community committees that are given more powers, the council will somehow be given more powers than it has-a nd I know we're giving it a lot - then I can see the situation which existed in the sixties, where Metro was created and we were simply told: You're created ; you have taxing powers, you can budget, you can demand the money from the municipalitie s; you're on your own. And the provincial support financially to the Metropolitan Government of Greater Winnipeg was almo st nil, and the support to the municipal ities, of course, was even less than nil.

The fact of the matter is that this government has given financial support to the City of Winnipeg on an unprecedented scale. We recognize the importance of the City of Winnipeg within the context of Manitoba because it is simply a city within Manitoba. It doesn't represent all of Manitoba, but we recog nize that it is an important component of the Province of Manitoba, and we've supported it in every way with resources far beyond which would ever be considered for Greater Winnipeg. So to say that we are not working with the city is simply not true.

There's never been a closer rela tionship, a closer working rela tionship, a better attempt to work with the city and understand the city's problems than there has been in the last few years. And I think the el ected people of the City of Winnipeg will have to acknowledge that, those that were there before this present form of government. 3900

Friday, June 17, 1977 There is concern expressed about the powers of the province, saying that the province really has all the power. Wel l, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that today under the existing Act, the province certainly has great powers. The city government, if it wants to undertake certain major projects and wants cost-sharing, has to come to the province, and to the extent that the province ag rees or disagrees, that is a great deal of power. That has always been the case.

The difference, of course, is that in these days and during the last few years, we do grant considerable moneys to the city, and cost-share in many programs which in the past didn't exist. But to say that we are not working with the city is simply not val id, and they'll be the first to admit it. The powers that we are retaining are the powers with regard to the issuing, the capital borrowing of the city. And it's a question really of who should have it, the municipal board or the Minister of Finance.

The city council itself has expressed the desire that it not be under the municipal board because they'd rather deal with somebody who is el ected and has to answer to the el ectorate than to a group of appointed officials. And so we are agreei ng with that. With regard to planning, zoning, etc., there are only two areas that are still going to be subject in any way to the province: the larger, Greater Winnipeg Development Plan which is a tri-level operation, and the Community Plan . These are general plans setting a direction in which a city will grow. And there the province must play a role as it does today.

It req uires provincial concurrence because it affects not just the City of Winnipeg, it affects the periphery of Winnipeg and goes far beyond the bounda ries of Winnipeg as to what happens. So therefore, the province has to have that input. In any other area, we are now totally relieving the City of Winnipeg from having to go through the process of holding certain hearings and sending it on to the Minister who then has the option of rejecting it or sending it to the municipal board where more hearings take place.

I suggest that in practice, it will work wel l, and I suggest that in practice, it will speed up the operation somewhat and give the city more latitude to make determinations than it has up to now. Because I can tell you honestly from my own experience, getting an appeal from people about certain zoning in a block or a corneror a piece of land and trying to get staff to listen to the tapes, it's almo st impossible to make a valid judg ment. I feel the city council, in the final analysis, should make that judgment.

Therewi ll be hearings at the community committee - citizens, because they're losing the right to appeal to the Minister, will have a right to appeal to another committee of council. But again it will the el ected representatives who makes the decisions based on the needs, not just of that particular community, but based on the larger needs, bcause we have to recog nize that although there will be six communities, they are still part of a single Winnipeg . To me it's incomprehensible to suggest that each community can do its own thing. It has to fit in to the whole.

And unle ss it fits into the whole, you are not going to get a city that is wel l planned; you are going to get friction, you are going to get some areas pushing for one as against another, and if you give them the authority, then you're going to get the kind of parochialism that I hope we are going to overcome.

Because now the communities being larger, the councill ors are going to have to, whether they're el ected or not, they're are going to have to address themsel ves to problems beyond their own ward, beyond the narrow, smaller areas which they now represent; they're going to be seized of the larger problems.

And we know for a fact that in 1974, when two wards which had been in a former northend constituency were attached to East Kildonan - I bel ieve it was acknowledged at the public hearings - that in fact, it worked out better because for the firsttime, the council is sitting in the East Kildonan Community Committee, recognized that there were problems in Elmwood which it should n't ignore, but now that it was part of their own community, had to add resss themselv es to them.

So I think we'll overcome one of the problems that the review committee pinpointed time and aga in-t he degr ee of parochial ism that existed. And it will give that kind of long-term direction which I feel and I ag ree is so necessary. So to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is a new era, whether it be in the province or in the city, that we're now turning our back and working with the city, just isn't so. We have indicated by our track record that we worked very closely with the city; that we recognized the importance of the city, and that we will continue to work with them as we have in the past.

You know, the fact is that some of the arguments I am heari ng now are the same arg uments that I heard in 1971 when we talked about people's access to governme nt and so on and so forth. I don't think it will be diminished. The community committee is still availa ble to the residents, the Resident Advisory Groups will still be in existence; and the councill ors, as they are now, are in the Act, are req uired to hear the Resident Advisory Groups, and then to convey to the central council. Even in the existing Act, the community committee cannot act as if they were a council on their own.

All they can do is convey to the larger council and to the central authority the views of their particular areas. They never did have in the existing Act and don't have now the power to actually legisla te, which I think some members would like to see ws go back to. So Mr. Speaker, with those few words, I regret that the members opposite are not prepared to 3901

Friday, June 17, 1977 approve this bill. I belie ve the bill is a logic al second step to the evolution of the rela tionship between the province and the city; it gives the city more powers, administratively, certainly they never had before. I do not acknowled ge that the position of the mayor has diminished; if anything, I think it's enhan ced.

He is now ex-officio on every committee; he will have a deciding vote in the case of a tie and EPC, and at council; and therefore this puts him in a position where because of that, plus the fact that he can stay a motion till the next subsequent meeting, I think the accountability will be far more cle ar than it is today. Because by staying a motion, then he can force the council to reconsider something, that is accountability, then it will show up. By using his tie-breaking vote, again accountability will very easily surface. So Mr.

Speaker, I bel ieve that as I said, what we' re doing is correct, and I think events will prove us right. We've achieved what I think is a happy medium between on the one desire, access to representatives, responsible govern ment; at the same time, a somewhat more efficient manner of handling the city, so they are not bogged down because of the size of council or because it's unwieldy. We've given them the kind of scope that they now have. And as I indicated when I introduced this bill, I congratulated the mayor and the council for what they had done up to now.

I predict that I'll be here to congratulate the mayor and the council for what they'll do in the future. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. GR EEN: Division, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: On division, very wel l, so ordered . MR. GREEN: Division being the Conservatives and the Liberals, nay; and the government yeas. Bill No. 26, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I adjou rned debate on this bill ea rlier this week simply because I had been asked a couple of questions about it, and I wanted to investigate and respond to the technical ities raised.

I have done so and satisfied with the enquir y, and I am satisfied with the bill as I was on second reading, and I am prepared to pass it, Sir. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. GR EEN: Bill No. 65, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. GEORGE HENDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I adjourned that for the Member for Fort Garry. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for For t Garry. MR. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I am opposed to Bill 65 and have so sugge sted the position of opposition to my col leagues, for the simple reason, Sir, that the bill in the prescription for time and three-q uarters as an overtime rate will further damage the economy of this province. There were some amend ments made to the bill at committee stage which improved it, but the essential feature remains, Sir, and that is going to time-and-three-q uarters on overtime, or add ing in the particular fringe benefits that would then serve as part of the surcharge imposed on elo yers in the area of doing business.

I don't feel, Sir, that the option provided by the Minister with respect of fringe benefits, changes the impact of the effect of the bill as far as el oyers in this province are concerned in any way. I bel ieve that the effect will be to reduce productivity and to reduce the opportunity for workers to earn overtime money and to cause consumers to pay more for goods and services in the marketplace. That, Sir, is a rather destructive col lection of features.

And it's because of that destructive impact that it will have on our economy, which is in difficulty and is struggling at the present time, that the Conservative Party opposes Bill 65. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, on second read ing I indicated I would like to see the bill go to Committee so we can hear the representations and that has happened and I indicated my position in Ind ustrial Relations Committee that unless the Minister made some changes I could not supportt he bill.

I know on introduction of the bill on second reading the Minister of Labo ur indicated he would reall y have an open mind and listen to all s

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-4-84b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 4th hansardpdf 84b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	fd66031a56d516242feb2446d3ead429e5941a9b

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