Manitoba Hansard — 25 March 1960 (Sitting 55, 26th Legislature, 2nd Session)

26-2-55

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly Of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable A. W. Harrison 2nd Session, 26th Legislature Printed by R. S. Evans, Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitob�. Winnipeg

DAILY INDEX Friday, March 25th, 1960, 8:00p.m. Committee Report: Law Amendments (Mr. Lyon) .• •• • .•• •• . •• •• •• •... •• .•• 1919 Bill 133, re Superannuation (Mr. Evans) 2nd Reading •. •• • •. •• .•.• •• •. . ••• • .• 1919 Bill 98, re Sunday Sports, 2nd Reading .•.•.•• .••• •. .••. .• •.•.• ••• •• •• •• •• . 1920 Bill 82, re Dental Association, 2nd Reading •• •• .•.• •• •.•. .•.• •. • .•• .• • •. •• • 1932 Budget Debate: Mr. Roberts ... . .. .. .. _ .......... . .... . .......... ..... .. .. . 1942 Mr. Christians on •• •• . .•• .•. .• •• •. •• .• .•.... • ••• • .• .• ••.••. 1946 Mr. Molgat; Division (am.) .• •••• •.•. • •.• • •.• ••• .• •• .• • •.••• 1947

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8:00 PM, Friday, March 25, 1960 Opening prayer by Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions. Reading and Receiving Petitions Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees. HON. STERLING R. LYON (Attorney-General)(Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I beg to pre sent the te.nth report of the Select Standing Committee on Law Amendments. · MR. CLERK: Your select standing committee on Law Amendments beg leave to present the following as their tenth report. Your committee has considered Bill No. 82,

an Act to amend the Dental Association Act and has agreed to report the same without amendments, all which is respectfully submitted. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker,·l beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce that the report of the committee be received. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Notice of motion Introduction of Bills Order of the Day Committee of the Whole House. MR . N. SHOEMAKER (Gladstone): Mr.

Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are pro ceeded with I would like to direct a couple of questions to the Honourable the Minister of Agri culture, if I may and I must apologize for not having given him notice, but these are the ques tions: How are the agents for the crop insurance areas selected? And do they have to have an insurance agent's licence before they can take application? And what is the rate of commission paid to them? And what was the procedure in appointing the agents? HON. GEO. HUTTON (Minister of Agriculture)(Rockwood-Iberville): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take the questions as notice. MR .

SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier)(Wolsel ey): Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we proceed first of all with the second reading of Bill 133,

an Act to amend the Civil Service Superannua tion Act. MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 133. The Honourable Minister of Indttstry and Commerce. HON. GURNEY EVANS (Minister of Industry & Commerce)(Fort Rouge) presented Bill No. 133,

an Act to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act, for second reading, and refer red to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Speaker put the question. MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I think the two principle points ln this Bill were mentioned at the committee stage; first, that on July 1st and thereafter all civil servants in the Civil Service will be required to join the Superannuation Fund; second, all civil servants on leaving the Superannuation Fund may take with them their own contribution no matter how short their service.

There are other matters in the Bill having to do mainly with the joining of the Mani toba Hospital Service Association staff with the Hospital Service Plan and also certain employ ees of the Winnipeg Electric. There was a technical diff iculty developed there and the Act is intended to correct it. 1'IR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition){Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I only. have one main question; probably there'll be others later on.

Jlm quite willing to see the Bill go to Committee of the Whole but I would like to ask the Minister when he closes the debate if he would inform the Committee, if he hasn't done so already, that the changes that are made re Withdrawals from the Civil Service Superannuation Fund, that those sections have been recom mended by the Civil Service Superannuation Board, if that's the proper name. MR. J. M. HAWRYLUK (Burrows): Mr. Speaker. with regard to the fact that any em pl�yee wishes to leave, you say that he can withdraw all hts pension money; but that doesn't in clude the interest on that does it?

March 25th, 1960 .. Page 1919

MR. EVANS: If there are nofurther questions then, Mr. Speaker, the answer to my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition--! think the answer to the question raised- by my friend the Leader of the Opposition as to whether these changes are recommended by the Board of the Superannuation F:und, the answer is "yes". The answer to my honourable friend about the interest on the money, the answer is "no". Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Committee of the Whole House. MR. 0. BAIZLEY (Osborne): Mr.

Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Assiniboia that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve it self into Committee to consider the following Bills. Mr. Speaker put the question. HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier)(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, we're asking for leave to con sider Bill 82 as well. Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried am the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House. MR. SPEAKER: Would th� Honourable Member for St. Matthews please take the Chair? Bill No. 98, sections 1 to 3 (a) (

i) were read. MR. ROBLIN: I think that when we're dealing with

section 3 we have come to the sec tion that caused us a little trouble this morning and I undertook to have the legal advisor of the Committee of the Chamber to prepare some alternative amendments. Now I think members of the Committee have in their hands three different alternatives; one, which is appropriately not labelled the first alternative, is the one which gives you a non-profit, the principle of the non profit organizations; the' second one, includes in the

definitions non-profit and amateur; the third one that is marked Prefontaine on my copy, is the suggestion of the Honourable Member from Carillon that we define amateur as being a person who gets less than half of his living from performing that particular kind of thing, and in deference to his view we thought we'd pre pare that amendment as well. So now there are the three alternatives before the Committee and perhaps some member would like to move one of them so that we can continue with the dis cussion. MR. L. DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Mr. Chairman, ••.. • one referred to as the 11Prefontaine" amendment? Is that this one: no person shall nnder the authority of the by-law enacted under

section 4, provide or produce (

a) a public game or contest; or (

b) a performance to which clause (

a) of subsection (1) applies; if any of the persons playing, participating, engag ing or performing therein derives more than half his income from playing, participating, en gaging or performing, (

c) in a case to which clause (

a) applies, in games or other athletic con test or sports; or (

d) in a case to which clause (b)applles in performances, exhibitions or shows of any kind. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, I want to take the opinion of the House on this point. I'm wondering whether it would be easier to discuss this matter if someone first moved the most extreme of these amendments then we worked our way down the scale, we'd see how far we could get and would get probably a quicker way of sounding out the opinion of the Chamber than by the honourable member moving the one he just moved.

And that we mean that we would first deal with the amendment that's called the "second alternative" which calls for both non profit and amateur in order to qualify. Now if that one failed to carry then we could proceed down the line. That would be the logical way to do it I would suggest. If it carries then it ex cludes the others. So while it's entirely up to the Committee to do as it sees best I offer that sugg�stion with the view to dealing with the matter in as orderly a way as I can think of. I might be wrong on it but I make the suggestion in any case. MR. DESJARDINS: •. .... , Mr. Chairman.

But we have a fourth case, the definition of an amateur, that is something that we'll deal with later on or-- MR. ROBLIN: Yes, if the second alternative carries then that definition of amateur goes with it. Who wants to move the second alternative? MR. R. PAULLEY (Leader of the CCF)(Radisson): Mr. Chairman, I'll move the second alternative in order to have it before the Committee. MR. E. PREFONTAINE (Carillon): Mr. Chairman, may I ask the First Minister first if the suggestion that's under my name, is that the third alternativ�J? Mig;ht; it not be the fir.st? Page 1920 March 25th, 1960

., MR. ROBLIN: Well, it's a matter of opinion, Sir, but I think the most severe and re strictive of these amendments is the one we should deal with first. If that's defeated then we move to one less restrictive. Obviously that would be the way to proceed with it I think. And as I judge it, the most severe and restrictive is the one that's called "second alternative" and that's the one that's just been moved by the Honourable Leader of the CCF. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 3 (a)--first alternative--is that the one? MR. ROBLIN: Second alternative is the one we should .••••• now. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman., there's only one thing though-that sounded good at first !Jut I for one, if this one of Prefontaine would not be agreed upon, I don't think that we should discriminate against one or the other. If tt•s amateur it should be amateur all the way through, so I don't think it matters very much which way you start you'll have trouble. You practically have to deal with the three together. . MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, I've moved the second alternative now which reads (

a) any non-profit organization may provide or produce (

i) a public game or contest or (ii) a per formance (Ui) a performance that is a concert, recital or other musical performance of an artistic or cultural nature. MR. ROBLIN: Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't like to interrupt my honourable friend but those (iPs) are alternative. You see we have all the possible alternatives that were mentioned here. You have to chose between the double {U1s). I'd like to suggest to my honourable friend that he pick the first one. MR. PAULLEY: That's the double (

U) on the first alternative. MR. ROBLIN: That's right. MR. PAULLEY: Well, I'm very amiabie tonight and I'll pick the alternative double{ii) on the first alternative to include in my. motion on the second alternative, if that makes sense. MR. ·R. G. SMELLIE (Birtle-Russell): Mr. Chairman, there is a second alternative, I believe, Mr. Chairman--(interjection)--We have (

i) and double {U), and then we have an alter native double (U). MR. ROBLIN: Oh, that's right. Just cross off that second double {H). MR. PAULLEY: Yes, cross out the "a performance"--a performance that is a concert, recital or other musical performance of an artistic or cultural nature. MR. ROBLIN: Well now, my honourable friend realizes that that's restricting a per- formance of music only. That's what you want? MR. PAULLEY: Musical performance of an artistic or cultural nature. A MEMBER : Is there a lawyer in the House? MR. PAULLEY: And triple {Ui) each of the participants in which is an amateur; and (iv) at which an admission fee is charged; and (

v) that, but for this Act, would be unlawful un der

section 6 the Lord's Act (Canada). I move that subject to making a suggestion under the definition of an amateur which is in this other sheet-! don't know know what number that is called, but it defines an amateur and a participant. I think that is something separate. MR. ROBLIN: We can deal with that when we come to it. MR. PAULLEY: Yes, so therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move for the purpose of the dis cussion the second alternative, and the alternative double (li) in this before us. MR. CHAIRMAN: ••.• •• all clear. . Have you? � . . • . • sheets of paper here, and at the top,

section 3 in brackets (

a) and it has been moved by the Honourable the Leader of the CCF (

a) any non:.. profit organization may provide or produce (

i) a public game or contest; and the· second of the (it'

s) a performance that is a concert, recital or any other musical performance of an artistic or cultural nature that ts specified tn the by-law; and (Ui) each of the participants in which is an amateur; and (iv) at which an admission fee is charged; and (

v) that, but for this Act would be unlawful under

section 6 of the Lord's Act (Canada). MR. D. ORLIKOW (St. John's): Mr. Speaker, just one question--under this proposal as I read it I assume that the symphony concert at which they charge admission would not be permissible because the musicians are paid. MR. ROBLIN: If they're not amateurs. MR. ORLIKOW: Fine, that's all I want to know. HON. STEW ART E. McLEAN (Minister of Education)(Dauphin): Mr. Chairman, I should like to move a further amendment or sub-amendment that after the words "non-profit" the words March 25th, 1960 Page 1921

(Mr. McLean, cont'd.) •. "and amateur" be added, so that it would then read "any non-profit and amateur organization may provide" etcetera. Now I am certain that someone will say that this is repetition but I think tt--and I don't claim any great distinction from my wording--if I had perhaps a Uttle longer to think about it I might word it somewhat more aptly. But what I am anxious to establish is that we are dealing with not only amateur players but amateur organ izations as well and I think that should be quite clear. MR. R. 0. LISSAMAN (Brandon): Mr.

Chairman, I may be particularly dense tonight but why do we not consider the definition of an amateur first? · MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think this is definite as it is and we come into the definition of an amateur afterwards in the

definitions. MR. M. E. McKELLAR (Souris-Lansdowne): Mr. Chairman, •. .••• with Mr. Ltssa man define the definition of amateur. I think in the sports we have today in our province that a great deal of them will be outlawed. I know our junior hockey in Manitoba will be outlawed. I am very interested in this because I think also that most of our amateur baseball will be out lawed--(interjection)--because there is a number of players who are paid. --(interjection)- Thl;ly1re paid. I know they're paid. I helped pay some of them when I was managing a ball club. I know that. That's true.

And I'm very interested in this because I know there is going to have to be a good deal of investigating at a number of events that'take place, whether in organized sport or unorganized. I am interested in this. MR. E. I.

DOW (Turtle Mountain): I think you will have to agree that amateur as far as Sunday baseball is concerned, particularly in tournament ball, if you are an amateur when you start out and you are playing for a cash prize you then are not an amateur. --(interjection)- Well that's all right, a ·certificate or a medal or something, but I think if you follow the true meaning of amateur as we relate it to olympic sports, it's something of a medal or certificate, but when you step into the field of playing tournament baseball, though you be classed an ama teur, in the true sense of the word you become a professional as soon as you participate for prize money.

MR. E. GUTTORMSON (St. George): Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain is wrong and the member for Souris-Lansdowne is correct. There are a large number of ball players in this province who go out for hire at ball tournaments in the province. They are paid a specific sum before they leave. They are told we'll pay you $25 for the day, and this is nonsense to say that they get money after they are guaranteed money before they ever go onto the ball diamond. MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE, Q. C. (Selkirk): Well what does that make them, professional or amate.ur? MR. GUTTORMSON: Well, that's the point. MR.

DESJARDINS: Well, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't matter if they win or lose--fuey get the money--they get the money--not as soon as they start playing--because they are play ing for something, therefore they are professional. And that's why I think probably that--it's not what I wanted in Committee--but probably if we did adopt this clause that will come on later the suggestion of Mr. Prefontaine would be about the easiest one because the real definition of an amateur--practically no one will be in th.ere, especia�this definition of amateur that we have here. It says even those that at any time played for money.

Even some of the real minor kids receive hockey sticks--therefore they're not amateurs� They're given hockey sticks, some skates, or they're playing for a jacket--the winners will get a jacket at the end of the year. It's very, very hard, in fact I say it's practically impossible to define an amateur. Everybody has a diff erent opinion of the word amateur. Because of the society that we live in now it's practically impossible, but I think all that could be arrived at if we did--still it's not profession al sport.

We wouldn't have the professional Warriors; we wouldn't have the Goldeyes; and we wouldn't have the Bombers, because they are definitely paid and they derive more than half their livelthood from that. So I think that that would answer pretty well every case. It would give us the definition of amateur the way we want, some way that it's feasible, and it would be strictly amateur sports. I think the idea was this morning to keep the big three, the Goldeyes, the Warriors, and the Bombers out.· I th_ink that was the •.. I'm not keeping them out-- MR.

CHAIRMAN: We have before us at the present time this motion concerning the question of non-profit organizations, and not dealing at the present time with the definition of amateur.· That will come' afterwards. Page:l922 March· 25th, 1960

- - -.· MR. HUTTO N: Mr. Chairman, before we:--I don't thl.nk you can deal with this question that is before us now without looking at the question of amateur because it's a component part of this resolution, this clause that is under consideration. There isn't anyone in this assembly that wants to see sport protected, sport for sport's sake protected more than I do, but I think we've got to be realistic about this. I think it's very foolish to pass a piece of legislation that the people of Manitoba are not going to respect. This is just ridiculous.

We have a responsi bility here to pass a piece of legislation that is going to command the respect of the people of this province and a piece of legislation that they'll abide by. And anything less than that we're just wasting our time. · On this question of amateur sports. Anyone here who has attended a Sunday school pic nic or a school picnic in the last ten years will realize that the kids themselves from six years old won't run except for money. And I've paid out enough of it to know.

When I was a kid I went to a local school picnic and my dad gave me a quarter and anything that I needed above that 25� I could run for it or jump for it. This has been going on for--not ten years, 20 years, 30 years. Now to define amateur sport as a sport in which the participant receives no remuner ation whatsoever is just riot looking the facts in the face; we're hiding our heads in the sand; and I think that any definition that we put on amateur sport must be realistic in terms of what is going on in the country 'round about us. That's all I have to say. :MR. E. PREFONTAINE (Carillon): Mr.

Chairman, I arrived at a suggestion this after noon that would solve. the problem to quite an extent. It would eliminate the money great play ers like the Blue Bombers and others, but it would allow the so-called amateur that we have in our province to engage in these sports. They are receiving token amounts of money. They are not receiving the major source of livelihood or half their l.ivelihood from this source--they could be considered as amateurs. And I think that if I should make this motion it might meet with the pleasure of the members of this House.

Now the motion that I have before me has been pre pared by the Legislative Council. To my mind it is not as clear and as simple as I had propos ed it this afternoon, but the idea is there and it is in legal form. And it would amend

section 3 by adding as a subsection 1, all the present subsection and then adding another subsection to be called subsection 2, and it would read this way: "No person shall under the authority of a by-law en acted under

section 4" (that's the following one) "provide or produce (

a) a public game or con test; or (

b) a performance; to which clause (

a) of subsection (1) applles; if any of the persons playing, participating, engaging or performing therein or thereat derives more than half his income from playing, participating, engaging or performing, (

c) in a case to which clause (

a) applies, in games or other athletic contests or sports; or (

d) in a case to which clause (

b) ap plies, in performances, exhibitions, or shows of any kind." ·This carries in itself a definition of an amateur. An amateur is one who doesn't derive more thaii-half his livelihood from sports or a game; and a professional is one who would derive more than half his income from such games . . . . . So I think that might meet the pleasure of the House. 1\t!R. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether I'll be successful in this little en deavour, but I'd like to say that I think we're dealing with two matters at once here.

I think that we can deal on its own with the proposition moved by the Honourable Leader of the CCF be cause the principle behind that amendment is to introduce the amateur principle into the original Bill. If we pass the amendment proposed by the Leader of the CCF Party we are then declar ing that we are moving the amateur principle into the main Bill. Now that's one issue. When we've done that, we have to decide what an amateur is. Then we have two choices if we follow this drafting here.

The one choice is the very strict one that my honourable friend behind me just spoke aboLlt; the second choice is the one that's been suggested by the Honourable Member for Cartllm;t. So I suggest that what we should do is decide now whether we want to bring the amateur principle into this Bill. If we do then we vote for the amendments that's just been moved. When that has been settled then we can say how strict or how ,loose we want to regard the definition of the term amateur. MR.

CHAffil\tiAN: I think the motion of the Honourable the Minister of Education should come to--for us to decide whether you want the word "amateur" in. :MR. ROBLIN: Oh, I am sorry, Sir. I overlooked the fact that that motion is before us. I think that it's quite proper to d�al with that �ub-atpendment an� then the amendm_ent moved by March 25th, 1960 ·- Page i923

'(Mr. Roblin, cont'd.) •. the Leader of the CCF; then we get back onto the definition. MR. CHAffiMAN: The Honourable Minister of Education. MR . McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, so that this won't be lost sight of, I want to if I may, emphasize what to me seems to be the importance of this, and it's been illustrated by the dis cussion that has taken place so far in describing amateur players, and I follow that all right.

But I want to emphasize the--or just make this point, that it would be quite possible for a com mercial or professional organization to engage in this type of thing by engaging people who_ could qualify as amateur players under whatever definition we accept here. And I think, if I may say, the non-profit aspect doesn't help us very much because it may easily be that a com mercial organization would be a non-profit organization when they would cast up their accounts. And what we want to make sure is that the organizations promoting this are truly "amateur or ganizations".

Now I wish I had a better wording but that's what I think is most important that it must not only be amateur players but it must be amateur organizations that are promoting this. MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman , just on that point._ I think the Honm�rable the Minister of Education is trying to get us to restate and tighten up the Lord's Day Act (Canada) rather than the Lord's Day Act (Manitoba) because a professional, commercial organization such as the Warriors can play hockey .legally in Manitoba today so long as (

a) they don't pay their players or the attendants and so on who go to the rink; and (

b) no one pays to get into the theatre or to the arena. Now I can't for the life of me, with all due respect to my colleague see why he is trying to tighten up on the Lord's Day Act (Canada) when the purpose of this legislation is to re lieve against some of the stringencies of that Act under the present provincial legislation. And so I say that his suggested sub-amendment is unrealistic; it should not be supported by the House because it's restating and tightening the present federal legislation as it stands.

And I can't for the life of me see why I, or anyone else in the House should support that, because this is not what we are attempting to do in this Bill. MR . JAMES COWAN (Winnipeg Centre): Mr. Chairman, I think that this alternative that Mr . Paulley Introduced Isn't one that fits what we want because it says, "each of the parti cipants in which is an amateur", and that includes participants in a musical performance. And I think we are agreeable to the idea that there be paid persons taking

part in a musical per formance. --(interj ection)--! think we are. And I think that this one marked

section 3 (

a) first alternative gets around that because it refers only to amateurs in relationship to games or con tests and that one expresses our views better using (a) (

i) and the second, double (ii) about a musical performance. And I would move that we accept that one, and then we discuss the ques tion of what an amateur is with (

i) and double (li)--tlie second (ii). MR . CHAffiMAN: We have one motion here before us moved by the Honourable the Min ister of Education that (

a) read "and any non-profit amateur organization". Now we are ready for that question? MR. LISSAMAN: I'd like to return to my first argument. How can we possibly decide on whether we are going to have amateurs engaged or not when we haven't come to the conclu sion of what an amateur is? There's probably 57 meanings right in this Chamber as to what an amateur is. And in any Bill that we consider we have the

definitions first. Now, you might say we'll include amateurs, but the meaning of an amateur might not be the meaning of an ama teur which I would accept and I might have voted for something which I know not what I am vot ing for. MR . CHAffiMAN: I_ think each member has before him a slip which has the definition of amateur. MR. G. W. JOHNSON (Assiniboia): I thi'nk that it's quite evident to all the members here that we'll talk like this all week-errd. We'll never define what an amateur is to the satis faction of all the members.

Why not leave it up to the Amateur Athletic Union of Canada to de- fine what an amateur is. -- MR. D. M. STANES (St. James): Mr. Chairman, from what I have heard here this evening and this afternoon it seems to me that we are not concerned with the amateur. The people whom we are concerned with 8-nd wish to include are people who are receiving remuner ation or compensation. Therefore I see no point in trying to define amateur but rather define the people who we wish to include. Page 1924 March 25th, 1960

MR. CHAIRMAN: Might I remind the members that this is not the moment where you are de:fming the term amateur? You have first of all to have something to work on and then If you have amateur, then having determined that, then you de:fme what is meant by amateur. MR. HUTTON: Mr. Chairman, there is no alternative to amateur before us� There is only "amateur" set-out very stringently here and I can't find any alternative to this. The Hon ourable Member for Carillon is not an alternative to amateur. The clause that's set out here is a particular--deals with the whole thing, not with amateur alone. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The First Minister moved that we first of all consider the second alternative, which i.'s the one before us here. MR. F. GROVES (St. Vit:tl): Well, that's right, Mr. Chairman, but I think that the Honourable Member from Brandon is correct because as the Bill stands now it states that any non-profit organization can hold a game or contest or a performance. Now there are a number, including myself, who don't feel that we want professional sportsmen, professional teams, or professional performers performing on Sundays, but we are willing to go along with amateur sport.

So assuming that we accept this motion that .has been put before us by the Honourable Leader of the CCF Party, and then we go ahead and we define amateur as being something that is almost professional, then I and the Honourable Member from Brandon are in the position of having to support something with which we don't agree. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, I might say that the same thing would hold true in re verse.

Now I am sure that the objective before all of us in respect of this Bill allowing the ex ception to Sunday sports is primarily, that at any competition for which a fee i.s charged, we want it to be "amateur" as distinct from "professional". And I think you are quite correct, Mr. Chairman, that that is the point in question before the House at the present time, because in the resolution that I moved, namely the second alternative, and the second alternative insofar as performance i.s concerned, states in there that each of the participants must be an amateur.

Now then, we may not agree at the present moment on what an amateur is. And I am sure even after a definition of amateur has been agreed upon by a majority, the minority won't agree with it in any case. But I think the main principle that we're trying to establish in this, that any ex ceptions to the Lord's Day Act shall be only those in which amateurs are engaged. And I sug gest, Mr. Chairman, that that is the point before the House at the present time. There have . been placed before us some alternatives or some suggestions of what a definition of amateur will be.

But I suggest that the arguments put up, that we've first of all got to define an ama teur isn't a proper one; that the question before the House is basically If we are going to allow exceptions to the Lord's Day Act, that it shall be only in respect of amateurs, and I think that is the question that should be resolved so we can do i.t. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, that isn't right at all. How can you vote on some thing and say I am for the principle of amateur or I'm not when you don't know what amateur means? I think it's been made very clear from the Honourable Member from Brandon and the member for St.

Vital; but I think that the main thing is we have to have the alternative now to see what amateur is, first of all. How cim we decide we're for the principle of amateur or we 're for the pros, if we don't know what the word amateur is? We have to define, first of all, what we think amateur is. Once we have that we will go.on the principle. I can't see--we're voting on a principle that we don't know what the principle is. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The motion is that we accept the second alternative and the a�pend- ment is that we insert after the word non-profit , "amateur organizations". · Mr � Chairman presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the amendment lost. MR. CHAIRMAN: Now then, the motion before us is the motion of ...... . MR.

COW AN: I move amendment to the motion; that we make use of the paper in front of us; that we use theone in front of us called "first alternative" and use the second double (ii) and in that way we relate the word amateur to a person who participates in a public game or con test, and it doesn't relate to a person who participates in a musical concert.

Whereas if we pass the proposal of Mr. Paulley's then it would mean that the performer in a musical concert would have to be an amateur. So if we pass this one called "first alternative" it will mean we could have paid musicians at a musical concert but they must be amateurs at a game or contest; and include the second (ii). March 25th, 1960 Page 1925

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second alternative is before. us and I am going to call for the question, on this one that is before us now. Mr. Chairman presented the motion. A MEMBER: I moved on the first alternativP., with the second ..... . MR. CHAIRMAN: In my opinion the nays have it. Well we'll have a show of hands. Those in favour of the second alternative. MR. E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhead): Mr. Chairman, I for one don't !mow ..... MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment please. There is enough confusion with all these sheets of paper here but I think we can get along all right if we just move quietly. The motion then is --I'll read it again because I wasn't satisfied as to the way the vote went: (

a) any non profit organization may provide or produce (

t) a public game or contest and the second double (ii) a performance that is a concert, recital or other musical performance in artistic or cul tural nature that is specified in the by-law and triple (iii) each of the participants in which is an amateur and (iv) and which an admission fee is charged and (

v) that but for this Act would be unlawful under

Section 6 of the Lord's Day Act, (Canada). I'm going to ask now--we had a voice vote --I'm going to call for a standing vote on that. Those in favour of that please stand, Yeas 26; Nays, 21. I declare the motion carried. MR. SMELLIE: Mr. Chairman, I would move that the present

Section 3 be numbered Subsection 1 and we add Subsection 2, the clause which is listed and marked 'limitation' at the side. MR. PREFONTAINE: I don't !mow if I can move it now. I have received a letter from the Legislative Counsel in which he says: "I do not think you can work your proposed amendment in with the others proposed as it is contradictory in some measure." I'm not too clear now whether this can be moved at the present time although it does tell us what an amateur means or signifies. If it is proper to move it, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move it. MR.

ROBLIN: I'd better help my honourable friend resolve this di).emma. We are meeting in committee here and maybe it wouldn't be too much to ask our friend who drafted these things to come down here and take a chair with the Clerk and give us some advice on the drafting. MR. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, before that point arrives, I wonder if I could raise this point. That the obvious intention here is not to allow anyone for example who is a hockey player to earn his winter income anymore than 50% from playing hockey.

I see a situation here where someone might be employed as a full-time hockey player in the winter time but work at some thing else in the summertime, and he would not earn more than half his income from hockey. MR. PREFONTAINE: I would want to make it as far as his major income while engaged in one sport of the other. MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to try not to confuse the issue further if that is possible at this stage, and I've contributed to some of the confusion that has arisen to date.

Now I think for want of a better word, will call the 'Prefontaine amendment' in due deference to the Honourable Member from Carillon, I think that perhaps suggests what a lot of us are thinging that there is a connotation of amateurism there that we like. A connotation of amateurism there that is feasible and one that would work into

an Act; one that would not circumscribe this legis lation or circumscribe the activities that are carried on under it. But I do raise the question . for consideration of the committee as to whether or not this might be re couched in different terms. Now having passed the second alternative which we have before us, we say that each of the participants in which is a.'1 amateur; now we must get down to the question of determining what an amateur is and I think we can do that with the amendment brought forward by the Honour able Member from Carillon.

If we rather than put it in the positive as it is here, rather put it in the negative and say that no person who earns more than half of his income from the activities of sport or the cultural activity can participate. Now if I may be so bold as to express the opinion, I think that we have made a slight mistake in the amendment we just passed when we say that each of the participants in which is an amateur, because if there is one of those people who is not an amateur under the subsequent definition we are to make then that disqualifies the whole team.

It doesn't give the team the right to disqualify just the man although --(Interjection) - yes they could, they could take the man off. I'm thinking perhaps, and I stand subject to Page 1926 March 25th, 1960

(Mr. Lyon, cont'd.) •.• correction by the Honourable Member from Wellington, but I think of the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra. We heard in committee this afternoon that the bulk of those people who play in the Orchestra, under the Honourable Mexgbel:'" from Carillon's amend ment, would be amateurs because they earn less than half of their salaries from the Symphony Orchestra. But what about the conductor of that orchestra? The conductor probably earns the bulk of his salary from the orchestra. Now does this -- all of his salary I'm told --from this orchestra.

Now is it the intention- I ask the Committee I don't tell them-- but I ask them, is it their intention to permit the whole orchestra to play without the conductor. Now that's the type of thing that you run into when you try to define amateur; when you try tO define non-profit and so on, and that's why I think we're up against a bit of a problem here.

But I think we perhaps can resolve it if we adopt the thought in the amendment of the Honourable Member from Carillon and if we recouch it somehow to say-- and I'm speaking now as much to the Legislative Counsel as I am to my colleagues in the House --if we recouch it somehow to say that an amateur is defined as meaning, a person, the minority portion of whose income is derived from the sport or cultural activity in which he engages. Now this is only a thought.

As I say I put it forward with great respect and in the hope of not confusing the issue further, but I don't want us to get tied up and inextricably bound up in a bunch of legal terminology which not even a Philadelphia lawyer can work his way out of. I put that thought forward.

If we have to have a definition of amateur at all -to which I must say I am opposed- if we have to have it at. all, let's make it as. general as possible, let's make it as simple as possible; and for heaven's sake let's make it realistic so that we're not adding on to one Act which can't be enforced now, the Federal Act, a Provincial Act which we can!t enforce. MR . ffiLLHOUSE: Mr. Chairman, I. ....... the Attorney-General has said and I think we should more closely define income as annual income or income over a certain period because if you just say more than half his income; well for what period?

During the month that he's playing or during the day that he's playing? I think we should be very definite about that and make it for say annual. MR . STANES: ..••... could be during the season of that activity. MR . A. H. CORBETT (Swan River): Mr. Chairman, I don't think-- there's no such thing as an amateur anymore in sports, simon-pure amateur as defined in this statement.

I can't mix orchestra players with amateurs in the sense of sport, but I have a very simple statement of an amateur: An Amateur-- this is regarding sports and allied things --an amateur is any person whose main source of-livelihood, during any portion of the year, is not obtained by playing or performing any form of sports or games. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, this business of during a period of a year, profes sional athletes get most of their income over the year.

Now they might not work at all for a few months and then might play the odd game of baseball or tournament and make a few dollars there, but they're not working during the summers, so if you limit that-- they're on holidays and they're fooling around playing baseball for recreation to keep in shape, let's say a hockey player, professional hockey player -- so if you limit that to that season this is what you're going to have. That fellow cannot play baseball because he mightn•t be making $100 for the whole season but that's all he's making. He's not working the rest of the time. I don't think you have to add.

I think it should stay like this. Most of these professional athletes don't have to work the rest of the time and they don't. They just might make a few more dollars. MR. COWAN: Mr. Chairman, it's pretty hard for about 50 people to try and draft up this definition and this particular section. Wouldn't it be better if we set up a sub-committee of about seven to bring back a recommendation tomorrow morning, and not waste any more time here tonight. Perhaps they can come to a conclusion that would be satisfactory.

I think we pretty well all know what we have in mind, but we don't seem to be able to get it down on paper. MR. illLLHOUSE: Mr. Chairman, •..•• Legislative Counsel constitute a committee of two to bring back a definition tomorrow morning. MR. R. SEABORN (Wellington): Mr. Chairman, I mentioned this this afternoon. I think it's well worth repeating because the alternatives that we have claim that a performance that is a concert, recital or other musical performance ?f an artistic or cultural nature and, March 25th, 1960 Page 1927

(Mr.'Seaborn, cont'd.) . . . . 1 know that a number of people in this House have pointed to the possible benefit that culture may receive in this city if this Act was passed and I'm a very strong supporter of culture as you know, and this statement may very well be true. Butl would like to ask, who is going to make the decision on what is called cultural and what is sheer theatrical entertainment? Who is going to say that this form of dancing is correct be cause it's called ballet, and the other type is wrong because it comes under some other term?

I have seen the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, as I said this afternoon, put on performances from the French Can Can to pantomime versions of Shooting of Dan McGrew besides the classical ballet, and it is my contention that you cannot stop other activities from taking advantage of this new found freedom that they will find on the Lord's Day. -c- While we're dealing with this subject I would ask these culturally-minded men in this House to distinguish the fundamental difference between the so-called "Pop Tunes" that can be arranged and played by the Symphony Orchestra and the same tunes that can be arranged and performed by a smaller aggregation, which we might well call a "Jazz Band" or "Dance Band", whatever you want to call it.

I'm an arranger myself and I can sit down and can arrange you tunes for any size group, for a symphony of 80 men to a group of five to six. But the question I'm posing to you here is, who's-going to distinguish between culture and what we may consider the cheaper form of entertainment?

We must recognize that everyone of these groups are clamouring for Sunday entertainment because they feel they can make more money on that day, -but I claim that when these groups start to begin to vie with one another for the box office receipts they will be no better off financially, for these cultural enterprises depend mostly on grants and the goodwill of people. As I mentioned in one of my speeches in this House, the revenue from the box office for the cultural enterprises represents only about 40% of their income .. MR. ROBLIN: Mr.

Chairman, I think the committee ought to consider seriously the suggestion that we hand this matter over to a drafting committee. We're not making any head way here, and I'd be prepared to suggest that perhaps the mover of the bill, my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, the Member for Selkirk and some representative of the CCF Party might form a committee to meet with the Legislative Council and hammer this thing out. Per haps the Honourable Leader would nominate someone. Would Mr. Hillhouse be suitable for my honourable friend? We could ask that committee to report to us tomorrow morning on this subject.

MR. PAULL EY: Mr. Chairman, I'll nominate the Honourable Member for Brokenhead as representative of our group. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I am entirely in favour of the House's suggestion. As a matter of fact, it's unusual for me to have held my peace for so long when I saw the con fusion to which the committee was getting into, but some little time ago I had drafted out a committee and I'll give you the names that I have.

I had the Honourable the Attorney-General, the Honourable the Minister of Education, the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, so you'll see that the First Minister's thoughts and mine weren't running too far apart. I had the Honourable Member for Brandon, the Honourable Member for St. Boniface and the Honourable the Leader of the CC F Party, but the committee that• s been suggested is perfectly all right with me. I think, Mr.

Chairman, and if you were out of the Chair I think you would be incli."led to say this same thing, that the main thing that this discussion proves is that we aren't ready for this legislation yet. ONE OF THE MEMBERS: Yes we are. MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, that's what a lot of the members say, that we're ready for it and there was a majority vote in favour of it, but the discussion in here proves that we aren't ready for it.

A:ild the bunch of us -- and there were quite a few of us that didn't want to see this Sunday sport legislation, still, I think, could argue with a great deal of authority that we should not have gotten ourselves into this tangle because we just don't know where we're going on it. However, there is no use of threshing old straw. The fact is that the majority of both the House and the committee have said that they wanted to go, so if it's going to go I certainly don't want to impede it. I'd like to see the best arrangement made that we can for it.

So let's get a committee and get them to work on it, and the ones that have been suggested by the Page 1928 March 25th, 1960

(Mr. Campbell, cont'd.) ••.•. Honourable the First Minister are quite satisfactory to me, but for goodness sakes, let's get something back in here. I think that, regardless of what the maj ority decision has been here, there are still a lot of people in this Chamber and in the Province of Manitoba that don't want to see the widening any more than is necessary. I don't for one and I think there are a lot of other people.

I think the majority of the people don't want to see commercialized Sunday professional sport, and so whether it's difficult to get a definition of an amateur or not, the amateur people are the ones, I think, that we' re interested in. So for goodness sake let's get a committee to go to work on it. MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Chairman, I couldn't disagree more with the Leader of the Opposition. We've got Sunday sport in Manitoba now whether we like it or not. You're talking about tbe Warriors and tbe Goldeyes.

We've got the junior hockey team in Flin Flon, the Flin Flon Bcnbers, they're drawing more money than what some of you people would like to call professionals. Why should we discriminate against some of these clubs? They're non profit. There isn't a club in Manitoba that's making money out of spurts, yet we want to try to define what is amateur and what isn't. There isn't any amateurs anymore in the true sense of the word. I've been around sports for a good many years and I've been quite close to it, and the Flin Flon Bombers I know are all on a salary.

The Brandon Wheat Kings have been on salary and are getting paid good money. I know that otber players, junior players are get ting the same thing so why should we suddenly decide that the Warriors are pros and the juniors are not pros? It's just nonsense. They're all getting paid. We've got ball players going to tournaments in the country. They're being paid. The Honourable Member for Dauphin is worried about it. In the Big Six they paid their players when they were up there. They were professionals just as much as the Warriors or the Goldeyes are.

Why slDuld we start to suddenly decide that these people are pros and the others are not prQs? This is sheer nonsense and let's wake up to it. Tomorrow or Sunday even, you're going to turn on your television set and you're going to see the National Hockey League in the play-offs. Is that pro sport? And I defy him to tell me there's hardly a member in this House that will turn his set on to watch it. And if it's wrong for them to play it's wrong for us to watch it. It's just sheer nonsense. We're closing our eyes, just like burying our heads in the sand. -- (Interjection)-- I don't need any doctor.

The Honourable Member for Gimli knows that they charge on Sunday too in Gimli. Listen, this is just sheer stupidity on our part to start to try and suddenly change the law because we've got it and we're going to have it. If we put in this law that you start to ban pro sports, I'll defy the Attorney-General to try and stop them from playing hockey in Flin Flon on a Sunday afternoon, and a lot of other places as well.

Let's search our conscience instead of this trying to be a bunch of do-gooders. -- (Interjection) -- I'm not getting paid anything but it just makes me mad when a bunch of people get up here and suddenly become so pure. If we're going to suddenly stop sport, what about all the golf clubs? They're profes sional; they're getting paid. Why should we discriminate against the man who wants to go and watch a game on Sunday and take his family? You go to all these clubs around Winnipeg and it's only a certain class of people can belong to those clubs.

They can go to those clubs and pay their dues; they can go and drink liquor. Are you going to close them up? I suggest that if you're going to stop other sports you should close all those too, because otherwise it's just sheer discrimination. What about all the curling clubs? They charge to curl on Sunday. It's the same thing. On Sunday afternoon, if you turn on your television set and a great num ber of us here will, you're going to watch the horse race, the Grand National. MR. HILLHOUSE: Who's going to win? MR. GUTTORMSON: I'd like to know.

The other night in a panel discussion the Reverend Scott, Ted Scott said, he's of the Anglican Church, they weren't so concerned about Sundays they were concerned about seeing that the law was obeyed. _ ' In Ontario, I suggest that the City of Toronto is just as religious a city as anywhere in Canada, they allow Sunday sports in the afternoon. Toronto Argonauts even played a couple of games last year. Is it wrong? Are they any worse than we are in Manitoba? In British Columbia the Vancouver Mounties play on Sunday afternoon. Is it wrong?

There are a great number of religious groups, as have been mentioned before, the Catholics, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Jewish People, they have no objection to playing on Sundays. Why should we discriminate against them? We've got to start to realize that Sunday sport is here whether March 25th, 1960 Page 1929

(Mr. Guttormson, cont' d.) •••. we like it or not. On practically any Sunday you can turn on something that' s sport. You take there's the hockey, the National Hockey League - that's being broadcast. Why should we have them televise their games into Manitoba and yet bar the other hockey so Manitoba can play. We have the World Series in the fall of the year . Why should we allow them to come in on television and not allow our baseball teams to play in Manitoba. This is just nonsensical.

I suggest that we'v e got to realize that the times have changed, that people are ready to accept this; and it isn't fair for us to discriminate against those people that want to go to see games . If I want to take my son to a game on a Sunday afternoon I suggest there is nothing wrong with it. People who are advocating against Sunday sport say we want to keep the family together . What better way is there to keep the family to gether than a father and mother taking their children to watch a spectator sport in the after noon? There is nothing wrong with it.

All through this province, I believe for the most part of it, they are playing hockey and baseball on Sunday afternoon and they're charging for it. I've gone to them, and there are ministers attending these games . They think nothing of.it. I suggest that.w� 're just burying our heads in the sand, as I said before, if we start to try and legislate against it. For many years the same people who are opposing this bill were opposed to the liquor laws .

And I can say this because I come from a teetotalling family and I couldn't care less whether there is another bottle of beer or another bottle of whiskey sold in this province, but does that mean I should stop others from enjoying it who like it. We're selling liquor in tlie province now and I suggest this province isn't any worse for it.

Church attendance h1 the United states and Ontario and QtE bee have not suffered one iota as a result of the change in the Sunday sports law and it won't suffer here either, because if the people who would like to see sports see that the church people are broad-minded about this, they'll attend church far more rather than be resentful as they are today. And I suggest that we'v e got to realize this and wake up to the fact. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I really must rise to say that in my years in her-e I have been called a lot of things in my time, and this is the first time I have ever been called a do-good er .

Having used that sobriquet for other people quite a few times, I think maybe it' s a real delight for me to hear that sometime I can qualify for it myself. I really wasn't posing as a do-good er . I was quite under the impression that there were some amateurs in this province and I thought that the people who represented the youngsters here ma de out a good case of being ama teurs.

If they'r� uot, then 1 really am in error and I'd be inclined, as much as my honourable friend thinks that I am trying to clamp on more and more blue laws all the time and keep everybody from enjoying themselves in every way, I still would like to see, and I am not making any apologies for the fact that I was not in favour of widening of this legisla tion, I wasn't, but it's the majori ty will of this House that we do it and so if we're going to do it I would like to see the position of those people that I believe to be amateurs protected; and I think the way to keep the amateur crowd in the best situation is to give them some encourage ment and make the law conform to their practices.

But I am not in favour, just because people may turn on their TV and watch the horse race whenever it comes off or the hockey match on Sunday, I don't think that that' s quite the same thing. But it's one of the things that my honour able friend from St. George seems to have very pronounced opinions on and he's entitled to . his opinion, but I don't think that he's making any friends for his case when he suggests that all of the rest of us who disagree with him are stupid and hiding our heads in the sand, and ·that sort of thing.

I suppose he is the one person who has his head out of the sand, but for the ones of us who still have our heads in the sand, let's try and get a comm ittee to get together and settle this thing. We've now been at it an hour and ten minutes and let's try and get it settled so that we can get at least a major ity of the people in the comm ittee agreeing with something. MR. PREFONTAINE: Mr. Chairman, I don't know where my head is but I know that I stand half-way between my two friends here. MR. BAIZ LEY: Mr.

Chairman, and gentlemen, this is a very fine Bill and consciences are causing a' lot of pressure and strain here this evening. Nobody has mentioned or directed any remarks to the principle of this Bill. Now this Bill is not designed to impose Sunday sports on an unwilling community. It is merely directed to providing the machinery whereby members of any comm unity may exercise their democratic privilege of determining their own des-Qiny, Page 1930 March 25th, 1960

MR. DESJ� DINS: Mr. Ch:iirman, there is only one point. I am not going to start all over again. I think that at least half of us , more than half of us here come from outside the Greater Winnipeg area and it doesn't mean much to them. They are looking at their life the way they should,_ They are looking at their own constituency and I think that this has been . just explained now that nobody is forcing anybody. But it's no use going on arguing. We want to get somewhere, and would this be possible?

Apparently there is one thing that--most of the members here have one thing in mind--could we say this, that for the purpose of this Act the Winnipeg Warriors, the Blue Bombers and the Goldeyes will be known as professional. I think that that's -- (Interjection) -- No, no, I say that' s the team, those teams. · MR. ROBLIN: I did have what I hoped was a constructive suggestionthatwould enableus to give up this discus sion at the moment, namely, that the committee that I proposed should be approved and asked to do their work.

Perhaps we could now decide if that meets with approval and if so we could dispose of the matter. MR. CHAIRMAN: The question before the House is that a committee ---the First Minister suggested a committee to study this whole question of amateurism and report - tomorrow morning is it? MR. ROBLIN: I would suggest, Sir, that if they could find any time between now and 9:30 tomorrow morning they should report.

It may be -- that is a very excellent Committee I have suggested and I have a hunch that in the half hour between 9 and 9:30 they might fill the whole thing, and we could dispense with any further consideration of this measure until such time as they have been able to report. We'll ask them to do so as soon as possible - 9:30 if they can. MR. CAMPBELL: Could we have the names again please, Mr. Chairman? MR. ROBLIN: The names are the Honourable Member forO sborne, the Honourable Member for Selkirk, the Honourable Minister of Agriculture, the Honourable Member for Broke:ilhead, assisted by our council. MR.

DESJ ARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment that the Honourable the Attorney-General should be added to that. I can't see �1at we shouldn't need the Attorney-General of the Province on a Bill like that. MR. ROBLIN: I sounded out my colleague as to whether he would like to be on the com mittee and he didn't seem to be too keen but .... MR. DESJARDINS: He's not a professional; he's drafted . MR. ROBLIN: No, contrary to the opinion of some, I'm not. the bos» in that sense . We arrange things by agreement over here and it's necessary for -- but if he agrees I'm willing to have him on. MR.

DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that be's a professional and he should be dra."ted. MR. G. MOLGAT (Ste. Rose) : I think that the suggestion of my Honourable friend from St. Boniface has a great deal of value, because after all my honourable friend the Attorney General will be responsible for the enforcing of this Act once it's passed, and surely there would be legal points coming up , and I think it would be well for that committee that he be on it. MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, with great reluctance I have been convinced by what has been said by the Honourable Member for ste.

Rose that I should be on the committee if for no other reason, for self protection, because as I have said to the House before tonight--or to the committee beiore tonight, and I direct my remarks now particularly to my colleagues who are going to be on the committee, please, please give us a

section in this Bill which can be enforced because that's what we're looking for. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Bill remains in committee . Is there any other matter? • • • ; •••.. continued on next page March 25th, 1960 Page 1931

Bill No. 82 , Sections 1- 2 (

b) were read and passed. MR. MOLGAT: Exactly what bill are we on? We are going very quickly here. A MEMBER: 82 MR. MOLGAT : No .82 -- what level are we at now? MR. CHAIRMAN :

An Act to amend the Dental As sociation. We are starting at

section .- 3 and we've reached (b). MR. STANES: Mr. Chairman, if we're at

section 3 of Bill 82 of the Dental Act , I would like to say a word on that if I may. Mr. Chairman, I went into the discussions in the Law Amendments on this matter looking for evidence to support the restrictive clauses of this Act. All I received was evidence that the denturists , as they are so-called, have given excellent service at a good price to their many customers and have built up quite a considerable goodwill.

Although I would like to extend the talk on this subject I won't, but under the circumstances, I cannot in all conscience to my electors, to my constituency, allow that section, the restrictive clause,to go through. I therefore move, Mr. Chairman, that sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 be deleted and

section 7 be renumbered

section 3. MR. ROBLIN: On a point of order, Sir, I think we should deal with each

section at a time so amend your sections please -- be deleted: MR. CHAIRMAN: •••••••.. be deleted. Are you ready for the question? The Honour able Member for St. Vital. MR. GROVES: Mr. Chairman, just to carry on there in respect of the remarks that were made by the Honourable Member from St. James, in passing this Dental Bill we are, in effect, taking 31 dental technicians in the Province of Manitoba and putting them out of business . They will be unable if this Bill is passed, particularly with this

section 3 in it, to carry on with their craft. As a result. there will be many hundred perhaps thousands of people, old age pen sioners and persons in the lower income groups, that will be deprived of a source of low-cost dentures, until such time as the dental association sets up their clinic. Now this may be months; it may be years. We hope that it will be months, but in the meantime, tbese people have no place to go except to the dental offices to get low-cost false teeth.

What we are in effect doing is , we are giving a monopoly on dentures to the dental profession and they have ad mitted that there is a shortage of dentists and that the work that's being done now on dentures must have these technicians in order to get the volume done. We don't give this monopoly to any other health group. If I were to get sick tomorrow I have the freedom of choice.

I can go to a doctor; I can go to a chiropractor; I can go to a faith healer; I can go to a herbalist; and if I want to I can even go to a witch doctor; and there is no I.aw in the Province of Manitoba that prevents me from so doing. - (Interjection}- They have them in northern Manitoba. And so we are taking away freedom of choice. If, on the other hand, I want to get false teeth or denture work done, this Act forces me to go to one branch of this healing art -- to the dentist. I think, Mr. Chairman, that we're setting a bad precedent and that this is a retrograde step.

We are, in this legislation, handing to the dental profession the denture business of this province on a silver platter. And in order to get this monopoly the dental profession has made to the members of this committee many promises; and, Mr. Chairman, I hereby serve notice on the House and on the dental profession and on the Minister of Health that I intend, if this Bill is passed in its present form, to see to it as best I can that the dental profession keeps the promises that they' ve made to the people of Manitoba. MR. J. A. CHRISTIANSON (Portage la Prairie}: I am a little surprised at this effort.

We have heard considerahle evidence at second reading and we heard more evid�nce in Com mittee ; and I thought that we had established the principle that dental technicians, people who are trained in the craft of manufacturing dentures, should not be permitted to work directly on the public . We had agreed, I thought, that we should only have one standard of dental health in this province and that that standard should be set by the University of Manitoba.

I'm temp ted to ask the Leader of the Opposition to repeat again the speech he made on second reading when he told us of the trials and the tribulations that he encountered while he was setting up or endeavouring to set up this dental college. I think that the allegations made and the insinuations made against the members of the dental profession are most improper; and I don't think that any of the members would seriously state -- I'm sure that every member here has been to a dentist at one time or another and I'� sure that he's always found him to be an honourable man. Page 1932 March 2 5th, 1960

(Mr . Christianson, cont' d.) ••••• Now I would like to inform the House, too, that this afternoon in Saskatchewan, where last year an amendment to the Dental Act permitted public denturists, people with no training to work -- to make dentures directly for the public under a certificate of oral health, was passed. Now in committee a few days ago this amendment was thrown out. There were two Bills passed exactly paralleling Bill 82, the one we are considering here; and exactly paralleling Bill 75, the Bill which was not reported from committee this afternoon re garding legal dental technicians.

I am informed that both those Bills have since passed third reading in the House unamended and Saskatchewan after trying for one year to have two stan dards of dental health, has found that in the interests of the people it could not be continued; and. Premier Douglas himself this afternoon intervened in the debate to head off an effort by some members to have the denturists permitted to continue to practice.

Now I think that one of the reasons behind the effort of the government of Saskatchewa.i:l was the fact that they are contem plating all-inclusive health insurance and I think :hat they can only have one standard as we in Manitoba can only have one standard. Now under the Dental Act, as it's presently written, the Dental Association is respon sible for enforcing the Act . Now to do this they've got to go out and buy evidence.

Now we have heard many times in this debate that this is a very reprehensible method, and I agree ; but gentlemen, it is the responsibility of this Assembly to change that, and if we don't think this is a good method we should change it; and I suggest to you gentle:q1en, and to you, Mr . Chairman, that the only way we can do this is by putting in the prescription clause and by putting in the i.ll.junction clause. We have had abundant evidence that the dental technicians -- the denturists will be taken in by the dental technicians , that they will, in fact, endeavour to work with them.

The Dental Association has stated as much as well . These men need not be cut off. If they are as good craftsmen as they say they are, they can make very, very good money making dentures. The problem of low-cost dentures for the public will be. taken care of by the dental clinic , which will be set up very quickly. Of more importance, all costs of dentistry will be lowered because we will attract more dentists to this province . This will not happen overnight because dentists take a long time to make.

They have to go to school for a total of seven years; they have to go to dental college for five years ; and that new 60 chair clinic that has just opened, if we permit a double standard of dentistry in this province it will be a very difficult thing for the Dental College to fill those 60 chairs . Gentlemen, I suggest that this is a very important deci sion and I would strongly urge you not to take lightly your decision to repeal this particular

section of the Act. It's a vital and important part of the Act ; and the future of the dental health of the people of Manitoba depends upon this Act. MR. PREFONTAINE: Mr . Chairman, I agree with the last speaker that this is very important, but I believe that it is important that we do the right thing for the great majority of the people of this province. We have definite proof that there is a great shortage of qualified dentists in this Province of Manitoba, and it seems to me that we have a situation somewhat like we had with respect to school teachers in this province a few years back.

We did not have enough, and what did we do ? We hired permit teachers to fill the gap for awhile and we tried to hurry to.train teachers. I believe we have somewhat about the same situation, and although I agree to quite an extent with what the last speaker has said with respect to the health of the people , I don't think that people are in so much danger that we should rush the passage of this Bill as is . I would agree with the mover that we should think of the people of this province who, at the present time, would have to depend on a few dentists and would have to pay a high price .

I think that we should delay the passage of this clause for a year until we have given a chance to the two groups of dental technicians to get together, because it seems to me that in some way that these things are som ewhat involved together and that we will not have solved anything if we just pass this Bill as is . I would support the amendment. MR. LYON: I rise because of the remarks of the last speaker talking about the short age of dentists in Manitoba and he suggests, in effect,in his words , that if we import or reject

Section 3 from the Dental Association Bill that this will have the effect of providing, in the interim period, a cushion for the shortage of dentists. I suggest to you, Sir, that the evidence is clearly before this committee, as it was clearly bafore Law Amendments Committee , that quite the converse will be the effect, that you cannot have, as has been said before, two stan dards of dentistry in Manitoba; one illegal and untrained and one trained and quite proper and March 25th, 1960 Page 1933

(Mr. - Lyon, cont'd .) ••••• legal. . You cannot have that because the minute you open the door_, and remember that's what is being asked by the deletion of this section, the minute you open the door to attempt to legalize what is presently being carried on illegally, then of course you dis courage young people going into dentistry; you discourage those people who are presently in the dental practice in the Province of Manitoba from carrying on.

Why should they stay here , Sir , I suggest to you, if somebody can come in with a junior matriculation education -- junior matriculation education -- no formal training in physiology or chemistry or anything else at all and set up shop with a shingle in opposition to a professional person like this , trying to give the same standard of oral treatment to the people of the province . It just can't be done .

I think the Honourable Member from Portage la Prairie has pointed out quite well that in the Province of Saskatchewan, and I know that I don't often refer to that province for good examples in any regard, but in the Province of Saskatchewan they tried this self-same experi ment last year. They permitted the denturists to operate -- deal directly with the public on the basis of a certificate of oral health, and one year later what do we see happening? We see that amendment wiped out in the Saskatchewan Legislature. Now I am particularly intrigued by the suggestion of the Honourable Member from St.

Vital that if this

section remains in the Bill that we are handing, as he said, I think, a monopoly to the dentists on a silver platter . Mr . Chairman, the dentists in Manitoba today, and for very many years past , have had the sole right to treat the public of the province in dental matters . The denturists who appear before us in Bill 85 only exist today because they are brazen enough to break the law. And they come here , after breaking the law for a number of years, they come here and say let us legalize -- let you legalize what we have been doing illegally for a number of years. Now how my honourable friend from St.

Vital, how he can say in all sinqerity to this House that we are handing a monopoly to the dentists , I can't understand. The dentists have that monopoly as of today, and i� s only through the impotency of the present Act that they cannot enforce that monopoly; enforce that monopoly I say, Sir, not for themselves as professional men but for the people of Manitoba. We're the ones in this Legislature who have determined that the dental profession are the only ones who should deal directly with the pub lic .

The denturists have said, neve r mind the law of this province , we are going to deal dir ectly with the public and that is in effect what they have done . And then having done that for a number of years they come along and say that, because we have broken the law successfully for a number of years, you should now legalize what we have been doing. One example that has been used, and I could name the person who gave me the example , one example that has been used is this: it's like a man who is charge d with theft, stealing $10, 000 worth of goods.

He comes before the court and he says to the court I'm willing to plead guilty if you'll let me keep the stolen goods. And that's in effect what the denturists are saying to us today. That is why there is a move to have this

section stricken from this Bill because it will leave the Bill just as impotent as it is at the present time vis-a-vis in force. That is why this move is being put forward at the present time. I say, Sir, that another example might be used, and I draw this remark or this analogy from a statement that was made yesterday by the people appearing on behalf of the denturists , they say that if enough public opinion supports an illegal activity that the illegal activity should be made legal.

This was based on the fact of, I think, four or five witnesses coming forward out of a total population in this province of 850, 000 souls . Well, Sir, if I were to adopt that attitude in the enforcement of the law of Manitoba, where would we be ? If the bootleggers' association of Manitoba were to come along to me, and I'm talking about the booze , the liquor bootleggers , and say we have a number of satisfied customers; they're very satisfied with what we're doing; mind you we're doing it illegally, but because they are satisfied you should change the law and let us sell liquor legally.

Now there is the analogy that you have before you tonight, Sir. I don't see how we can place it any more simply before the committee than that. To take

Section 3 out of this Bill, to take the injunction

section out of the Bill is to emasculate the bill completely -- to emasculate it completely-- and I say that we cannot do justice to the people of Manitoba if we do that. The Honourable Member from Carillon said tonight that he was interested in the welfare of the bulk of the people of Manitoba. Sir, I hope he will permit me to say that I, too, am interested in the welfare of the bulk of the people of Manitoba, and I'm -sure that all members in this House Page 1934 March 25th, 1960

(Mr. Lyon, cont'd.) ••••• share that same desire; to do what is best according to our own light for the people of this province. Si r, as I stand here I am firmly convinced that the only way we can do this is to set the proper standards of dentistry; to enforce the Dental Act as it presently stands; to allow technicians to work in their proper field, that is in their craft field under the supervision and direction of dentists , as the Paynter report and as all other reasonable docu ·ments and all other studies on this field have indicated should be done .

There were two briefs presented to us yesterday on behalf of the Manitoba Dental Assoc iation and I hope that enough membe rs of the House have had the opportunity to read what is in those briefs . Read what happens in other jurisd ictions where you try to set up two standards; read what happened in the different areas on this continent and on other continents as well; and I go back again, if you don't like these examples, go next door to the Province of Saskatchewan; go next door where we can see today what has happened as a result of this type of amendment coming in.

I felt , Sir, this afternoon that when it was agreed by the committee that the legal or orthodox Dental Technician Bill and the illegal or unorthodox Denturists' Bill, when it was agreed that those two bills would not be reported, I thought that there had been a great compro mise reached and arrived at by the committee; because, in effect, we said we are goir:g to per mit the dental profession in Manitoba to re-assume its rightful and proper position; that is, in supervision of all dental matters in this province .

At the same time we realized that there are 21 -odd people who, notwithstanding the fact and this is the way I looked at it, notwithstanding the fact that they have raised themselves to where they are through illegal practice, these people have to make a living in this province.

These are skilled people ,notwithstanding their illegal activity, and to my mind at least it was a great compromise -- a great compromise to hold back the legal or orthodox technician, the people who have obeyed the law, Sir, the people who have obeyed the law for these many years and who have carried on their practice lawfully and legally in the Province of Mamtoba·, doing good service for the people of Manitoha.

We held them back and we said, in effect, you get together with your other 21 confreres in this business; come to us next Session with a joint bill because , in effect, you are all craftsmen; you are all dental technicians. You all have a place to play in the Province of Manitoba; you have a service that you can give to the people of Manitoba. Remember, Sir, I say to you, remember what the Honourable Member from Portage la Prairie said this afternoon.

As a manifestation of this goodwill on the part of the orthodox dental technicians it was reported to us this afternoon that overtures were made by the ortho dox group to the unorthodox group to have their members come and join on the executive of the new legal bill and, of course, and I'm only repeating what we heard in committee, that was · turned down -- that was turned down . So I say, Sir, that I'm very , very surprised indeed to see this type of amendment coming forward tonight.

Very surprised indeed because to take this or any of the other sections out of this Bill is to render the Bill completely meaningless- completely meaningless -- and I think that that point has been well made by the Dental Associ ation when they appeared before us; well made, I think by any person who has listened as care fully as I have tried to listen to all of the submissions that have come before this committee. Now , Sir, I could make the same speech with respect to each

section as mentioned by the Honourable Member from St. James but I don't intend to . I close by saying this, that there is a great principle involved in this matter. It's not just a question here tonight -- not just a question here tonight of worrying about 21 denturists. We are all concerned about their future and we know that their future will be looked after if they are willing to start obeying the law; if they are willing to give up this illegal cry of theirs to deal directly with the public, a right which they do not presently have, Sir, in this or any other legislation.

If they are willing to give up this; if they are willing to obey the law and to join with the legal dental technicians , they have a great place to play in the dental field in Manitoba. But if you remove this

section from the Bill , you immediately give them a go-ahead signal to "carry on boys with your illegal activities . Never mind the law -- never mind the law of the Province of Manitoba. It doesn't matter at all , because you've served a few people you can go ahead and do it because these people seem to be satisfied with your services." Now that's in effect the principle that's before us tonight. I must confess that I speak from the bottom of my heart on this question because I think it is a great question of principle , and I don't like to see this House or any membe r of this House swayed by any type of appeal March 25th, 1960 Page 1935

(Mr. -Lyon, cont'd.) ••••• other than the principle of this Bill. I do not like to see members of this House being buttonholed, Sir, in the hall -- being tuttonholed in the hall by members ·of an organization trying to seek the goodwill of the House. That is the type of thing that we are fighting here. And so I say with all of the power that I can muster, that we should defeat this amendment; we should defeat any of the subsequent amendments which would have the same ten dency of this one to emasculate this Bill. The principle is clearly before us.

I think as Legis lators in this province, as representatives of the people of this province we have a clear duty ahead of us and I know, Sir, that we will fullfil that duty according to our best light and in the best interests of the people of Manitoba. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman , I'd like to say a word or two in connection with the motion before the House on the deletion of

Section 2. I voted in the committee for the deletion of Clause 3, as I think everyone knows , and I also voted following that for the reporting of the Bill to this committee. I'm somewhat surprised at the Honourable the Attorney-G�meral, when he stands up here he tells us , as the Attorney-General of the province, or was he speaking as I am as a private individual ·- and I want that clearly understood, Mr.

Chli.irman, that I'm only speaking as a private individual member of this Assembly and not as the Leader of my Party, because in this matter, as I think I've indicated before, it's a matter of personal opinion -- but I am rather surprised to hear the Attorne.y-General of the province admit in this Assembly that there has been permitted to operate, and to continue to operate , an illegal organization in the Province of Manitoba. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, if I may on a point of order just clarify one matter.

Under the Dental Association Act, whether or not I'm sure my honourable friend does realize or he . / wouldn't have made the, statement, the question of enforcing or policing the professional standards in the sections of that Act are left up to the Dental Association -- entirely to the Dental Association. They prosecute their own cases and so on and so forth.

In fact it might be , and I'm not speaking as Attorney-General I'm speaking as a private member, but if closer en forcement of that Act were wanted it might be an idea to turn it over to the question of public enforcement because then Pm sure that that Act given teeth, such as is needed in

Section 3, that Act could be enforced. But as I say, as it presently stands and without this

Section it can't be enforced either by the Attorney-General or by the Dental Association who have the primary re sponsibility for it. MR. PAULLEY: Well there may be some question on that, Mr. Chairman, but ref erence · has been made by the Honourable the Member for Fort Garry, and it's been made on numerous occasions throughout all of the deliberations , of this being an illegal organization and whether the question of policing rests with the Dental Association or not.

I think it ill behooves any of us in this Legislature to continuously refer to an organization as an illegal organization be cause it should be our duty to make sure that if it is an illegal organization, .. or performing illegal acts, that they should be taken to task for it. I want to disassociate myself, Mr. Chair man, from the remarks of the Honourable Member for St. Vital.

He stated in his introductory remarks that one of the things involved was the question of 31 or 2l individuals, and the infer ence that I got from my honourable friend was that this would give them permission to continually operate illegally, and I don't agree with that at all . I'd say this •• ••• MR. GROVES: Mr. Chairman, if you took from my words that that's not what I meant • . I didn't mean that they should be continued indefinitely to operate, but they should at least be given a chance while they're getting together with the other group to make a living. MR. PAULLEY: Well my point, Mr.

Chairman, is simply this , that while I do support the contention in general of the Denturists, if they are breaking the law I won't stand up in this Legislature and say that they should be given the privilege of continuing to break the law, and suggest that it should be enforced. Now then, reference has been made to what has transpired in Saskatchewan. It's my understanding in Saskatchewan that the Bill which only required a certificate of oral health, which was passed in the dying moments of the session of last year, has now been changed and withdrawn; but there are other fields.

According to my information, the Dental Technicians are enabled to pursue, without a prescription from a dentist , dealing with, as I understand it, Mr. Chairman , repairs to dentures and the likes of that. Now under

Section 3 of this Bill none of this would be permitted at all without a prescription frcil)l the Dental Association. It seems Page 1936 March 25th, 1960

(Mr. Panlley, cont'd.) ••••• to me that this whol e seeti cm is too restrictive� t1lat it dces give too much power to the Dental Association to control oomplete1y a111.d entirely a111. ything that a denturist, or rather a dental technician because tbe word denturiist. is not a proper one to use, but to completely. control them; and I disagree with tbat element o.f control being so OO!tel!:nsiive. And for that reason is my main reason in this. Now then, this afternoon it is true that we did set aside both tbe :Bills of the Comm.ereiali. Laboratory Technicians and the Dental Technician's Association.

I don•t like reference to tbe.m as legal or illegal because if we are doing that it means tbaJt we are oondoo.ing ill egal activities and I don't think that we should do that, but we did set them aside m a hope and an endeavour that the two groups would get together and I sincerely trust that that will be done. Now then I say simply this, that in sections 3 and 4 and 5 and 6, too much power is vested in any private organization even though they deal with the public such as the Dental Association.

For that reason I'm going to support them coming out; and I -would say this, that if tbe organizatioo that sponsored Bill 85 were practicing illegally, and continued, then. they should be subject to the · proVisions contained now in the Act. The Attorney-General posed a question as to whether or not the policing shouldn't become a private aff air rather than an association.

Possibly he's got · something there, but until that is done, may I respectfull y s "Dggest that insofar as sections 3. 4, 5 and 6 are concerned, it gives too much power to any particular public body or private body in respect of the laws of the Province of Manitoba. MR . HILLHOUSE: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the remark of the Leader of the CCF ••• MR. PAULLEY: The member for Rad.isson, if you don't mind• MR . HILLHOUSE: Okay then, the Member for Radi sso n, that he does not wish to be a party to condonation of any illegal activity, I sUbmit, Mr.

Chairman, with all due respect to the Honourable Member, that his attitude in not supporting the inclusion of this

section in this Bill is a condonation of an illegal activity; because the other day in Law Amendments we were confronted by people who openly admitted that they were dealing with people who were un authorized to do that particular type of work under the laws of this province. Now the point is this, I ag:-ee with you, and that is the reason why

section 3 is being included in this Act, be cause this Legislature back in •••• 1880 in its wisdom entrusted to the Dental Association of Manitoba the policing of its own profession; and if the PrQvince of Manitoba wants to take over the policing of that profession, they're at liberty to do so; but until such time as they leave the policing of that profession in the hands of tbe profession l think it is incumbent upon us as legislators to give them the necessary powers to effectively police that Act, and that is all that this

section is doing. As to the tommy-rot we heard from the Honourable Member from St. Vital abo ut a monopoly, if the honourable member were asking for a repeal of the Dental Association Act I would say there'd be some merit in that argument but be is not asking for the repeal of the Act, he's only asking for the repeal of a certain

section in this Bill; and even if this

section is taken out of the Bill it's still going to le ave a monopoly with the Dental Association of Manitoba . for the practicing of dentistry. There's no one else authorized in this proVince to practice dentistry. · Now as to the Honourable Member for Radisson's objection to a prescription, a pre scription is, in effect, the practice today between the dentists and the technicians . All this

section does is make it legal and make it a basis for enforcement. In other words, if some body walks into a technician's office and he has work on his table or on his desk and he hasn't got a prescription to cover it, well there is a prima facie case established against him . That's all they're asking for, because they very much resent the only method that they have of en forcement of the present Act and that's by the use of agents provocateurs or stool pigeons, and that's the only way that they can enforce their Act today; and even if the ProVince of Manitoba took over the enforcement tonight, without the inclusion of

Section 3 in the Act, they would still be placed in the same position. Now the thing that 1 don't like about this is this, we have those two Bills, the Denturists' Bill and the Technicians' Bill, before us in committee. We decided in our wisdom that the time was not right to deal with those two Bills but we felt that we should deal with the Dental Act. We did deal with the Dental Act. We acknowledged again that they were the only people who had the right to enforce their own Act and we gave them the necessary powers under this March 25th, 1960 Page 1937

(Mr . -Hillhouse ; cont'd. ) ••••• Bill to properly enforce that Act. I don't care what the majority was, but the point is this, that since we did not in our wisdom deem it advisable to confer upon the denturists the right to deal directly with the public , for God's sake let's be consistent and·let us give to the only people who are authorized to deal with the public, the necessa ry powers to enforce their Act. MR . ORLIKOW: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that in this question, as in any other question, one should try to establish certain principle s.

The principle which I have tried to follow is that any law which we pass must be a law which meets the needs of the people and a law which can be enforced. Now I want to say very clearly, Mr. Chairman, that I for one voted and really felt it important that we have all three bills in the committee so we could hear all representations . And I for one did not make up my mind until I heard the representations. I want to say, Mr.

Chairman, that despite what the law has been in the past and despite the evidence , and some members may think it's conclusive and other members may not think it is conclusive , as to allegations that these laws have been broken in the past.

I would not now be supporting this Bill nor would I have voted as I did to stand over Bill 85 with regard to the denturists unless provision had been made , as it has been made, that people who feel that they cannot pay the prices which have been set in the past by dentists for dentures could get dentures at a reasonable price ; because I could not in all honesty vote for a bill which would suggest that dentures must be purchased only from a dentist, knowing that people could not pay the price required and that they would then proceed to go elsewhere and, in fact, they are just as guilty of breaking the law as the people who provide denture s.

But it seems to me that once we have the assurance and once we have the non-profit clinic to which anybody can go and get dentures from fully qualified dentists at a reasonable price , that the question of price becomes, which I think has been the main question, becomes much less important than it has beet\ in the past. Now, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me -- and the other thing which I was concerned about, and I said so in the committee , was that we try to take reasonable care that the denturists , whatever may have happened in the past, would not be completely frozen out.

And I think we accomplished that when we stood over the other two bills which we did. Now we are dealing with this particular bill and it seems to me , Mr . Chairman, without going into the past and who broke the law and who didn' t, that if you remove these clauses which the amendment suggests that we do, that we are asking, we are simply asking the people who are in the field to break the law. We are telling them that there really is nothing in the Act which will hinder them and we're saying to the public "go ahead and do it because there is nothing in the Act which can inhibit you.

" It seems to me that if we want to do that then we ought not to say that the dentists have the sole responsibility . How having said that, Mr. Chairman, the Honourable the Attorney-General, possi bly as the Member for Fort Garry , said he doesn't often talk about Saskatchewan. I do talk about Saskatchewan and this doesn't mean that everything which they do is therefore right, but I have found from my point of view they are often right or usually right.

And so when I remember that last year the denturists were saying why don't you look at Saskatchewan, they've just changed their Act; and this year to my surprise the dentists came and said, you better look at Saskat chewan they've just changed their Act; so instead of listening to the denturists or the dentists I thought it would be advisable to find out from the government what they had done and why they had done it. I took the trouble yesterday, Mr.

Chairman, to phone the Minister of Health in the Province of Saskatchewan and I will just read a very short -- the notes which I took and the notes which I took of the conversation go as follows: "Under the Act" -- which as of yesterday had passed the Law Amendments Committee and now the Honourable Member for Portage says has had third reading in their House -- the notes as I took them say as follows: "The dentists will be the only people who will be able to make the impression. Dentists are the only people who can work with patients in terms of .oral matters at all .

The patients can not go to a dental technician or to a denturist except" -- and this is not in the Act, this will be in regulations they will pass and this is exactly what the Minister said -- "except for minor repairs ," and he gave as an example, if one tooth in a plate breaks they could go to the den tal technician or the denturist for that. Then he went on to tell me that under their Act, which they are passing, "the university will be establishing a course for dental technicians . From Page 1938 March 25th, 1960

(Mr. Orlikow, cont'd. ) ••••• now on everybody who wants to be a dental technician will have to take the course as set out by the university. All present dental technicians and all present denturists will be permitted to work as dental technicians." But as I say, they will not be per mitted to work directly with the patient.

And the Minister said and I am not going to quote him verbatim but I think I can certainly give the sense, the Minister said to me that they had pas sed the Bill last year in the dying moments of their session; that they had given it a good deal of thought since then, with their technical people, with the cabinet and with the caucus. They had come to the conclusion that if they didn't make these changes that they would have two sets of standards, and that inevitably the lower standard would be the standard which would prevail.

These are the reasons for which they moved in the direction which they did in the last few days. Now as I say, Mr . Chairman, that doesn't mean that, in my opinion, that we must there fore follow their advice; but it seems to me that this is the general tenor of thinking in most jurisdictions.

It seems to me that the price problem which to me has been a very important one, and I think I have made as many enemies amongst the dentists that I know as any member in this House because I have told them in the years since I have come to this House that unless they do something about the price , the fact that they are more qualified is not of much help to the person who is living on 50 or 60 dollars a month. They simply can't afford to pay and I'm not going to --- somebody said $800 in the committee but I don't take that very seriously -- but they can't afford to pay $200 of $300 or whatever the price may be .

I think that problem has been solved and as far as I am concerned I am satisfied to give this Bill a try-out as it is . I think to take out these sections would be to make this Bill completely ineffective and I think I am satisfied that we have protected the denturists by not passing the other two Bills. And I cer tainly, Mr. Chairman, am going to vote for this Bill as it is at the present time. MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr . Chairman, I have great respect and admiration for my leader but I do not agree with the Honourable Member from Radisson. The other two bills are not before us.

The committe.e decided, rightly or wrongly,to postpone it and I think the decision was made' in their own interests . If it takes another year or more for them to accom plish what they want, I think it's worthwhile. At the present we are dealing with the legal profession of dentistry. We have no other organization here; we have no one else to protect the health of the people that require dental treatment -- that's definite -- and we must of neces sity, whether we like it or not, to accept them. I do not want to doubt the promise about the clinic.

No man could be found guilty until he is proven, and I am willing to accept their word for it now because we have no other al ternative . The Bill is before us , and to take this same Bill and take out this section, you might as well drop the whole thing because the rest of the Bill does not mean anything. And everyone now is discussing matters that have not -- not mentioning the health of the people. To me, personally , the health of the people is first and foremost.

The health of the people, if there is any slight danger of anyone who is inexperienced, untrained, to do something which may cause cancer or other illness, should be very carefully, very carefully considered. In my humble opinion, I think that the honourable member, the mover of the Denture Bill -I don't know whether I am in order or not to say that it's sour grapes. I don't think per sonally that he himself believes what he says as far as this Bill is concerned. He was quite sincere and quite honest in his strong eifort to get the Denture Bill passed. I don't doubt it at all.

But once they have decided the Denture Bill and the Mechanic Bill is postponed, I don't think that he should interfere with the health of the patients. And believe me, and I think every body knows, the dental profession is very very important. It's important not only to the dentures , it's also important in the early days of the children. It's important of the school children to prevent anyone to get dentures in the later years. It's extremely important.

The dollar or the cost is also important, but not so important as the prevention and treatment of the public to see that they do not get at a time when they require dentures . And as I have stated in committee, that so far, as far as I know, in addition to what the dentists have promised of the clinic , I don't think that anyone who hasn't got the money to pay for dentures -- and I still don't know whether dentists are charging more or less, I don't know the value of it -- I don't know the value of any professional men.

I do know that a dentist has to spend 7, 8.o r 9 years before he gets any revenue, and until we've had a dental college here they had to go outside of Winni peg and the parents, who could hardly afford it, had to pay $5, 000 a year more to help them March 25th, 1960 Page 1939

(Mr. Gray , cont'd.) ••••• going through this dental course outside of the city. Now, after years of endeavour, we have a dental college here established by the government where it gives op portunity for each and every one while they are at home to go through this college and become a qualified dentist. I don't think that you should not interfere , and particularly now when they have the opportunity of operating a dental college. I am prepared to trust the dentists . I am prep ared to trust the dentists .

I am prepared to do it because I don't think that the individuals of the Dental Association are all -- perhaps there are a few exceptions and even that I wouldn't say are all human beings and although they want to make a living and perhaps pay back to their parents the investments that they have made for them to take up den tistry, they are not what you may call profiteers . If there is one or two, we have a government here that could check it, so I am not discussing with the other two Bills at all.

But to go and tell an association that they are a bunch of liars; that they are going to profiteer on it; that they are going to take advantage s in my humble opinion I think it's not playing cricket. MR. H. P. SHEWMAN (Morris) : Mr. Chairman, if I could direct a question to the Honourable Me!Ilber from Portage for a matter of clarification, in line 22 on page 2,

section 3 , that is on line 22 it reads: " a written prescription for the matter to which the instructions relate ." Now I don't just quite understand that word "prescription" and if the Honourable Mem ber for Portage could explain it, I'd appreciate it. MR. CHRISTIANSON: Mr.

Chairm an, I'm not a professional man in this category at all , but to me the prescription merely states out the instructions which accompany the impres sion taken by the dentist of the patient's mouth which is sent to the dental technician in much the same manner as a medical doctor writes a prescription and forwards it to a pharmacist for filling. I think the matter is probably best stated that way. MRS . THELMA FORBES (Cypress) : Mr. Chair man, when you get a prescription you may take the prescription wherever you please when you get one according to the definition we have here .

Now will the person be allowed to take this prescription to the dental technician of their choice or will the dentist send it to the dental technician of his choice? MR. CHRISTIANSON: Well , I think that the practical arrangement would be that the dentist would probably deal with technicians of his own choice, with men whose workmanship he was familiar and men that he knew he could depend upon to turn him out a product that was of a good grade using good materials.

But I would think that if any person went to a dentist and said I want an impression and I want a prescription, and I want to take it to this technician whom I know to be a good craftsman, that the dentist would probably have no objection whatsoever to the patient doi.D.g this . MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question ? MR. JOHNSON (Gimli) : Mr . Chairman, I would like to say a word on the prescription busine ss, having practised next to -- seeing some of this .

The prescription clauses is mainly in there to bring into being this whole principle of Bill 85 which has been refuted in committee , and that is that the dentist is really the only authorized person in the province today who should be working directly in the patient's mouth. Now when he takes that impressi on he writes out his instructions on the prescription, or on the paper or the prescription pad, as to what type of work he wants done aii.d so on and that is usually forwarded to the particular laboratory which this dentist is dealing with .

The dentists usually in practice -- on the practical side of it, usually has an arrangement with a technician with whom they are familiar , that is, one is familiar with the other's work. I would like to point out that , as I understand it, when this dental cllnic is formed the dentists themselves are going to make it a point to try and bring in as many of the so-called denturists as they can to give them this work. As far as giving the denture to the patient and asking the patient to take it to the technician of their choice, I think there is one principle here of professional conduct which we must remember.

The dentist after all is responsible to the patient for the fit and is responsible for the work that is_ done. He is the one who must assume that responsibility , so I imagine if the patient was taking it to a technician whom he considered a good technician, and they know amongst themselves who can perform and to what capacity, that I don't imagine the dentist would have any great objection as long as it was thoroughly understood with the patient beforehand and some arrangement made concerning the fee. I think there are practical problems in there that I know I couldn't answer it entirely.

Page 1940 March 25th, 1960

(Mr . Johnson (Giml) , con t' d) ... While I'm on my feet and just to -- I'm not going to say any thing more in this debate, Mr . Chairman, but of course I have learned a lesson that in matters of health -- as the member from Gimli I am speaking -- I don't intend to compete with my honourable friend from St. Vit al, but the whole thing that I have tried to, and I think the member from Gimli tried to bring before the commi ttee, and as fairmindedly as I can and as sincere ly as I can as a person, that it is this principle of oral health that just simply has to be the under lying guide to us .

I think the other matters cap. be worked out and I think the committee ma de a big step forward this afternoon . Thank you . MR. LISSAMAN: First of all I want to tell the committee that I am going to vote for this Bill unamende d as it is .

But on this matter of prescr iptidn, for clarification, as I read the Act I would say this, and the honourable doctor may criticize me if he ·sees fit, but I can't see a dentist giving a presc ription to the patient to go to the dental technician of his or her own choice because then the dental technician would be fitting the dentures into a person's mouth; and to my definition or idea that would be working in the oral cavity , and I don't think the Act allows a technician to work in a person's mouth .

So I think that this ide a -- we might as well know the full facts -- I can't see that presc ription being given to the patient . MR. CHRISTIANSON: Mr . Chairman, the member from Brandon is taking my words too literally. Whether the patient actu ally carted the prescr iption and the impression over to the technician or whether the dentist sent the impression and the pres cription over to the technician designated by the patient , the denture would of course have to come back to the dentists's office for fitting becaus e, as the Honourable Member for Gimli pointed out, the responsibility rests with the dentist.

MR. SCHREYER: Mr . Chairm an, it' s obvious when you read the clause in question that the pres cription is intended to be given from the dentis directly to the technician. It mi ght be of course that the patient might, as the member from Portage said, cart it over ; but in the marginal note there it was instructions to dental technicians . I don't think that the patient is intended to have a choice here . Now I' m not going to object to that because obviously that• s the way the majority of this Assembly wishes it to be . I wish to rise here to state why I shall vote the way I will.

I' m going to support the Act unamende d, not because I particularly favour the position that has been taken but because if I vote for the amendment that' s before us I would, in fact, be condoning the continuation of illegal practice, and I _can't do that . At least I don't want to do that . But while I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I say that I'm voting for this Bill unamende d under duress , under duress beca use of the disposition of the three bills that were considered in commi�.ee . There is no other choice for a member of this Assembly ·now but to vote for the Bill unam ended. MR . J. M.

FROESE (Rhineland) : Mr. Chai rman, I don't feel that we should argue the case just from a legal standpoint or from a legal end. It seems to me that among the honour able members there are a number of professional men, and who will naturally support other profes sions or other men who are in professional business ...• MR. LYON: On a point of order, I resent the implication agai nst, whether it is directed against myself or anybody else in this Hou se, that he speaks from a position of repres enting a profession or a trade or a group or anything else.

I resent that implication on the part of the honourable member and I think that if it is directed toward me or toward any other member of the House it should be withdrawn, because we speak here as citizens of Manitoba represen ting our fellow citizens of Manitoba; That' s the way I speak . In any case I can only speak for my self, and not for my honourable friend. MR. FROESE : Mr . Speaker, I qualified that statement by "i t seems" . I said, "i t seems" . Further, I think we should consider the needs of the people in this province . We have many pension ers in this province whose income is very limit ed.

We, as members of this House, know how much they get and sure enough with the limited means that are at their disposal, that they cannot afford costly dentures and costly dental fees. The same applies to farm workers and also to many of the smaller farmers with incom es decreasing year by year . Saskatchewan has been mention ed. I know of several people from Saskatchewan who came to this provi.nce; who had their dentures ma de in Manitoba; paid for the trip ; and still had money left.

I am sure that if this Act is going to be passed in its present form, that the government will have many people at its doorsteps clamouring for help . It would l:>e my personal feeling that the government should March 25th, 1960 Page 1941

(Mr. Froese, cont' d) .. , • take some of the responsibility in this matter, and that if the Bill is passed, that they will probably have to provide for supplementary pensions to provide for dentures. Further, these technicians that are presently practicing the making of dentures will be forced on their knees and to go to dentists for employment, and after bucking them for many years you can im agine what kind of :reception they will be getting.

So I feel that we should supp ort the amendment made, and allow llie people to operate for another year until the committee or until an agreement is reached between the two parties . MR. CHAIRMAN: The question before the House is the motion of the Honourable Member for St. James that the amendment that

Section 3 be deleted. Those in favour of the motion say aye; opposed nay. In my opinion the nays have it and I declare the motion lost.

Section 3 -- MR. GROVES: A standing vote, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Those in favour of the motion please stand; 20; Opposed, 29. I declare the motion lost.

Section 3, 6 (

a) passed. MR. CORBETT: Mr . Chairman, I did not vote. I was paired With the Honourable Member for Emerson. If I had voted I would have voted against the amendment_. MR. CHAIRMAN: Subsections 7, 8 and 9 passed.

Section 3 passed.

Section 4 passed.

Section 5 passed.

Section 6 passed.

Section 7 passed.

Preamble passed:. Title passed. The Bill be reported. Passed. MR. SHEWMAN: •..... , .a point of privilege that in Law Amendments Committee this afternoon I was asked a question of what I was going to do about this Bill and I said I had the privilege to reserve my judgment until I'd seen what was done to the BUl . Bill No. 133 was read

section by

section and passed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee rise and report. Call in the Speaker. The Committee of the House has considered Bill No. 133 and Bill No , 82 without amendment, directed me to report the same and ask leave to sit again. MR. W. G. MARTIN (st. Matthews): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre that the report·of the Committee be received. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. Bills No. 133 , 82 were read a third time and passed. MR. ROBLIN: Mr.

Speaker, we will now -take up the Budget debate once again and proceed with that. MR. SPEAK ER: The motion of the Honourable the First Minister and the amendment thereto by the Honourable Member for St. John's. The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. STAN ROBERTS (La.Verendrye) : Mr . Speaker, I can well im agine how you and members of the House would appreciate hearing a long speech on the budget tonight, so I shall try and make a few points briefly and simply and do so before 11:00 o' clock. I'd like to first of all refer to the budget itself in very simple terms. To me, Mr .

Speaker, the budget is a report to the citizens of the province on the state of the economy of the province from the government of the province. I think the budget should be simple and straightforward and clear and decipherable to all interested persons. I think it should contain no deceptions and no tricky bookkeeping or false statements. A straightforward report and naturally with an eye to the future, with a look at what may be ahead for the province in the eyes of the Provincial Treasur er .

I suggest that this budget as presented by the Honourable the First Minister a week ago, did not have all of these qualities . In my opinion it contained some deceptions; in my opinion, it does contain tricky bookkeeping. To refer to it briefly, it's obvious that the First Minister spent considerable effort trying to impress on all of us that the former government did nothing. I'm not quite certain why he felt it necessary to include in his report on the budget,the economy of the province and the look to _the future, this rather dismal look to the rear.

Well, if the former government failed the province, they did one thing, they failed to··run the dead weight debt of the province up to a high figure . I think it should be a very clear thing and should be stated in clear terms to the people of Manitoba that the dead weight debt, -and that is the debt which has no possibility of income or return, has been increased from 29 .7 million dollars to 93 millions in the past year and a half. I think that it's a great record for the former govern ment to look back to.

I feel no great need to defend them , the former government, but I think they can look back with a great deal of pride to the debt structure which they held in the province Page 1942 March 25th, 1960

(Mr. Roberts, cont' d) ..... at the time they left. And I don't think that the present First Minister can look with a great deal of pride to the debt structure of the province at the time . Further, the budget seemed to contain a great self-defence of activities . It went to a great deal of detail to explain some of the moves this government was making; the reasons for some of the borrowing. You might say that in my opinion, methinks the Provincial Treasurer protested too much. For one thing it contained the statement that there .was no tax increase in the budget.

I think this is a false statement; I think the increases in liquor revenues and the increases in fees can be classed in no other manner . r d be interested to know and I wish the Honourable the Provincial Treasurer would answer this , when he has the occasion, to know what the items under Treasury, Item 3, sundry revenue, are . I'm not suggesting they're a tax increase . They may be. They were $40, 000 in 19 58, $40, 000 in 19 59; $81, 000 in 1960; and $286, 000 in 196 1. I do hope that the Honourable the Provincial Treasurer will answer that question when he has the opportunity.

But to get back to the increase in fees, I'd like to go first to the bulletin put out by the Department of Propaganda as the Honourable the Leader of the CCF Party likes to call it, the Department of Industry and Commerce, March 18th, with the heading: " Province - Record 98 Million Dollar Budget with No Tax Boost ." For instance they point out in here that $2, 350, 000 \\ill be received extra this year from the Liquor Control Commissi on and yet they suggest that there's no tax increase in that, and we all know better .

They do not at any time here as they are listing the increases in the revenue for the province for the year, list the increases in fees under the Attorney-General' s Department, the Provincial Secretary's Department, and the Labour Department. Or for that matter Treasury, Education, or Mines and Natural Resources which have increases in fees as well .

But just to take the Attorney-General's Department, the Provincial Secretary's Department and the Labour Depart ment and total th e amount under the fees column in each one: In 1959 the revenue from the fees sources was $924, 000, in 1960 $1, 41 3, 000 and in 1961 $1, 687 , 300, an increase of $763, 000 over that period just from the fees sources alone.

Assuming that the normal increase in bus iness would show an increase of 10% a year in the fees received and this is a normal increase, there is still over a half a million dollars extra received from these fee sources and they could be classed in my opinion as only one thing, a tax increase . I believe that revisions in fees should be made from time to time. I believe that there are at different times, different costs for the services provided by these departments. But surely must the fee revisions be always up?

I suggest that in the Land Titles Department that the fees could have been held at the same level or lowered, instead of doubled just for the cost of registering a title . Has anyone ever offered proof that they are losing money in these Departments ? That the government is losing money in its cost of these services? Has anyone ever offered any proof that the:r:e was need for this great increase in the fee structure in order to meet the cost of running these things?

This bulletin follows up by listing one more source of income, $1, 426, 000 more from transfer of the previous year's tax stabilization revenue surplus. I think that that is one of the oddest named incomes I have ever heard . Tax stabilization revenue surplus . There is more than one way of balancing a budget so I've learned. A budget to me, as I've said, is a report to the public; a budget from a Provplcial Government should give the public an idea, a firm idea as to the state of their economy. But to balance a budget by trans ferring as many things as p

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-2-55
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 2nd hansardpdf 55.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2ed5ebb993ea8cba00020b3c62cdf80e4646317d

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