Manitoba Hansard — 27 April 1962 (Sitting 82, 26th Legislature, 5th Session)

26-5-82

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly Of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable A. W. Harrison Vol. VII No. 82 2:30 p.m. Friday, April 27, 1962, 5th Session, 26th Legislature Printed by R. s. Evans. Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba, Winnipeg

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o'clock, Friday, April 27th, 1962. Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAK ER: Presenting Petitions Reading and Receiving Petitions Presenting Reports by Stancling and Special Committees. HON. STERLING R. LYON, Q.C. (Attomey-Genera1) (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Statutory Regulations and Orders. MR. CLERK: Your Standing Committee on Statutory Regulations and Orders beg leave to pre11ent the following a11 their first report. Your committee met for organization 8.llO appoint ed Honourable Mr. Lyon aii Chairman.

Yoqr qommittee recommends that the quorum of this coI1unittee shall consist of six memb1;1rs. Yo1,1.r committee recommends: l, That the Standing Committee on Stati.itory llegi.i.lations and Orderi;; a ppomteO. by the l{ouse on the 9th day of March, 1962, be authorized to examine all n�gulatiqns to which The R,egulationa Act applies filed un.der;;that Act after the 9t4 day of February, 1961, and before the 15th day of February, 1962. Z-.

That the Committee shall make its report to the first Session of the Legislature held in the year 1963, and shall have power to sit during recess, after aQ.journment or prorogation. 3. That the Provincial Treal!urer be authorizecl to pay out of the Consqlidatecl Fund to members of the Committee, the amount of such reasonable out-of-pocket expense$ necessarily incurred by the members in attending the sittingi:i of the Committee during recess a$ are approved by the Comptroll er-General. All of which is respectfl,l.lly submitted. MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural l'lei:iources,' that the report qf the Committee be received. Mr. Speaker pri;isented the motion and. after a voice vote declared the motion carried. HON, STEWART E. McLEAN, Q.C. (Minister of EQ.ucation) (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the first report of the Stand.mg Committee on Public Accounts. MR. CLERK: Your StanO.ing Committee on Public Accounts beg leave to present the: following ai:i tl;leir :Eiriit r!;lpart. Your Committee met for organizatio11 and.appointed,HoQ.ourable Mr. McLean as Chairman.

Your Committee recommends that for the remainder ofthe Session the quorum of thiii Committee shall consist of ten members.

Your Committee has examined the Public Accounts of the Province of Manitoba for the fiscal year ending the 31st O.ay of March, 1961, as published, and finds that the receipts .and expenO.itures of the monies have been care fully set forth and all monies properly accounted for. your Committee received all informa tion desired by any member, from the Minister, heads of departments, and members of the Comptroller's office, with respect to receipts, expenditures and other matters pertaining to the business of the Prqvince, and all necessary papers were produced for examination.

The fullest qpportl,l.nity was accorded to all members of the Committee to examine vouchers or any documents called for, and no restriction was placed on any line of examination, All of which is reapectfully aubmitted. MR,. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Health that the repqrt of the Committee be received. Mr, Speaker prei;iented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER,: Notices of Motion. Introduction of Bills. Committee of the Whole House. HON. DUFF ROl3LIN (Premier) (Wolaeley): Mr.

Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the three proposed resolu tions standing in my name. Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, •..• ••••• the motion I should point out that leave is re quired to do this because notice has not been given in the Votes and Proceedings in the usual way.

One of the resolutions bears on the budget; the other two do not; but in view of their character I thought that if they were brought in previously it might be anticipated they had some thing to do with the budget which would perhaps be incorrect to do. So I thought that they had April 27th, 1962 Page 3009

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd) ..•.•... better be left until the budget had been presented and we knew what the situation was. But I do need leave to propose this resolution. MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave? MEMBERS: Yea. Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House with the Honourable Member for St. Matthews in the Chair. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, the Lieutenant-Governor having been informed of the su bject matter of the proposed resolutions, recommends them to the House. MR.

CHAmMAN: Resolved that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Un conditional Grants Act by providing (

a) for the recission of the authorization for grants re sp ecting persons resident in unorganized territory the payment of which has not been made after a period of a year or more; and .(

b) for the payment, in lieu of making a grant authorized in respect of persons resident in unorganized territory, of expenditures made or indebtedness incurred by a minister of the Crown for the public good and benefit of persons resident in the area in respect of which the grant is authorized; the payments so made not to exceed the amount of the grant authorized. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, the substance of this was pretty well discussed in the Committee of Supply when I was asked about unconditional grants to unorganized territories and Indian Reserves. This is what this is all about.

I don't think the Committee would expect me to repeat the explanation. . MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Lakeside): Mr. Chairman, we could take it that to that extent we did have notice of this one. MR. CHAffiMAN: •••• •• passed. Resolution No. 2. Resolved that it is expedient to bring in a. measure to amend The Reserve for War and Post-War Emergencies Act by author izing the Provincial Treasurer, with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, to transfer to current revenue moneys from time to time in the reserve. MR. ROBLIN: Mr.

Chairman, it's a rather anomalous situation which the lawyers have brought to my attention with respect to the way in which the Act for the Post-War Reserve has been drawn. That is, as it stands now after the fact, that is, after the expenditure of money, the Provincial Treasurer; or the Lieutenant-Governor-in -Council can withdraw mon ies for this fund for any purpose that you can think of. It's a very wide act indeed.

But .it s eems to me that if it were the intention to use any of this fund for purposes' that it would be advis able if we knew in advance, that we should get the authorization of the House in advance rather than use the powers contained in the act to do so the way it is written now. So the purpose of this is that if .we intend to use part of the Post-War Fund for any item in the current estimates that we can give notice of in advance, that we do so. ·This amendment enables us to do so and the House will then be in possession of the facts before it happens.

As things stand now the House is in possession of the fact after it happens, the way the act is drafted. So our opinion is that if we intend to use the fund in this way, we should give notice, and this amendment will permit us to do so. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, my recollection ?f the act was that it was intended at the time that it was established to be set up as what might be called an emergency capital fund. I'm aware that it has been used for other purposes and I think my honourable friend can quite properly say that we, our government, on at least one occasion, perhaps more, used it for other than capital.

It seemed to me that the intention, certainly in the early days, was that it should be used for capital, and as the name implies I think was intended for post-war expenditures of one kind and another. I recall that -- I think the very first money to go into the rural and farm electrification came out of that fund. But if, and I certainly accept the word of the Honourable the Provincial Treasurer that it is wider than the law officers of the Crown think advisable now and that this makes it conform more to our. usual and proper practice, I'd be all in favour. MR. MORRIS GRAY (lnkster): Mr.

Chairman, in view of the fact that the Honourable the Provincial Treasurer in his budget speech has not mentioned one word about anything out side of the interest of the Province of Manitoba, why does he anticipate this item? I was quite disappointed yesterday .in his speech that not a word was said about world conditions and world Page 3010 April 27th, 1962

(Mr. Gray, cont'd) ••••••• problems. He concentrated him'self in his wisdom on the affairs of the Province of Manitoba. So how does -- when does he change his mind to interest him self in the world's affairs, which this item, I take it, is the world's affairs and not the Pro vince of Manitoba. MR. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Leader of the New Democratic Party) (Radisson): Mr. Chair man, just one point, and the Honourable Member for Lakeside touched on it. I have no objec tions to the resolution.

I think it's a good idea that we in general know the use of the money, but I would suggest that possibly when the Treasurer is bringing in his bill on this -- I guess it's too late now·-- but I would suggest that possibly the time has come for a change in the name of this act, that rather than be The Reserve for War -- and let's hope we never have another one -- and Post-War Emergencies Act, that it might be re-named something in the nature of a Revolving Fund, for in effect that's what it is used for at the present time.

I just make that suggestion to the Committee for a change, and I have no objections to the purpose. MR. CHAffiMAN: Resolution 3. Resolved that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Amusements Act to provide, among other matters, for an alteration in the scale of taxation imposed on persons attending places of amusement, and other amendments that may result in imposition of the tax on persons now liable to payment of tax under the Act. MR . ROBLIN: Mr.

Chairman, this resolution is introduced consequent on the decision the government is recommending to the House to reduce the amusement tax in half in certain respects. There has been a little bit of questioning, I think, about what exactly this applies to with respect to the amount shown in the estimates of revenue, because there is a very large item shown in the estimates of revenue, of over $600, OOO, and people are wondering - and it's called amus ement rev�nues -- and people are rather wondering whether that amount is cut in half.

Well, that is not the case because that item is made up of two or three compon ents. One component is the admis sion price that one pays for example, when going into a movie, or perhaps going to a Celebrity Concert, or even I think if you're charged an admission fee to go to the race cours e. It's that kind of thing that's involved. The revenue from this source is about $150, OOO or thereabouts, and that is the revenue that is being cut in half. The rest of the amus ement tax revenue, by and large, comes from the pari-mutuel betting system, which members are well aware of.

No change is made in that particular respect. That makes up the bulk of the item under amusement tax of $600, OOO and so if there is a little confus ion on that score, I'd like to put it straight. But this is the resolution precedent to the bill that we '11 introduce to reduce the tax on the entrance fees that I've mentioned. MR. GILDAS MOLGAT (Leader of the Opposition) (Ste. Rose): Mr. Chairman, I think there'll be general agreement on all sides of the Hous e in the matter of this change.

Certain ly si nce the advent of TV the smaller theatres have had some considerable difficulty in keep ing in operation -- in fact, if one looks around the City of Winnipeg a good number of them have become bowling alleys or funeral parlours since that time. This certainly is causing con siderable difficulty and I think the change that the government is proposing now is one that we would approve. If I remember.correctly, TV came into the Province of Manitoba about 1954 and I think there was a decrease in the tax made about 1956 or so, and this, I think, is a sen sible second step and we approve of it. MR.

GRAY: Mr. Chairman, being a suff erer of an inferiority complex, I would like to see the Fi rst Minister react at least on record at my comment that I made on the first resolution which he tried--or uni.ntentionally-- to ignore or perhaps he thought it was not worthwhile answering. While I am on my feet in connection with the other bill, I'd like to, if possible, say a word about the first one, in connection with the other bill. I fully agree with the objective of this here bill, but at the same time I'd like to find out -- of course horse races, I understand that we have a rake-off.

Once we have one rake-off we cannot charge a nother -- and I call it a rake-off intentionally; but as far as the amusement tax is concerned, the football league -- and I'm an admirer of it; I watch it on the radio and I don't have to pay; I don •t have to pay $5. 00 for admission or three and a half dollars -- but I think this is a straight commercial enterprise. I haven't seen a bit of sport in it yet, although I may be dead to sports at my age, but I haven't seen any sport; it's entirely an amusement tax.

Those who attend pay a very heayy high fee, or high price for .......... there and I don't see why they should be exempt. I agree with the shows because they're going through a terrible time now. April 27th, 1962 Page 3011

(Mr. Gray, cont'd) ••• , ••• I agree with non-commercial sports but it is entirely, in my opin ion -- and I am su re that I will have my bead cut off by some of the interested parties in the football kingdom -- but here is a place where they are making money and making a lot of money, and the people pay.for their amusement; why should they be exempted from amusement tax? This is as far as the second thing is concerned, by I'm worrying more about the first one and I think that the First Minister, or the Treasurer, should not ignore it, MR. ELMf\N GUTTORMSON (St. George): Mr.

Chairman, could the First Minister tell us at what point does the government start charging amusement tax? I mean, what is the amount? MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the questions. I do apologize to the Honour able Member for,lnkster, if be thinks that I've ignored his comments. Perhaps I didn't under stand it fully. In the Budget Speech last night I did make reference to the position of the Manitoba economy within the Canadian economy and within the world economy but I'm not sure that that's the point my honourable friend is getting at.

Insofar as the Post-War Reserve Fund is concerned -- if the House will allow me to follow my honourable friend's example in tres - passing slightly from the rules; it is solely concerned, as far as I'm aware, with affairs here in the Province of Manitoba so I didn't quite follow his line of reasoning, but I wouldn't wish him to think that I didn't hear him or that I'm ignoring him. On the other point with respect to the football club, the line of reasoning is a little devious. I'll have to grant you that it's a matter for debate.

The ruling that's been made in the past is that the football operation is a non-profit one, in that the members of the association and everyone else concerne,d with it, except the players, operate it as a non-profit organization. It is true that it is professional in the sense that the players are paid by the proceeds of the gate, and it's a matter of policy, I suppose, as to whether you'd call that non-profit or not. Well so far it's been categorized as a non-profit item and it is for that reason that it's not taxed, although I must say we do get argument� as to whether we're doing the right thing or not.

Now with respect to the Honourable Member for St. George, the amendments in the bill will indicate the amount where the tax starts. On the first 70 cents of the tax, as I under stand it, is without tax. From 71 cents to a dollar the tax is 10 percent; it is proposed to re duce it to 5 percent and a reduction in the sliding scale on the tax payable in admissions from 65 cents to 67 cents of one cent per admission. There's no change in the tax on admission prices of'61-64 cents inclusive.

The tax on admission prices of more than a dollar remains on the present 10 percen t, so the reduction is on the admission prices of a dollar or less; that's where it comes in. Now the details of it will be set out in the bill and if my honourable friend would -- he'll see it this afternoon -- I can have the bill distributed at once and lie can have a look at it and get the full story. MR. GUTTORMSON: Just one question. In other words, an admission fee of 61 cents or over still has some tax on it. MR. ROBLIN: It's cut in half, from 10 to five. MR. L. DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Mr.

Chairman, it seems that it is a f airly difficult thing to define a non-profit organization and therefore I think that most of the time the formula has been to give such organizations the benefit of the doubt, and I certainly dbn't quarrel with this; I think that sports has such a hard time now with television and so on, I wouldn't mind at all if there wasn't any amusement tax at all, but are we doing the same thing for those theatres and so on? It seems that they can't find a way to benefit by any question mark,.

It has been mentioned here a lot of these theatres are going broke, and I can assure tbe.JY.I:inister that there are certainly enough funer al homes around the city now, I think. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure whether my honourable friend eXPects me to make a comment on that or not.

All I can say is that representatives of the moving picture people have been in on a number of occasions to see members of the department and myself and have given us their position, and I can't say -- I don't think that I should discuss the details of that here as it was given to us privately, but the facts given were such as to allow us to come to the conclusion that while a tax reduction was in order, it would not be suitable to elim inate the tax entirely. I think that's about as far as I should go under the circumstances. MR. DESJARDINS: I certainly thank the Honourable Minister for his comments.

Certainly I was eXPect_ing this, but I thought that perhaps maybe the Minister of Public Works Page 3012 April 27th, 1962

(Mr. Desjardins, cont'd) ••• ••• ; might offer some comments also. MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee rise and report. . MR • . PAULLEY: May I have the indulgence of the committee just before it rises. I must apologize for just being out of the .House at the start of this afternoon's sitting. I did not hear the report from the Statutory Rules and Regulations Comm ittee. Now it is my desire and the desire of my group to substitute the name of Mr. Schreyer for that of Mr. Orlikow for reasons that I'm sure are apparent to the House.

I understand that in the report there was · suggested authorization for the committee to meet in between sessions. MR. ROBLIN: Did my friend say Public Accounts or did he say ••••• MR. PAULLEY: No, no, Rules and Statutory Regulations. MR� ROBLIN: Well I think on the Orders of the Day you could move that. MR. PAULLEY: That will be· acceptable? MR. ROBLIN: Yes. MR. PAULLEY: I wasn't sure whether normally you have to give notice of that, and I guess I could get leave of the House in any case. MR. ROBLIN: I think, Mr. Chairman -- and Mr.

Chairman, if my honourable friend asks for leave we would be glad to accord it to him and he can make the motion after the Orders of the Day have been called. MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee rise and report. Call in the speaker. MR. W .G. MARTIN (St. Matthews): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Morris that the report of the committee be received. · Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. ROBLIN introduced Bill No. 95,

an Act to amend The Unconditional Grants Act. MR. ROBLIN introduced Bill No. 66,

an Act to amend The Reserve for War and Post war Emergencies Act. MR. ROBLIN introduced Bill No. 120,

an Act to amend The Amusements Act, MR. SPEAKER: Before I call the Orders of the Day I should like to introduce to the members of the Legislative Assembly , Gimli 4-H Club. We have 35 members of this group· with us under the leadership of Mr. J. Johnson and Pat Duguid. This group are from Gimli constituency and are represented in this House by the Honourable George Johnson. We are very happy to have the future farmers and farmerettes of Manitoba with us in the gallery this afternoon.

No doubt that as they view the progress in this Legislature many of them have thoughts that in future years they may themselves grace a seat in this Legislature. We're happy to have you this afternoon. Come back again some time. Orders of the Day. MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Speaker before the Orders of the Day, I'd like to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Selkirk, that the name of the Honourable Member for Ethelbert Plains be struck off the Standing Committee on Statutory Regulations and Orders and substituted by the Member for St. Boniface. MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the Honourable Member for St.

George, second ed-by the Honourable Member for Selkirk, that the name of -- can you give us the motion? MR. GUTTORMSON: I have't got a prepared motion, Mr. Speaker. My motion was this, that the name of the Honourable Member for Ethelbert Plains be struck off the list of the Standing Committee on Statutory Regulations and Orders and substituted by the Member for St. Boniface with the permission of the House. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like the indul gence and leave of the House to have the name of the Honourable Member for Brokenhead substituted for that of the Honourable Member for St. John's, on the Standing Committee on Statutory Regulations and Orders. Mr, Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Honourable the Leader of the Oppo sition would rather proceed tonight than this afternoon with the debate on the motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

So what I propose that we should do is merely proceed with the Orders of the Day as they stand in the Order Paper, with the s4:J.gle exception that I would like to bring forward the adjourned debates and second readings of private members' bills t.: April 27th, 1962 Page 3013

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd) •••.•• that are halfway through the Order Paper after government hills have been dealt with, and then we wou!d carry on with the resolutions as they stand. I trust that would be agreeable. HON. GEORGE HUTTON (Minister of Agriculture and Conservation) (Rockwood-Iberville): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to present the latest press release of the Flood Forecasting Committee, which met yesterday, April 26th and reviewed runoff conditions existing at that time.

In view of the negligible precipitation occurring over the water sh ed during the past several days, together with the fact that the peak flow at Eme rson occur• ring today is somewhat lower than previously predicted, the Committee is of the opinion that the peak flow of the Red River at Winnipeg was reached on April 24th at a discharge of 59,000 cfs, which corresponds to a stage of 19.8 ft. city datum at James Avenue and is unlikely to reach this peak again this year. The situation on the Assiniboine River basin has also been imp roved by the comparatively low amounts of precipitation over the last week.

Consequently, the future peak flows may occur somewhat earlier and. at lower levels than previously predic- ted. ' Mr. Speaker, also before the Orders of the Day, I would like to lay on the table of the House the Return to the Order of the House No. 6 dated March 2, 1962 on a motion by the Honourable Member from Gladstone-Neepawa. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. HON. GURNEY EVANS (Minister of Industry and Commerce) (Fort Rouge): Mr.

Speak er, before you proceed with the Orders of the Day I'd like to lay on the table of the House, a Return to an Order of tlie House on the motion of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, I should like to report to the House that pursuant to

Section 3 of the Uniform Law Commissioners Act it is requi�ed that there be laid on the table of the House during each annual session, a report of the three uniform law commis sioners of Manitoba. This is done each year through the me dium of tabling the report of the total conference. I was advised this week by the Legislative Counsel for Manitoba, that the report of the total conference, which includes, of course, the report of our three commissioners, is only now at the printer's in Nova Scotia and there is every probability that it will not be received before the House rises.

I therefore bring this matter to the attention of the House, more or less, I suppose Sir, to ask leave for the report not to be tabled as required J:iy statute, bec.ause of course of the form it has taken in past years. I can assure honourable members that as soon as the copy is available it will be tabled at the next ensuing session of this House, but the responsibility for this, of course, does not lie with us; the report is just not in our hands.

If it.meets with the wishes of honourable mem bers, I thought I should put it on record that we will table this report the next ensuing session just as soon as we get it in our hands. In the alternative, of course, I could have the three commissioners give me a three-line report, saying that their report is contained in the print ed report which is not yet available, but I didn't think that members of the House would wish that to occur. •· MR. CAMPBELL: Is this the report that is printed and distributed to all the members of the House? MR. LYON: As I recall, Mr.

Speaker, I believe there's only one copy usually tabled. Now I could be wrong in that, but I don't believe there are too many copies of it usually made available. MR. PAULLEY: It have no objection at all to the suggestion of the Honourable the Attorney-General that he be excused under the circum stances of the non-tabling of this report.

I would like to suggest to him, however, that after a receipt of the report from -- Nova Scotia, I believe it was, that if after the receipt of that, that he feels that there's anything in the report itself that might be of interest to the parties, that a copy, if available, be sent during the recess to us and then the formal tabling be done next session. MR. LYON: I'd be very happy to do that, Mr. Speaker, to let honourab�e members have copies once it is available. That is, the Leaders , at least. MR. GRAY: Mr.

Speaker, the neighbourhood in my district wants me to eXPress their thanks to the Minister of Agriculture, to announce every morning, every day if possible or even after we prorogue, .the situation of the flood. Some of them are sending me the bills for Page 3014 April 27th, 1962

(Mr. Gray, cont'd) •••••••••• the rubber boots they have to buy; they're expecting a flood every morning and they're worrying about it, and what I want to recommend to you, is· for notifying every morning, and I'd like to urge you that even when the House prorogues, make a statement to the press every day of the situation. This will comfort them considerably. :MR. M. E. McKELLAR (Souris-Lansdowne): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to bring a message of importance regarding the sheep industry in this province to the members of the Legislature.

The AU-Canada Sheep Show being staged this summer, July 2nd . to the 6th at Brandon, is the feature event of the Provincial Exhibition of Manitoba. To our knowledge a special sheep show of this nature and extent has never been held in Canada before. The sheep industry in Canada at the present time is in a somewhat depressed state but it is to be hoped that national recognition of the sheep industry during this week in Brandon might prove to be the spark that will give the industry the lift it requires in order that it can take its rightful place in the agricultural economy of this country.

The Manitoba Sheep Breeders' Associatfon, the pure-bred sheep breeders organization in this province, aware of the foregoing condition and also aware of the fact that something should be done, decided in the fall of 1960 to organize and stage this national show. They were successful in obtaining the services of Mr. Bill Munroe, Director of Field Services for the Meat Pabkers Council of Canada who resides in Winnipeg, to act as manager of the show. Mr. H. E. Avery of Chater, Manitoba, is President of the Manitoba Sheep Breeders and the Chair man of the show. Mr.

Doug Stevenson, of the Livestock Branch, Department of Agriculture, is their Secretary. The show and general program has been divided into several broad committees such as prizes, provincial exhibitor's, contacts, finance and merchandise awards display building; show and sale committee; publicity and over-all management committee. Since the show's inception possibly upwards of 50 to 75 meetings have been held in the various committees., involving a large group of individuals representing the sheep breeders themselves, represent ing the provincial and federal departments of Agriculture.

The All-Canada Sheep Show Committe has drawn up a prize list second to none in Canada today, hopeful of obtaining exhibits from every province in Canada, representing the best pure-bred stock in seven of the most popular breeds. They expect to have upwards of 800 sheep. In addition to the show, the committee is holding a selected sheep sale of about 75 head of the best of Canada's breeding stock in an endeavour to distribute the same to all pro vinces. In addition there are classes for cross-breed use which will also be sold in an en deavour to create and expand sound commercial flocks.

Several additional features and attrac tions have been added to the week's program, including a wool show, a sheep-shearing compe tition, and exhibitors' social hour and banquet, and of most importance, a very extensive educational display in the program. This .latter is being staged in a separate building donated for this purpose and will comprise exhibits all relating to the expansion of the production and consumption of quality Canadian lamb and wool and their products.

Included are exhibits cover ing the economics of sheep production in ••••••••• of each program an example, a cross breeding program, lamb carcasses, cuts, preparation and cooking ; a display entitled "The World of Wool," and a film theatre. On behalf of the. All-Canada Sheep Show Committee, may I extend a most sincere in vitation to all of you to spend a few hours, or a day or two, at the All-Canada Sheep Show this summer at Brandon. MR. T.P. HILLHOUSE, Q.C. (Selkirk): Would the honourable member permit a ques tion? The Honourable Member for St.

Boniface would like to know whether that invitation in cludes black sheep? -- (Interjection) -- MR. GRAY: What's more important? A lamb or a sheep? HON. GEO. JOHNSON (Minister of Health)(Gimli): Mr.

Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to make a short statement concerning the Sabin vaccine program which started under way today, and as always with the thinking of the members of the Legislature, a Sabin vaccine clinic is set up in the rotunda of the building and if the honourable members woUld slip out some time between 3:00 and 5:00 we would like them to participate in this pro gram by taking some of the first vaccine . April 27th, 1962 Page 3015

MR. ROBLIN: If.it works on you, it will be safe for tbe rest of tbe province. MR. JOHNSON! Yes, I think it'll even work on my Honourable Member from Selkirk. However, I would like to say at this time that Manitoba will be the first province to get tbe Sabin vaccine actually on tbe road, .starting this afternoon and going full force on Monday. There's no age limit; there's no contra-indications; there's no -- that is, tbe same thing with any other vaccine -- no danger, and I can assure my honourable friends that I wouid like them to take theirs this afternoon. They can get it downstairs in the rotunda.

Tbe staf� are ready to handle you between those_ hours. - I would also like to thank at this time tbe television, press and radio for the tremendous co-operation they're giving us on a voluntary basis as a public service, and they have been goillg all out to promote Sabin vaccine during the month of May. I can't thank them enough. I also would pouit out to honourable members that the dates as to where adults can get their vaccine will be published in the press.

Anyone in doubt can phone their comer drugstore -- the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association have offered this service -- and also in health unit areas and so on; you can phone the local health departments. There will be 21 stations set up in Winnipeg. We' re hoping to cover everyone in the first four or five days of May. These clin ics will be held from 2:00 to 8:00 in 21 centres throughout the province, largely in schools. I would ask honourable members to give this every support they can and hope that the members will avail themselves of tbe vaccine here today.

We 're very proud and I also want to truink the staff throughout tbe health department and all departments who co-operated with us in getting this program under way so early after the licensing of tbe vaccine. We've ordered siµIicient vaccine and it is our hope that every Manitoban will avail himself of this service. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that my colleague has the best of intentions in the world, but I want to .say to tbe government members that if they're thinking of taking

part in this program I will expect them to leave one by one during Committee of tbe Whole - (interjection) -- and the next man not to come back ··till tbe first man has returned. We don't want any untoward events this afternoon. There is another thing that I intended to say, Mr.

Speaker, about the or.der of business that I omitted to say the other day, and that is, that while we'll be meeting in a separate sess ion again tonight, as the House understands, and we'll be meeting in Law Amendments -- I think it is at 9:30 is it not, tomo_rrow morning -- and that the House will reconvene at 2:30 Saturday afternoon, if we are not through with Law Amendments, we will rise and go back to Law Amendments, but if we're through, then we'll proceed with other business, but I wanted to' give members that notice that we'll be having a formal meeting at 2:30 tomorrow afternoon just to see where we stand at that time.

MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, is there any insurance carried on tbe MLAs? Should we take the needle? -- (Interjections) -- Is there any insurance carried on tbe MLAs in case it works tbe other way. MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): No, Mr. Speaker, we have every assurance from the millions of dosas that have been given of this vaccine throughout tbe world. There has never yet been any ill effects recognized and a survey was carried out in Prince Albert last year.

As for in surance, no, but I want to say this; we have an elder Manito?an, 105 ye·ars old, who consented to take his dose of Sabin vaccine yesterday, and he made tbe. statement that be hopes - if he does nothing else before be dies, be's going to take his Sabin vaccine. We hope this sticks with everyone too. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Speaker, we certainly respect the words of tbe Honourable Minister but I wonder if I might be allowed to ask him a question?-In view of the fact that we'll be the first in Manitoba to take this; in view of tbe fact that Manitoba will be the first province to go under this program; and in view of the fact of tbe heated debates we've had this session, for our own protection wouldn't it be advisable for the government to go first, and then tbe members of the Opposition to follow? · MR.

JOHNSON (Gimli): Well, I shouldn't say it, you know; the honourable member is in tbe wrong occupation -- (interjection) -- however, I can assure my honourable friend that -- (interjection}_ -- yes, well we have a program too, but I do feel that from all the studies, indications and advice we can get throughout Canada, there's no reason for not proceeding with this vaccine. I think it'§ incumbent upon us to do so. Page 3016 April 27th, 1962

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr.

Speaker, I think that this a most important announcement that the Honourable the Minister has made. - - Of course, it's not the first that we've heard about it .-- but I think it really is something that we should pay serious attention to because if this vaccine is as· effective as the Salk that has preceded it, I think this is a epoch in health affairs because, goodness lmows, the folks who have seen the results of the disease that it's intended to prevent can certainly give great thanks to the researchers and others who have developed a vaccine of any kind, and then. to think that this much more convenient form has been develop ed is really a major advance, and It� we should express our appreciation to the department and going back behind them, to the folks who do the ground work that makes this sort of thing possible •.

If it results in eradicating this dread scourge, it certainly will be a red-letter day in the histo:cy of the Province of Manitoba. MR. J. M. HAWRYLUK (B-µrrows): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Education. I never had the opportunity to commend the government and the Minister at the tiip.e about the fact that the government saw fit to teacl!, Ukrainian, to bring Ukrainian into the junior high level, and my question is this, Sir.

Has he any idea how many te!lchers will be reqi.Ured and did every junior high school in the Pro vince of Manitoba and particularly in the City of Winnipeg get a notice in regard to the teaching of Ukrainian in Grade IX? MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, all of the school districts or school divisions received an invitation to participate. We're just now collecting the answers of those who are advising us that they wish to and those who say they don't wish to. I can't tell the House how many affirmative answers we will have, or how many teachers will be required.

Any figure I would give would only be guessing but all have been given an opportunity. MR . MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I'd like to address a question to the Minister. of Public Utilities. So far as tre Matador Pipe Lines which are going to be constructed between the southwest corner of our province near Antler, North Dakota, to hook on to the Interprovincial Pipe Line; will this be a common carrier? Will the wells in the Pierson Field�,. which are directly. adjoinging the pipe line, be able to use this pipe line to transport their oil to the station at Cromer? · MR .

LYON: I'd be happy to take that question as notice and get the information for my honourable friend. MR . SPEAKER: Orders of ·the Day. Orders for Return. The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR . JOHN P. TANCHAK (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honour able Member for Turtle Mountain, that an Order of the House do issue for a return showing for the fiscal years 1959, 1960 and 1961:

(1) Money spent on Provincial highways in every constituency in the Province of Manitoba;

(2) Money spent on construction of bridges in every constituency in the Province of Manitoba;

(3) Grants in aid given for public works to eac.h constituency. Mr. Speaker presented. the motion. HON. WALTER WEm (Acting Minister of Public Works)(Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, l rise to say that I can't accept this Order for Return from the Honourable Member for Emerson because the accounting of disbursements and expenditures by the department and the records are not maintained with reference to the boundaries of provincial constituencies.

Any break down that there could be would have to be purely an arbitrary figure and it would really not have any great degree of meaning, and therefore I have to accept the precedent that has been established in the past by the previous government and reject this motion. MR. TANCHAK: Mr. Speaker, I kind of half expected that the Minister would object to it. I hoped he would go to take his vaccine during this time; he might not have.

But I cann ot see the validity of his reasoning in refusing to give this information in view of the fact that on April 23rd there was a precedent set and the Honourable Minister, in Hansard April 23rd, Page 2124, the Honourable the Minister did reveal the money spent in a certain constituency. Now I'll read it out of here: "In the Honourable Member for Fisher's area, he's got four disorgan ized areas and one unorganized.

In the '58-59 season, '59-60, '60-61, '61-62, the Province of Manitoba spent in this constituency $626, 413. 46." So we thought that if it was possible to do it in one constituency I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to do it for all the constituencies. April 27th, 1962 Page 3017

(Mr. Tanchak, cont'd) .•.••• The Minister just said that it is not customary to have the figures for constituencies, but here's an example where it was quit.e possible, so I think this informa tion should be given ils. MR. WEffi: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the honourable member's question, I might say that all of the information that I gave during estimates is available. It is available in your annual reports, because that was purely money that was spent in regard to the unorganized and disorganized area of the honourable member's constituency.

This same thing does not apply all over Manitoba and those particular figures are available in the annual reports of the given years. _ MR. TANCHAK: Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Minist.er will agree with me that it is possible to give this by constituencies? MR. WEffi: No, Mr. Speaker, under no circumstances do I agree with the honourable member. Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. SPEAKER: Committ.ee of the Whole House. MRS. CAROLINE MORRISON (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Souris-Lansdowne, that Mr.

Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Cbmmitt.ee of the Whole to consider the following bills: Bill No. 56, Bill No. 103; Bill No. 102. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vot.e declared the motion carried and the House resolved itself into a Committ.ee of the Whole House with the Honourable Mem ber for St. Matthews in the Chair. MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 56. MRS. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, I have amendments I'd like to propose to this bill. These amendments are all deletions and therefore there are no new powers given.

These amendments are the results of consultation with the Minister of .Municipal Affairs and have his approval. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 68 (1) passed; (2) passed; proposed amendment 69 -- dele- tions •.• ••• MRS. MORRISON: Section (3) and (4) thereof, MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 69, the deletion of (3) and (4). MR. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that tbe loud speakers were on at that poi nt. I understand that the honourable member moved that sections (3) and (4) be deleted. MR. CHAffiMAN: Agreed? That (3) and (4) be deleted •••••• MRS. MORRISON: There are some further qeletions to this

section and I would like them moved at this time. By deleting the word and figure "subsection (6)" in the first line of subsection (5) and substituting therefor "subsection (4)"; by deleting the word and figure "subsection (5)11 in the first line of subsection (6) and substituting therefor "subsection (3)". By re-numbering subsections (5) and (6), respectively, (3) and (4). MR. CHAIRMAN: Amendment passed? Agreed? Sections 71, 72 and 73 of Bill 56 were passed. MRS. MORRISON: I move the following amendments., Mr. Chairman. Proposed

Section 73 is amended by deleting the word "license" in the sixth line of subsection (1) and by substituting therefor the word "tax." Subsection (2), by deleting the words "licence fee" in the eighth line of said subsection (1) and by substituting therefor the word "tax." Subsection (3), by deleting the words, "authorized by

section 69 for business tax applicable to such a business" at the end of the subsection (1) and substituting therefor the words "for business tax levied for that year." Subsection ( 4) , by deleting the words "licence fee" in the first and second lines of subsection (2) and substituting therefor the word "tax. 11 MR. CHAffiMAN:

Section 73 as amended passed; 74 •• •• MRS. MORRISON: I move the following amendments Mr. Chairman. Proposed

Section 74 is amended, subsection (1), by deleting the words "and license" in the second line of sub section (1) and substituting therefor the word J•for." Subsection (2), by deleting the words "for the licence" in the first line of subsection (2) and substituting therefor the words "shall not exceed fifty dollars and." Subsection (3), by deleting the word "licence" where it occurs in the first and second lines of subsection (3). Subsection (4), by deleting the words "licence Page 3018 April 27th, 1962

(Mrs. Morrison, cont'd) •••• •••• or other fee" in the sixth line of subsection (3) and substi tuting therefor the word "taX". MR •. CHAmMAN:

Section 74 as amended passed. 74A ••• • MRS. MORRISON: I beg to move the following amendments Mr. Chairman , of subsec tion 74A: Subsection (1), by deleting the word "licence" in the first line of said

section and substituting therefor the words "a tax or fee". Subsection (2), by deleting the word "licence " where it occurs in the sixth and ele venth lines of said

section and by substituting therefor in each case the words "tax or". ·subsection (3), by deleting the word "fee" at the end of said

section and substituting· therefor the words !'tax or fee." MR. CHAmMAN: 74A as amended passed. 74B •• •• • MRS. MORRISON: 74B is deleted. I move, l so move Mr. Chairman 74B is deleted. MR. CHAmMAN:

Section 1 passed;

Section 2 passed,

preamble passed. MR. CAMPBELL: I gather they don't greatly affect the over-all bill. They're just structural or legislative changes are they, rather than change in principle and substance ? HON. JOHN A. CHRISTIANSON (Minister of Public Welfare) (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Chairman, if I might presume to answer for the Honourable Member from Pembina.

The Min ister of Municipal Affairs pointed out that some of these proposed -- or some of the original sections in the bill gave the City of Portage la Pi'airie rather larger powers than was implicit in the Municipal Act or in some of the statutes of other cities -- similar cities -- in Manitoba, and these amendments merely remove. these sections from the act, and I would say that the amendments that are proposed have been worked out between the solicitor for the City of Portage la Prairie and the Department of Municipal Affairs and is with both their full con currence. MR.

CAMPBELL: Would it be correct to say •. Mr. Chairman, that the Honourable the Acting Minister of Muilicipal Affairs is cutting Portage down to size ? now ? MR. CHAmMAN: Bill 103. It's fairly extensive. Shall we take these by pages? Bill 103 was read page by page and passed. MR. CHAmMAN: I presume we should take this

section by section. MR. MOLGAT: •• •••• 102, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman is it 102 that you're calling MR. CHAmMAN: 102 now. MR. MOLGAT: Before we proceed into Bill 102, Mr. Chairman. When we had a dis cussion on this bill originally in second reading, before going to the committee , I stated the position of our party, and that position I thought was quite clear, and this matter needed more study. The Minister in his reply subsequently poked fun at the position that the Liberal Party had taken, and indicated that we were inclined to be on the fence and so on. Mr.

Chairman, it seems quite surprising to me after the position of the Minister that now we find the Minister himself on the fence , because the proposals he made in committee , I think, proved exactly the case that we stated here in the first place on second reading , and that is , that this matter does need more consideration •. The fact is that the government now is proposing that a part of the bill be referred to the courts. The government is saying, ''We don't know ourselves what this means. We can't tell what the legisla tion that we are proposing to this House actually means insofar as labour relations.

We don't know what the effect of this legisla tion is . We can't even interpret, ourselves, the meaning of our proposals." So they're referring it to the courts and presumably they will attempt to hide behind the court in the decision taken there. Mr. Chairman, this proves conclusively that this matter needs more study. The gov ernment itself doesn't know what this legisla tion means. Anyone who sat through the committee the other day, I think will agree, that there's a great deal of education needed in this field.

There's education needed on the part of managerrent; there's education needed on the part of labour; and there's also a great deal of education needed on behalf of the members of this House who are going to make the final decision in this matter. We heard many representations. By and large they fell into two groups depending on who was making the representation. We sub mit that the results of that committee were proof again of the position that we took in the first place. The government, in addition of course to what was given in committee , has received many briefs beforehand.

This was evident from the representations made there , that they had received from labour and from management over the past year or so a number of April 27th, , ,J . .!J62 Page 3019

(Mr. Molgat, cont'd) ••••••• recommendations of which this House is not aware. The cabinet has these; we don't. These we believe should be given to the committee as a whole to be con sidered, in order that we can arrive at a sensible decision in this regard. When we listen, for example, to the representations made by the construction groups, be they employer groups or employee groups , in both cases the recommendation was the s�e , that the Labour Relations Act did not apply properly to the construction industry; that insofar as that particular aspect was concerned either it needed a separate act or it' neede,d a separate

section within the Labour Relations Act. This does not exist in Manitoba now and the present legislation does not propose this . When we listened to both groups once again we found that a number of recommendations which they were making were not covered by the bill that's before us . When you read what Mr. Justice Tritschler had to say the bill that's before us does not cover many of the items that be recommended. So Mr. Chairman, I cannot see the purpose in passing this. bill at this time. I think there has been no case made for the urgency of passingthis bill now.

I went carefully, in my first speech, over the history of labour relations in this province and in particular the situation of the strikes. These were covered again in committee and no case was made there that this change had to be made now. On the en ntrary, all the way through the case was made, and now the government admits it by some of the changes it is proposing in the bill , that this whole question needs a great deal more study· than it's getting now. It's time that our Labour Relations Act has a complete overhaul. It's time that we consider many other aspects.

It's time that we approach all these groups, that we proceed with the education that Mr . Justice Tritschler recommends , and that we come out with a· Labour Relations Act that will ; in fact, cover more fully the needs of both labour and management in this province. Mr. Chairman, in view of this we are not prepared and will not submit amendments to this bill now.

We stand by the position that we ·held before, which I say the government now admits is correct, that this matter should be reconsidered, that the Industrial Relations Com mittee should sit between the sessions or recess , and that we proceed with a complete investi gation of our Labour Relations Act, that we do tliis in a period of calm and careful consideration, not by having four committee meetings in succession where we listen to briefs and don't have proper time to discuss this .

So insofar as our group is concerned, we'll propose no amend ments; we'll not proceed to vote in favour of any amendments ; we suggest that the bill simply be referred back to the committee'. And I beg to move , Mr . Chairman, seconded by the mem ber for Carillon that Bill Nci. 102 be not now proceeded with, but that it be referred back tci the Committee on Industrial Relations for further consideration. Mr. Chairman presented the motion. MR.

LYON: I think before we proceed with the vote on that question, there are one or two points that I might comment upon with respect to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposi tion concerning the government's intention to refer the one

section of this Bill by way of refer ence . or stated case to the Courts of the Province. My honourable friend made the statement that the government doesn't know what the

section means. Well , I'm not.·going to get into any long harangue or argument with him at this stage at all. lm erely want to reassure him that the government has a strong opinion and a very firm opinion as to what the

section means and as to its.full import and effect, because if he will recall, the opinion of the Legislative Counsel was read at the Committee tb,e other morning confirming the government's position in this matter . Not only that, that opinion was distributed to members of the House who have had the opportunity, I'm sure , to peruse it since. We have taken other advice on this matter from other sources, I'm quite able , or quite free to tell my honourable friend, and the opinions that we have had coincide with the opinion of Mr. Rutherford, namely that this

section does not confer any additional onuses or burdens, or prejudice in any way beyond the scope of what legal status does to any other group or organ ization which is accorded that status. So I want to disabuse my honourable friend's mind of any suggestion that the government doesn't know.

What the government does know is that one couldarguefromnow till doomsday before the Industrial Relations Committee on a legal ques tion which could never be resolved by that Committee, because there is only one place to resolve such a question and that is in the courts, and that's why we make the suggestion that we do, that this one section, if, as there appears to be, there is some doubt, people do not · accept the interpretatiqn that�the government and its advisers have placed upon the bill , if there Page 3020 April 27th, 1962

(Mr. Lyon, cont'd) ••••• •••• is doubt on this , as we must all agree there is , cast by other persons , then we will take the proper action, namely, to refe r it to the courts for an opinion as to the effect of the

section upon either employer or trade union groups who are accorded legal status pursuant to the bill. I'm afraid that it' s. pretty cold comfort, maybe , to the Leader of the Opposition, but I'm afraid this action on behalf of the government offers neither an excuse nor an answer to his particular predicament, much as he would. like to think that it doe s. This is , I suggest, a reasonable and logical way of approaching the subject matter of this one section.

I don't in tend to get into the other sections of the bill, because we've had this argument and debate before as to the advisability or otherwise of having protracted hearings , and enlarging the scope of the hearings and so on and. so forth. That's not the purpose of my intervention at this point. The only purpose is to point out that our intention is to refer the one

section to resolve any doubts that may exist and to let the courts tell us what the effect of the

section is . Insofar as the other matters are concered, there are others on this side of the House , and perhaps from the other side , more capable of. speaking on this subject than me.

I merely want to assure my honourable friend , the Leader of the Opposition, that far from adopting the line of argument that he puts forward, the government's line of argument, I think here, is essentially reasonable; it will be understood by all who have any knowledge of these matters to be the only logical step that one could take to res olve a question of this sort, and that this is what we propose to do ; this is what will be done and I'm afraid it still leaves him in the original pre dicament in which he placed himself. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Chairman, before we proceed with the bill and the taking of this vote , I feel that it is incumbent. upon myself to say a few words in respect of Bill No. 102. I say from the offset, Mr. Chairman, that insofar as the motion that we have before us at the present time , introduced by the Leader of the Liberal Party, we certainly are going to support him. However, as far as I am concerned and as far as my group is concerned , to me it isn't a question of just merely referring this bill back to the Committee for more study.

Our position has been clearly stated that insofar as Bill 102 is concerned that we're in opposi tion by and large to the major contents of the bill. For about four days , Mr .

Chairman, we 've sat in the Industrial Relations Committee to hear representations both from management and from labour in respect of this bill, and I think it should have been obvious to anyone as the deliberations proceeded and the representations were heard that the whole purpose sought of the government and I say, I think sincerely held, that this bill would enhance the good rela tionship between management and labour, were not being achieved.

But as we heard representa tions in the Committee it was more and more evident that this bill and the main provisions in the bill, to the contrary would cause more disharmony between management and labour than there is under the present Labour Relations Act and that there has been in the past. I don't think anyone who listened to all of the representations as intently and attentive ly as I did, could help but feel convinced of this fact.

We dealt with the provisions of secret strike ballots and we had many representations from both representatives of management and labour and a number of individuals concerning this particular aspect of the bill . We dealt with the question of the legal entities of the trade union organizations .

We heard representations from all sides in connection with this , and while I appreciate the fact that the government, who in the original instance , according to the words of the Honourable the Minister of Labour , seemed inclined to push through the Bill 102 in its original state 1 has now come to the conclu sion that there is room for argument of a legal nature , that we should defer one

section until the matter has been referred to the courts, and as I said, Mr . Chairman, this is appreciated to some degree, but we don't think tha� it is the answer.

While we have had the assurance of the First Ministe r and, I believe , the Attorney-General, that there will be consultation with lawyers either for or against, to use it loosely, "labour organization" -- and I mean that re spectfully not disrespe ctfully --that there will be consultation in trying to arrive at a hypo thetical stated case for submiss ion to their Honours, the Justices of the Court of Appeal, there is also the question that under the provisions of the amendment proposed by the govern ment by which they and they alone can proclaim or not proclaim the

section of the bill, but there is no provision in the event, as I see it, whereby that there is any restriction at all on the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It can conceivably happen that with a referral of the stated April 27th, 1962 Page 3021

(Mr. Paulley cont'd) ••••.•••• case to the Honourable Justices of the Appeal Court, that there may be a split decision three and two in favour of establishing that the provisions of the legal entities do not hold the union responsible for the actions of an individual, and the government could conceivably on the basis of a mere majority report of the Justices go through with the proclama tion.

I made the request in the committee that because of the time element that will be taken up, first of all in the preparing of a sta ted case, and secondly by the time that it will be necessary for the learned gentlemen to take this under review, that the whole Act and action on it be deferred for at least a year until the next Session of the Legislature, before being proceeded with. I was unsuccessful in my endeavours. I want to point out, Mr.

Chairman, for the benefit of some of the members of the Com mittee who did not have the opportunity of attending the hearings of the Industrial Relations Committee, what sonie of the comments were of those who made representation to us . I want to first of all refer to the question of the taking of a secret strike vote. It has been: held in some quarters that unions take strike votes in a haphazar d sort of a mann er.

There is the impression around that these votes are not conducted democratically, and had the rest of the members of this committee here this afternoon had the opportunity of those of us who were sitting on the Industrial Relations Committee to hear the explanation given by representatives of labour organiza tions as to how they conduct their votes, !f eel sure that they in fairness would agree with me that this particular

section should be eliminated from the act . But more than just the representations of labour union men, I would like to just read one or two observations of a very highly respected individual in our community who has concerned himself with Bill 102 , and took the time and the energy to compile a brief to the committee of some 21 pages deal ing with all aspects of this bill, namely, Professor H. C.

Pentland of our University of Mani toba, who was not there as a representative of labour, and who was not there as a representa tive of management, but merely an individual who was concerned with industrial relations here in the Province of Manitoba; a man who has devoted considerable years of study to the whole question of labour-management relat ions, and this man took the time out of his busy life to compile a statement and a brief for the benefit of the committee, and I would like to just make one or two observations that he made in connection with the question of the conduct of a strike vote.

And I refer to Page 4 of Professor Pentland 's brief, item No. 1.

The professor says, "This amendment which dealt with·strike votes is inspired in the first place by a myth -- the myth that union officers frequently falsify the results of strike votes or fail to conduct votes in a sufficiently impartial way to obtain the true opinion of their members ." And he goes on: "The es sential reason that union officers do not commonly falsify strike votes is not just because they are responsible persons, and of those whom I .have known at one time or another the over whelming majority gave the appearance of being exceptionally reasonable and judicious persons .

There is a more compelling reason for conducting votes honestly . It is because the officer who falsifies a strike vote takes the most reckless chances with his union and his own caree r. If he were to say that the union favoured a strike when it did not -- the case always supposed by those who favour government strike. ·votes -- he would condemn himself to enter a strike battle with a ragged and divided force, with every probability of defeat.

On the other hand, if the official reported the vote against a strike when the actual vote was in favour -- a course which some of the proponents of supervised strikes might approve -- he w�uld court the strong risk of being thrown out of his membership.

Contrary to what advocates of supervised strike votes seem to believe , workers have a very accurate knowledge of the balance of opinion in their group, and they will know when a vote result is falsified unless the vote is very close ." Professor Pent land goes on and he poses this question, and I pose this question to you as members of this as sembly: "The union officer was appointed to do the bargaining for his members and he must be free to do it for good or ill.

It is no more appropriate to check or repudiate his representa tive actions through a voice vote supervised by someone else than to require company officers to let shareholders vote on each move they make or to require the Governmai t of Manitoba to put each proposed act to the electors as a referendum. The proposal for supervised strike votes represents a confusion with something else. The more fundamental votes determining shall be the elected representatives in government. Who shall be the shareholder s' represen tative, and who shall be the workers' bargai ning representative from the officer of his union?

Once any of these repr�8,entatives are elected they must be allowed to represent or their Page 3022 April 27th, 1962

(Mr. Paulley, con t'd ) ••• •••• ,p ositions and effectivene ss is destroyed. Government strike votes will be particularly subversive of good labour relations if not only the over-all verdict but the num bers who voted each way are given to the employer. " And he goes on there as to possible upsetting again of harmonious relations . ' So the story goes of an independent man who stood before the committee and gave his opinions in respect of this.

Then he went on into the question of union entity and pursued a similar line , pointing out, pointing out that while there have been some difficulties and some differences of -opinions in the courts, by and large the amendments -- the government has recog nized this , by having the matter referred to this Appeal Board -- that this is going to do nothing to .enhance the good relations of man agement and labour in the Province of Manitob a. I could go on, Mr . Chairman, and give a full history, I think , of what happened in the i:Jommittee . It's not my purpose to do that this afternoon.

We had a member of the Print ers Union explain fully of all of the nece ssary steps which have to be taken by his organization before there 1 s any possibility of a strike taking place . So I say, Mr . Chairman, that there was no substantiation in the committee. Even Mr . Tallin who was representing the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce before this committee , Mr .

Chairman, declared in answer to a ques tion, that as far as he knows in the experience that he has had in relationship between manage ment and labour, at no time was there a falsified vote; at no time was he aware of any strike vote or any strike that was taken as a result of a strike, that did not represent the opinions of the unions concerne d. Representative after representative outline d to us their strike pro cedure, and any fair-minded person on that committee could not .but have come to the con clusion that insofar as this particular aspect of Bill 102, that is was unn eces sary.

One of the biggest objections from the Cana dian Manufactur ers Association, the Mani toba Chambers of Commerce arid the Winni peg Chambers of Commerce , was that the bill did not go far enough. The objections of labour was that it went too far. We point out that because of these factors , a great deal more study has to be done in connection with labour relations here in the Province of Manito ba. We have suggested that we should not proceed at all with this bill and will eventually make such a proposal to the House. · I say to this committee, Mr.

Chairman, before they should proceed with this bill , think what they are doing. They can upset -- and this is not my judgment alone -- what have been relatively good industrial relations in the Province of Manito ba. ·It has been pointed out through the reports of the Department of Labour that we here in the Province of Manitoba even under the present legislation with its deficienc ies, that we have had one of the best provincial labour-management ·relations of any of the provinces in the Dominion of Canada.

During the sittings of this committee we had appear before us, representative s of the second part, or one half of the part of labour-management relations and they have said to us in no uncertain terms, ''We don't want this legislation; we feel that it is an imposition on us," and yet despite one half of a football team saying that this will make rules which are not acceptable to us, the other half of the team , namely management , say "W e want this plus we want more , for our advantage ." Surely Mr.

Chairman , and members of this committee , this is enough illustration to indicate that this will not enhance more harmony or better harmony in the field of industrial relations in the Province of Manitob a. Many words have been spoken on this question . I have spoken to considera ble length, Mr.

Chairman, maybe too much in the opinion of some in this committee, but I want to impress upon this committee that if it is their desire , if it is the desire of this Legislature to enhance better manage ment-labour relations , either adopt the suggestion as propo sed by the Leader of the Liberal Party; you will have an opportunity of con sidering not even progressing with the bill at all from us.

If you are sincere in your belief and in your desire to have a team of action -- a joint team between management and labour in the Province of Man itoba to enhance the future of Manit oba, then either throw this bill out or delay its passage at this time . We heard the Honourable the First Mini ster here last night in his Budget Speech, telling us of the hopes of the Province of Manitoba for the future. He told us that we unitedly here in the Province of Manitoba must get together for the benefit of Manitoba and for the future of Manito ba. I suggest, Mr .

Chairman , that if we are going to achieve the type of future visualized by my honourable friend the First Minister of this House, that we've got to go forward as a team to do it and we will not do it with the type of legislation that is before us this afternoon, and I April 27th, 1962 Page 3023

(Mr. Paulley cont'd) ••••••• appeal, as strongly as I can, to all the members of this committee to consider this. In the realm of politics, of course, we're going to have some criticisms of the budget address of the First Minister, but I say irrespective of what political affiliations we have, and it wouldn't matter who was on the other side of the House insofar as political stripe is concerned, that the future of Manitoba relies on the combined efforts of all of the people.

Labour has shown to the Committee on Industrial Relations they don't want this ; they feel that the rules being laid down under this is unfair to them, in the game of the progress of Manitoba, and I appeal to the Committee and to the government, you're going to delay part of the bill for reference to the legal courts. I say, Mr. Chairman, delay the balance of the bill to another court, a Court of Public Opinion, and I beseech all .of you to consider all of. these factors because they are so vital to the future progress of Manitoba. MR. DAVID ORLIKOW (St. John'

s) Mr. Chairman, I think that it's essential to con sider the history of this bill and to consider the reasons for the introduction of this bill before we decide what to do with the bill. This bill is brought into this House ostensibly for the pur pose of improving the relationship between labour and management. We heard a large number of representations before the Industrial Relations Committee from both management and labour as well as from some representatives of the public.

I think all of them were agreed on one thing, and that is that on the whole the relationships between management and labour in the Province of Manitoba are excellent. Nobody disputed Mr . Russell's listing of the few strikes we had, and his calculations as to how few people were in volved; nobody from the government which keeps the records and nobody from management who knows the record from experience ; so I think we can all assume that Mr . Russell was giving in fact the actual situation as it was. It is obvious, Mr. Chairman, that labour is completely united in opposition to this bill.

There were suggestions made in this House and in other places that the opposition of this group, for example, was politically motivated and that we did not speak for labour. Well, Mr . Chairman, I want members of the committee to remember that the repre sentative of the trade union movement in Pine Falls, which had some considerable

part in the election of the Hon ourable Member from Lac du Bonnet to this House, appeared before the committee , after the Honourable Member from Lac du Bonnet read the brief into the records here , appeared before the committee to re-emphasize their brief and to make clear that they are not satisfied at all with the suggestions of the government that the fears which they have are needless.

And Mr, James , the Secretary of the Manitoba Federation of Labour , appeared before the com mittee to read into the record the opposition of the North of 53 Labour Council of which the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources has the honour to represent. Nobody would suggest for a moment that theirs was a politically motivated statement. And , of course, the Manitoba Federation of Labour and the Winnipeg and District Labour Council , as could have been ex pected, also appeared in complete opposition to this bill. Now let us be realistic, Mr . Chairman.

Not only was labour opposed to this bill, but in fact, for other reasons, representatives of management were opposed to this bill, because · in fact, what the representatives of management said, was that this bill did not propose the basic changes in labour-management relations in which the representatives of the Chambers of Commerce and the representatives of the Manufacturers' Associations believe is necessary if we are to have amicable relations between labour and management in this province. So , Mr.

Chairman, it is obvious that this bill really meets the desires of nobody, and I must ask again, as I've asked on other occasions in this House and outside: who wants this bill ? This bill doesn't meet the desires of labour; this bill doesn't meet the desires of management: who wants this bill and why was it brought in? Well, we've heard speeches from the other side that nobody wants this bill but the public. I suggest that the public doesn't want this bill becaus e this bill Mr.

Chairman, particularly this bill as we have it now, really does nothing -- nothing which will have the least effect on labour-management relations in this province . Lat's look at the sections of the Act which are now being proposed. We have a

section proposing mediation. Now, Mr . Chairman, anybody who has worked in the field of labour management relations knows that one of the major criticisms which can be made legitimately \ , from both sides is the delays which take place when a dispute begins , and I think members of the Indus trial Relationf! Committee will remember the testimony of Mr. Anderson, the _ Page 3024 April 27th, 1962

(Mr. Orlikow , cont'd) •••••• President of The Building Trades Labour Council, about the dispute which they had with their employers with regard to a new contract, a dispute which begai:L fu -- I think he said February of i96 l -- and which is at the end of April 1962 , still not completely processed. Now nobody can be happy about that kind of situation , and so if any thing can be done to speed. it up , any proposal which .will work can be brought out, it would of cotirse be met with 1.ti::tari:tmous support.

Weli, the g0vernment is proposing that :instead of a three-man conciliation board with representative- of iabotit , representative of ini!.tiageinent and an iihp artiai chairman, that where both sides are agreeable, that there shall be appointed a one-man mediat or. I have no objection to this proposal and labour had no objectidn to this proposal, but both sid es , Mr. Chairman - be:cause i ask members of the Committee to remember riot orily what.1abotit resptes entative does , but to remember what Mr.

McPherson, who is an employer, who is a member of the Labour Relations Board, who is exj;)etienced in these matters , had to say -- both sides were in general agi'eemeiit tiia.t the se pro-visions which had to do with the appointment of a mediator will be, to a large extent, still born. They wili be stillborn and ino perative because of the i nsiste nce of the govermre nt that the costs of mediation shali be pai d by labour and manage ment join tiy . Ndw this, Mr .

Chairman, as the Minister knows a.rid aEi the members of the House should know, viola tes a basic prfuciple which we have Hved with in labour-management relation ship, I suppose ever since the principle of conciliation was first enunciate d, and that is that the cost of conciliation shall be borne by the govenililent . in other words , shall be borne by the public as a means of promoting equitable discussions ti1 matters and dispute s. .

Now we have pointed out, and there's been no suggestion and iio evidence that we are wrong;that if _it is expected, an<;J. it is more than eicpected it is mandatory under the provisions in this bill , that mediation proc"eedings will be paid for by laholir and management joi ntly, that we will , in effect, restrict the use of mediation to large unions and to large corporations which can afford mediatiori ; that neither sma.ii 1.ti::tions nor small managements will be iri a position to pay for mediation since there's nothing in the Act which sets out the sea.le of costs for mediation servic es .

Now itis true , as i thiilk the Miilister said, that anybody who is willing to think about mediation will ask what the mediator:will charge; but, from experien ce , we know that'the kind of people who will be effective mediator s will not work for the kind of money which sniall ttii ions or smail employers wili be fu a position to pay. Now Mr.

McPherson, appearing as a manufac turer , made the very reasonabie suggestio n that the government should be willing to pay for a mediator the sanie cost as they are now prepared to pay for a conciliation board, to wit $45. oo a day, and thi s was turned down by the government. i suggest, therefore, that all the provisions in this bill which had to do with mediation may read very weii , b ut will , in fact, not be used. Now there is the question of the strike vote, Mr. Chairman. i have no intention to make a long speech about the strike vote except to say this , Mr.

Chairniaii , that there was not one scrap of evidence - - not from the government members , not from any employers ' representa tives -- not one scrap of evidence to the effect that iri the :Province of Manitoba the strike vote has been abused on one single occasion by any trade union . It may be said that there .are such cases , but I thi nk it's significant that there was not one piece of evidence to i ndicate that this is so. I want to say, Mr.

Chairman, that this being the case, that trade unions and trade union members can draw no other inference from this proposal calling for a compi.ilsory government supervised strike vote than that the Goverriment of Manitoba and the Legislat ure of the Province of Manitoba are dubious about the way trade unions conduct their busine ss; that the Government of Manitoba and the Legisla ture of Manitoba are suspiciou s that trade unions are being manipu lated by certain un-named, unspecified people to get results which the membership doesn't want.

Now members of the goverriment have denied that thi s is their intenti on, that this is their belief. I want to suggest that there can be no other explanation for a provision in a bill which will call for a compi.ilsory strike vote conducted by the government. I want to suggest one more thi ng, Mr.

Chairm an, that every time you put into Legisla tion a provision which calls for further government intervention in management-labour relation shi ps , that you break down the ability and the desire of the two partners to try to reach agree ment voluntarily, because what happens now with the whole busi ness of conciliation , with the whole busine ss of a strike vote, which I think Mr . Goodman, when speaking for the Winn ipe g and April 27th, 1962 Page 3025

(Mr. Orlikow, cont'd) ••...•• District Labour Council pointed out so well, is not required in the Act up until now and which is purely a voluntary measure taken on the part of trade unions . What happens now 1n most cases is that there is no real effort to reach voluntary agreement until trade unions take a strike vote, and if members of Committee doubt this , they only need to look at the history of the negotiations which take place annually between the railway unions and the railway management. What happens ?

Every year the railway unions make proposals to thB company and every year these proposals are turned down. There are no counter-propos als; there are no compromise off ers .

The proposals of the railway unions are turned down in total and it's only filter the railway linions conduct a strike vote of their membe rs -- and in cidentally for the record, let it be said that it's a secret strike vote of all the mem bers in-: volved -- only after they conductthatstrike vote and the vote is tabulated and the union mem bers indicate their solidarity with their leadership by voting in the neighbourhood of 90 or 95 percent in favour of a strike, only then do you get real negotiation because then you have the threat of a strike.

I suggest that this proposal that the government conduct their secret strike vote will only harden the attitude of trade union members and will only make it more difficult to reach an agreement� Because when a trade union offi cial employed by a trade union to represent his members has behind him the vote conducted by the government of a secret strike ballot, and when that vote goes -- and I predict, Mr.

Chairman, and I think I have some experience with labour unions -- I predict that the vote will run in the neighbourhood of 90 to 95 percent in favour of a strike, then it will be even more difficult for a union representative to reach compromise agreement than it would be before this kind of vote was taken. So I say, Mr. Chairman, that this proposal will only hurt rather than help in reaching amicable settle ment. I want to say one more thing, Mr. Chairman, and then I will be through with the ques tion of the strike vote.

It has been said, and I'm sure it will be said again, that the government doesn't bring this in because it distrusts trade unions ; it doesn't propose this measure with regard to the secret strike vote because it thinks ·anything is wrong on the part of labour . I want to suggest, Mr .

Chairman , that if the government really felt that, that the way in which the government could prove that it was being fair to both sides in the labour-management team- and there are two sides and this should be remembered by anybody who wants to think about this problem -- that the only way in which the government could show labour, to demonstrate conclusiveiy that it is not considering this from a one-sided point of view; from an anti-labour point of view, would be to bring in the same kind oflegislation so that before as trike or lock-out takes place, that the company management shall be required to take a vote from the sharehold ers to make sure that it has the support of its shareholders before it reaches a final decision; because that is what the government is proposing that labour be required to do .

Now we made that suggestion and we made it in all seriousness , because we thought that if labour-management relationships are to work, that they must be equitable. They must not only be just; they must appear to be just. I must apologize for using the phrase which was first used, as far as I know by the Honourable the Attorney-General, because 1n nearly everything else I disagree with him, but it's a phrase which holds a good deal of merit. So , Mr . Chairman, there is really nothing to be said in favour of this provision of the bill. , Now, Mr .

Chairman, there is one more provision of ·the bill, and that deals. with the prosecution of violations of The Labour Relations Act. It says , in essence , that the Attorney General may prosecute offe nces under the Act. Now, Mr. Chairman, this iS a provision which labour has been asking for for a number of years . We questioned in this House on other occa sions whether the word "Nay" is suff icient; whether the word ought not to be shelved. Well, Mr. Chairman, the First Minister pointed out to us that in all other Acts the word used is "Nay". Even if this is so , Mr .

Chairman, I want to say that this in itself will not really come to grips with the problems which arise. I wish the Honourable the Attorney-General was in his seat because I want to refer to a case in which he did prosecute . He was a.Sked to prosecute a case and he accepted, and he did prosecute a case having to do with Pepsi Cola Company which dismissed a man. The union was attempting to organize the employees of Pepsi Cola Company and was succeeding when the company fired people for union activities. It was brought to the attention of the Attorney-General and the ciepartment did ,p�osecute, Mr .

Chairman, and the prosecution was successful. And what Page 3026 April 27th, 1962

(Mr. Orlikow, cont'd) ••••••••••• happene d? I think this should be of in terest to members of the Committee who are in terested in amicable relations . The court assessed a fine -- a fine of $100 .0 0 on the company . I presume the fine was paid; and I presume that the coffers of the Treasury of the Province of Manitoba were enriched by the sum of $100 ,0 0. Mr. Chairman, of what use was that to the. union involve d?

Of what use was that to the man who was dismissed from his job .for participating in the activity of trying to build a union -- an action which is prohibited by The Labour Relations Act of the Province of Manitob a. That was of no use to him at all . Now, Mr.

Chairman, other jurisdictions in the United States and in Can ada have pro visions in their Labour Relations Act under which the Labour Board may order a company to cease and desist; they may order reinstatemen t ; they may order the payment of back pay; all of which are certainly warrante d when the law of the Province of Manitoba is broken , and all of which work. Of course , we have no suggestions along this line from the government , and this is to be expected in the kind of patchwork act which we are dealing with today . So much for the three sections of the Act , Mr.

Chairman, which I said when I first spoke on this bill really were not very important . I want to deal with the last

section which is of importance , and which the l!onourable the Attorney-Gene ral tells us the government hasn't changed it's mind about. Now, Mr . Chairman, we have had ample eviden ce , and Mr. Ruther ford didn't disagree at all in his submission, that we now have a situation where unions can sue and can be sued. We on this side suggested that the only effect of

section 14 of the Act - of the bill -- which amends

Section 46 of The Labour Relations Act· by the addition of a new

Section 46 (a) , the only effe ct of this

section would be that a union might be sued for the actions of an individual member of the union which was not authorized by the uni on. Now members opposite argue that we didn't know the law. Members opposite argue that this wasn't what was the intent; that this wasn't the way the court would inte rpret it. Well, Mr. Chairman, I admit today as I admitted before , that I'm not an expert in the law, but members of the Committee will remember that we bii.d appearing before the committee Mr.

Syd Green who is a lawyer, who is a lawyer who works pretty continuously in the field of labour matters ; who represent labour unions ; and Mr. Green did make precisely this argument . · I want to come back to the real question , but I want to deal with what happens to this

section of the bill . Despite the fact that we were told on innu merable occasions that we knew nothing about the law; that we were wrong in our inte rpretation; that this wasn't what this sec tion meant; the First Ministe r, after hearing representations in Committee proposed -- and it's now included in the bill -- that this

section of the bill will not now be proclaimed, even if the bill is passed. This

section of the bill will be referred to the court through the preparation of a stated case , and that if the court rules that this

section means that a union can be sued for the acts of an individual member which they have not authorized, that this

section will not be proclaimed by the government . Well , Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the members of the Committee: what does tb:is mean? Because if this is what is going to happen , then I suggest to the members of this Committee that there really is no purpose to this

section of the bill , because if the courts rule that this is not the proper

interpretation of the Act; if trade unions cannot be sued for the actions of individu al. members of the union which they have not authorized; then, Mr. Chairman, this

section of the bill is completely unn ecessary. We had ample evidence from Mr . Green and from Mr . Clive Tallin , representing the Chambers of Commerce and from Mr. Rutherford, that in fact unions can be sued for actions for which they are responsible . So, Mr. Chairman, in fact, with the reservation of the governme nt with regard to this

section of the bill -- and I want to give the First Ministe r credit for making this proposal, which I think is a very important and a very good amendment to a very bad bill -- but in effect, Mr. Chair man, the one

section of the bill , which is important , has been emasculated. That being the case, I want to ask: what purpose is th ere in passing this bill ? But, Mr. Chairman, I want to spend just a few moments in putting into the record some of the legal opinions with reference to Se ction 14 of the bill which proposes a new

section to The Labour Relations Act. I do this, Mr. Chairman, because I must say that I did not appreciate the speeches of the Honourable the Attorne y-Gen eral which suggested in no uncertain terms that members who were opposing this

section of the bill really didn't know anything about the law - - 1 think he really was suggesting we didn 't know anything about anythi ng, but we certainly didn't April 27th, 1962 Page 3027

(Mr. Orlikow, cont'd) •••••• • know anything about the law, nor did we know what this

section meant. I want to summarize briefly what Mr . Green said in his submission to the Industrial Relations Committee , and I want to say now , Mr . Chairman, for the record, that Mr. Green heard the submissidn read to the Committee by Mr. Rutherford, the Legislative Counsel, and Mr. Green said, after hearing Mr. Rutherford's opinion, that he agreed with every single word which Mr. Rutherford had said but that it really had nothing to do with how the court would in terpret this bill if they had occasion to rule on the bill through an actual case. And here is what Mr. Green had to say, and I will give a short

summary of what he said to the committee. He pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that the inspiration for this bill resulted from some misconception on the part of the drafters of the bill, misconception that unions cannot sue or be sued. He pointed out that this is not true. There is a feeling on the part of some people that unions can engage in unlawful acts because they cannot be brought to ta8k in the courts , but the common law gives protection and, using procedures now established by the courts, there are no real difficulties either in suing unions or in unions suing. Legal entity, Mr .

Chairman, can be a person, a corporation, or a group of persons . The group of persons can exist in a business partnership or a trade union. Many of these combine to do things without asking for a govern ment Charter. It's been pointed out that a company cannot be sued as a company, but it can be sued in its capacity as a Limited Company, because this ii:! the proper description of a company.

In a similar way a union can be sued even though its not a legal entity -- a union can be sued or can sue if the union is properly described; and any voluntary organization can be sued in a. simi lar manner. i:t•s been pointed out that trade unions are continually appea�ing in Cou�t either as plaintiffs or defendants; anytime actions have been disallowed by the Court it has been because the unions have been improperly described. Mr .

Green gave as illustrations the Dussessoy case in the Province of Manitoba and the Therrien case in British Columbia which went to the Supreme Court of Canada in which the un ions were sued successfully and in which the unions were named by name as well as through their members and officers. A trade union is liable for contracts it enters into and every mem ber of the trade union could be held responsible for breach of the contract under this Legisla tion, Mr . Green felt. A judgement against a union or its representative can be executed against any member of the union.

In Court it has been held that the responsibility of a group of individ uals does Iiot extend to the actions of one of that group. This proposed Legislation; Mr . Green felt would equate the status of a member of a trade union with the status of an employee of a corporation. In a trade union unless the trade union members act together to authorize

an Act, the act of one individual member of a union is. not in the same category as that of the employee of a corporation because every member is a free agent and not controllable by the union. There is no limited liability for a union as there is for a corporation. Mr . Green pointed out that we now allow people to choose whether they want the privileges and responsibilities of corporate status; but under this Legislation unions would be required to accept le gal liability, that of cor porate status, and that is something which nobody has suggested should apply to all businesses.

This Legislation would increase the liability of unions; and Mr. Green asks if this was not the purpose , what other purpose could there be. Mr. Green pointed out that Mr. Justice Tritschler did not recommend corporate status, but that what he did recommend -- his recommendations would have the same effect because Mr. Tritschler did recommend in his report that only people who'd be listed and registered be permitted to picket. Mr. Tritschler recommended that in this way the actions of any picketer - the union could be held responsible for the actions , because there would be a list of them and so on. Mr.

Green pointed out that it's not only in labour-management disputes that it takes time -- because this is one of the arguments which was used -- it was suggested that in the case of Tunney versus Orchard it took Mr . Tunney a number of years to get a final decision from the Court in his case against the Teamsters Union. Mr. Green gave as an example the fact that he is suing on behalf of a man who claims that be is owed over-time pay to the extent of $200 . 00 and that the case is now going to the Supreme Court of Canada, when his case was begun in 1957 .

So that the failure of unions to have legal status certainly is not the only reason why cases take the time which they do . So , Mr. Chairm_an, so much for Mr. Green. Now I want, Mr . Chairman, to read into Page 3028 April 27th, 1962 .

(Mr . Orlikow. cont'd. ) •.•• the record a short

section of an opinion with regard to the effects of this Bill which "I received from the Assi stant Professor of Law,. Professor H. W. Arthur, at Osgoode Hall law school, and he deals with some sections of the proposed

section 46 of this bill . And here 's what he says in part, Mr. Chairman, about

Section 46 (a) (1) "There seems to be no constitutional barrier to the passage by a provincial legisla ture , hence the fol lowing comments are essentially value judgment .

(1) The present law. Persons injured in the course of a labour dispute by a violation of the Act or by any other means have available a whole arsenal of common law action, nuisance • • inducing breach of contract; conspiracy to injure; interference by wrongful means with the right to conduct a business. The present trend of case law Therrien versus Teamsters ; Gagnon versus Foundation, Maritimes , to use the legis lation as a guide to the propriety of the conduct that injured the Plaintiff.

However at common law the Court can also consider the nature of the defendant 's interest in pursuing its course of conduct and at least theoretically may deem the infliction of harm upon the pl aintiff justifiable. Moreover the present Labour Relations Act enables the injured party to institute quasi criminal proceedings against the wrongdoer with the consent of the Board, Sections 45 to 47 . Taken together the common law and the statutes tends to minimize litigation between the parties. Common law is so uncertain and the chances of litigation so unsure that th ere's pres sure towards compromise.

The requirement of the Board's consent to any prosecutions is to an expert tribunal the ability to reserve prosecution for flagrant and unconscionable breaches and to deny the right to prosecute whe re prosecution is sought by a complainant who is himself guilty of wrongdoing, or who seeks merely to destroy the accused by legal proces ses.

To the extent that th e Ontario's experience is relevant both management and labour appear to respect the Board's declaratory power which carries neithe r civil or penal sanction, and even where consent to prosecute is grante·d it is acted upon in barely 33% of the cases ." Further , Professor Arthur says, "The impact of

Section 46 (a) (1) .

Section 46 (a)(

l) does not preclude the present existing common law actions; What it does do is to add to them unlimited opportunities for litigation; the blanket imposition of unl imited liability precludes. the interest balancing which exists at common law. It treats alike a1i breaches of the Act, whether by omission or by commission, regardless of severity ot excuse, and imposes on the party in default a crushing liability ." Even the British Columbia Trade Unions Act which is similar in terms to

Section 46 (1) simultaneously abolishes the common law conspiracy action.

Section 303 of the U.S. Taft-Hartley Act which create s a civil right of action confines it to cases in volving the particular type of unfair labour practise , the secondary boycott pressure provisions in

section 9 (b)(4) which is deemed to be exceptional as the impact. The net effect is to .••• and inflame labour relations by inviting the parties to have recourse to remedies which are compensatory in form but liable to be punitive in nature . In the crudene ss and all-embracing nature of

Section 46 (a)(

l) there is no pressure for compromise ; indeed it is clear from

Section 47 (3) of the new Act that compromise has been replaced as public policy by punishment . That

section allows the Attorney-General to conduct prosecutions without consent of the Board. This means that the Attorney-General might proceed with a prosecution, not withstanding that the parties have resolved their differences. The wording of

Section 46 (a) 1. The

section author izes an award of general damages . This involves an award which goes beyond the plaintiff's calculable out-of-pocket loss , special damages and include s (

a) damage s at large for unascer tainable future discomfort and dislocation (

b) punitive damages intended to punish the defendant rather than compensate the plaintiff. General damage s are particularly inappropriate in a la bour situation as they tend to represent judicial evaluation of the anti-social quality of the wrongful act and our way of demonstrating the Court's emotional reaction to the plaintiff's plight . I could go on Mr. Chairman, but in view of the proposal of the First Minister - - MR. CARROLL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the member if he would table the letter that he just read for us? MR. ORLIKOW : Mr.

Chairman, I will have a copy made of this and turn it over to the Minister of Labour. MR. EVANS: Mr . Chairman, on a point of order it is customary for any member to table forthwith, any letter or document that is referred to during his speech. MR. ORLIKOW : Well , Mr. Chairman , I was not trying to evade my responsibility or anything el se . The only thing is if I table this , I then have no copy. I'm certainly willing to • April 27th, 1962. Page 3029

MR. EVANS: There would be no question, Mr. Chairman, in our minds that my hon ourable friend would give us the copy and we can naturally accept hii; undertaking in that regard. MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Chairman, I could go on in some detail, we had other legal opin ion which we felt was valid and much to the point indicating the difficulties which would arise if

Section 46 (a} were added to the Labour Relations Bill; but in view of the proposal of the First Minister which is included in the amended bill to refer this to the Courts for an opinion, I see no particular purpose . But having said that , Mr. Chairman , I must Say that in view of this · proposal I see no purpose in proceeding with this secti on, and indeed if one doesn't proceed with this section, in fact one has emasculated the bill to the point where there is really nothing of value in the bill. Mr .

Chairman, we heard enough at the Industrial Relations Committee to indicate con clusively that in the light of experience since the Labour Relations Act was first drafted, many things have happened which would indicate that major revisions of the Bill are required.

Mem bers , I think of the Committee must have been impre ssed with the unanimous feeling of the re presentatives of the employer and the employees in the construction industry that the Labour Relations Bill as it now fs written is much too cumbersome to be effective in reaching the quick and equitable decisions which are required in the construction industry. Reference was made before the Committee to the inquiry conducted on behalf of the Ontario Government, by Mr . Carl Goldenberg into the conditions existing in the Ontario construction industry.

We have had no inquiry of this scope in the Province of Manitoba. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that while I, like any other member of this House or anybody in the public, hates to think that we, are going to have strikes, I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that if the construction unions in the Province of Manitoba move to organize the workers in the .house building industry as they did in the Pro vince of Ontario, that we are likely to have the same large strikes, the same difficult strikes , the same violence which they had in the City of Toronto .

I don't want to see this but we will have this because the Labour Relations Act as it is now written simply doesn't meet the prob lems of the construction industry. And the Labour Relations Act as it is now written does not meet the other questions, the other basic questions of principle which have been raised before the committee and on other occasions by both representatives of labour and management. This is a patchwork act , Mr . Chairman , which now has patches on the patches. It will be ineffective. I believe, Mr .

Chairman, if we are to have a continuation of the good relation ships which have existed in this province between labour and management , it is important, it is essential that the whole question of labour-management relations be considered cooly, calmly, collectively, not in haste -- and not just by the government, not just by the Labour Department, not even just by the Cabinet -- but be considered by all the people who are interested.

Be con sidered by representatives of labour, by representatives of management, by representatives of the public; be considered in detail, be considered over a long. period of time ; and only then can we get a basic and the major revisions of the act which are long overdue . That being the case , Mr .

Chairm an, I see no alternative but to vote for the motion moved by the Leader of the Op position that this matter be sent back to the committee, with the hope that the committee would then meet between sessions to hear representations from all the people interested; to take up all these recommendations whic;:h come from all sides to consider them in detail and to then try to reach a consensus -- and I think a consensus which will be agreeable to most people can be reached through that kind of discussion -- and bring it to the next session of the Legislature , when it could be enacted and when the amended bill would have the effect of improving labour relationships which a really good bill could have. • Continued on next page. -· Page 3030 April 27th, 1962.

HON. J. B. CARROLL (Minister of Labour)(The Pas): Mr. Chairman, I believe I should make some comments on some of the remarks that have been made. First of all I would like to say a word to the Leader of the Opposition and say that I certainly did not intend to poke any fun at him or members of his party in my remarks that they would have to get down off the fence. The fact that some of the other members chose to laugh on that occa sion was not through my provoking; because. I must confess that I was really dead serious in my remarks at that time.

With respect to our position at this time I certainly think there's no doubt about where we stand. We certainly aren't on the fence; we are prepared to proceed with the legislation that we intro duced with those ·minor amendments which resulted from the discussions which took place in committee. With respect to what the Act means -- I believe the Attorney-General was very specific in suggesting that we at no time have had any doubts in our minds as to what this parti cular

section of the act means. However, in view of the uncertainty in the minds of certain members of the public, largely the trade unions, that this will in some way or other adversely effect them, we felt it would be imminently fair and demonstrate the best intentions of the gov ernment if we were to refer this matter to the courts; set their mind at ease and give them the assurance that nothing would be done if this act is interpreted as meaning something, other than what it is intended to mean by those of us who are proposing it.

Now much has been said about the discus sions which took place in committee and I must confess that there were some very constructive criticisms made at that time, and I do admit that some of the problems which exist in the construction trade are not improved in that indus try which is different from manufacturing; different from distribution; different from most other types of industry.

Their main problem of course is that construction jobs are for a very short duration -- 6 months, maybe 1,2 months, a year and a half, 2 years is a very long construction job -- and during the course of this construction they have a constant changeover in the kinds of labour required on th!lt particular job. But there was so so many references made to the Goldenberg Report that I'm quite sure that members of the committee must not be fully aware of what the recommendations of the Goldenberg Report were.

Now I'm only going to touch on a few of them because I think it's very important to recognize that we in Manitoba have solved a great many of the problems which are unresolved in the Province of Ontario and which were recommended by Mr. Goldenberg in his report on the construction industry. For instance he recommends multiple certification. Well this has been in effect here in Manitoba for a great long time. The Grand Rapids project is probably the best project representing a case where you have a number of trade unions joining together to get certification on one particular project.

They talk about multiple bargaining; bargaining by more than one trade union and more than one employer; and this , of course, is ·".� the situation which exists between the Winnipeg Builders Exchange and the Construction Trades Council of Winnipeg. But they also go on to talk about vacation with pay, and I think that you will agree, those that are familiar with our legislation, that we've resolved this problem to the bulk of the construction trades in Manitoba. They talk about the successor rights at the time when a business changes hands, either through lease or through bankruptcy sa le or in any other way.

Well, we brought in amendments this year that take care of that particular situa tion. They talk about discrimination by employers against employees, firing them 'for giving information to departmental officials. Well we've changed our Labour Act this year to plug the one loophole that appeared to remain with respect to that section. They talk about amend ing the Master Servant Act down there to raise the amount of money that an employee can claim from his employer from $200 to $500. Well members will recall that last year we amended our Wage s Recovery Act to do this same thing.

I think the greatest area of criticism appears with respect to the procedures for certifica tion and things like that. We feel that we have within the department itself, the ability to make administrative changes which will, to a large extent prevent delays, at least any delays that could be attributed to the administration of the department. We also set the wheels in motion to have a panei of our Labour Board set up to deal speedily with any problems arising from the construction industry.

The main area of complaint that was brought forward, and the main re commendation of the Goldenberg Report appears to be with respect to a construction wage board and a zone system of wages for the construction industry -- and of course members here will recall that we have this in the Province of Manitoba under our Fair Wage Act. April 27th, 1962. Page 3031

(Mr. Carroll, cont'd .) There's some suggestion about the very protracted negotiations which took place in the Ironworkers Union -- Mr. Anderson made quite a point of telling us all about the delays. Well I have here with me an account of those del:iys and why they resulted -- and I'm not going to read this because it's a full page containing 12 items -- but it indicates very clearly that the delays were within the control of the Trade Union involved and the employer involved; and there ·were I would say, just as many delays attributed to the trade union as could be attributed to the employer in this case.

To begin with he mentioned that the department had established a con ciliation officer and then withdrew him. But why did we withdraw the conciliation officer ? Be cause Mr. Anderson or his union applied for a conciliation officer saying that they had pro ceeded in good faith with their negotiations and hadn't arrived at a settlement and they wanted a conciliation officer. So the same day that that application was received we set U:p a concilia tion officer. And what did we find out? We found out that many of the major issues had not even been discussed by employer and employee.

Surely there was no bargaining in good faith here; they hadn't even discussed wages. Can you imagine that they would ask for a· concilia tion officer, saying they had bargained in good faith when they hadn't even discussed wages . And this application came from the trade union; came from the Ironworkers trade. Now the year before -- and I recall this and I thought maybe this happened last year but it didn't -- the year before we had to withdraw the conciliation officer in their workings with the Ironworkers and their employers. And why did we do that?

Because during the course of their negotiations before a conciliation officer was on the job, they had an illegal strike; they called all their workers off the job so that they could consider the issue, so they say; but this in effect was an illegal strike. So I think when trade union representative come before the committee and say that there are delays because of the workings of our Labour Relations Act, I say that they should examine very, very carefully what has caused these ·delays and is there any responsi bility attributable to themselves through their actions.

The Leader of the Opposition -- I think he's out, is he -- well he says that he wants to have further opportunity to consider briefs and so on that could be presented from labour and management. I'd like to say to him that we had I think, 26 -- 26 representations made to that Law Amendments Committee. We sat for five mornings .

We had 26 representations which I think included just about all the objections and all the -- the opportunity was certainly there for any representation that labour wanted to bring be fore the committee or that management might want to bring before the committee -- and surely after this opportunity, if there are any further suggestions that weren't brought forward , it's certainly not the fault of the committee. It's not the fault of the government. It can only be attributed to the people themselves who had nothing further to bring before that committee.

Because I submit that if there are any ideas with re spect to changes in that Labour Relations Act they should have been brought before that commit tee, because that was the proper forum for a discussi on of any problems that might have been overlooked in the draughting of this particular bill. And I say that there was no stinting of time. We were prepared to sit in that committee as long as necess ary to get all the views of any person who wanted to appear before that committee to tell us what they thought should be done with the Labour Relations Act. · MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Chairman, may I ask the Mini�ter a question. Wasn •.t the purpose of the Industrial Relations Committee at this sessi on ostensibly to refer to Bill 102 and for that reason we did not deal or enter into any discus sions or arguments on the additional proposals of the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce? MR. CARROLL: I think it's very obvious that other matters were brought to the atten tion of the committee. That committee was to consider Bill 102 and any further amendments that anyone felt should have been made to it.

And I think you'll agree that -- Jimmy James, the Secretary of the Manitoba Federation of Labour said he thought that arbitration boards should be included in the same way that conciliation boards are with respect to people with pe cuniary interests. And we made that amendment. There were many other suggestions made, many other suggestions. We didn't say that they were limited with respect to the ideas that could be presented before that committee. Now the Leader of the NDP said that the government assumed that votes by trade unions were taken in a hapha2! ard manner.

Certainly nothing can be further from the truth; we did not Page 3032 April 27th, 1962.

(Mr. Carroll, cont'd. ) .•.• at any time imply that. We said that we were stepping into this field to remove criticism, suspicion, dou:bt, etcetera, which people have with respect to votes wW.ch are conducted by trade unions -- and I think this was made amply plain in the introduc tory remarks. But then the Leader of the NDP went on to quote from a brief presented by Mr. Pentland; and I, too, would like to read from this brief because I think he said something here which I think· should be put on the record. Mr.

Pentland said this : 111 would like to say that I have studied the Brandon report and cannot find anything seriously wrong" -- not seriously wrong; obviously he found something wrong -- "with the unions conduct of its vote or any other vote: Rather if this vote could prove anything it would offer a reason why union strike votes should be left to the union.

" That's the end of the quote from · Mr; ·Pentland, · and I draw that to the attention of the Committee to read in conjunction with a· rereading perhaps of the Tritschler Report and some of the other evidence· with respecfto the strike vote which was taken in Brandon. · · · Now there has been suggestion to international constitutions and as they suggest, they re quire their members to take secret strike votes.

Well, I'd just like to draw to the attention of the Committee once again that there are also some international unions that say you don't have to take a strike vote and that the internatlonal president can call a strike on his own initiative without reference to the local or to anyone else. He has that within his own aiithority. I think this is something which should be repeated on this occa sion. Now, no evidence that strike votes have been taken improperly. I think this was the suggestion just made now by the ·Member for St. John's and has been made from time to time by a good many others .

Well, I would. like to say this , that there is a general feeling among trade unions that ·only trade union: members vote. I think that the

preamble. to the Act was read out by one of the employer representatives who appeared before the Committee, and the

preamble doesn't say that this is

an Act -- I'd better read it -- "An Act to promote equitable relations betWeen employers and e·mployees"- and he went on to emphasize "employees" because it does not say that this is

an Act to promote equitable relations between employers and trade unions. Th e Act I think, does contemplate that all members in a bargaining unit should have the right to vote. Well the fact that there is com mon disagreement among trade unions that this is not so, indicates that they haven't been con ducting their strike votes among all of the members in the bargaining unit. I just draw th.at to the attention of the Committee. But I'm also advised that some locals , some locals of unions cover not one employer but a number of employers.

This is the case with the retail clerks who have agreements which cover several of the ·chain stores. This is also the case with the Amalgamated Meat Packers , and there are cases on record of where the larger local have voted on a strike issue affecting one small segment, one plant, where the larger unit, people who have voted on the strike issue who weren't directly affected by it. Now this is a matter of record� I think v,re'll recall the strike that took place ·at Thompson, of the electrical workers. The men who were on strike in a settlement

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-5-82
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 5th hansardpdf 82.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	57bf3a4f05f66c6a42a9d5fb2e9159ff4c876f22

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