Manitoba Hansard — 4 March 1981 (Sitting 30, 31st Legislature, 5th Session)

31-5-30

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 4 March 19 81 Time -2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. Harry E. Graham (B irtle Rus sell): Pres enting Petitions . . Reading and Receiving Petitions .. PRESEN TING RE PORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIA L COM MITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. ALBERT DRIEDGER: Mr. Sp eaker, the Committee of Supply has adop ted certain resolutions, dir ects me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Cresc en twood , that the report of committee be received.

MOTION presented and carried MINI STERIAL STATE ME NTS TABLING AND OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. GER ALD W.J. MERCIER (O sborne): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the Ninth Annual Report of the Manitoba Police Commission for the year 19 80. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion ... INTRODUCTION OF BILLS MR. ARNOLD BROWN (Rhineland) intr oduced Bill No. 37,

An Act to authorize the Rural Muni cipality of Montcalm to Sell and Convey a Portion of a Public Road within the Muni cipality and that the same be now received and read a first time. INTRODUCTION OF GUE STS MR. SPEAKER: At this time I would like to intr oduce 27 students of Grade 4 standing from Salisbury School under the dir ection of Mr . Tim Pechey. This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Elmwood. We also have 46 students of Grade 11 standing from Sisler School under the di rection of Mr. Brown. This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Inkster.

On behalf of all honourable members we welcome you here this after noon. ORAL QUES TIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. HOWARD PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, to the First Min ister. In view of the announcement by Ottawa that a Federal Government report discloses that the oil industry in Canada has been conspiring over the past number of years in order to milk Canadians of some billions of dollars by way of price fixing, can the First Min ister advise whether or not he has yet received a copy of this federal report? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able First Mini ster. HON. STERLING R.

LYON (Charl esw ood ): Mr. Speaker, I can tell my honourable friend that we have not received a copy of the report. My office has been informed however that the report will be made available later on this afternoon to the Provincial Government and its agencies. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Sp eaker , in vie w of the in formation this morning that the Federal Government will be not launching anti-c ombines charges but indeed will be holding, in place thereof, a public inquiry, can the First Min ister advise whether or not a submission will be made to the public inquir y by the Province of Manitoba? MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, it would be too early at this stage to say whether or not Manitoba would be making a submission to such an inquiry but I must say, Sir, that the holding of an inquiry would be entir ely consistent with what the Government of Ma ni toba re commended to the Go vernment of Canada when we spoke on the energy question in Canada at the First Minis ters' Conference on Energy in November of 197 9.

Sir, I'll just read very briefly wha t we recom mended at that time from the Government of Manitoba's submission, "We would expect, of cours e, that mechanisms would be established to monitor and to review periodically the effectiveness of any new pricing

schedule as well as other aspects of our energy strategy on both the supply and demand sides. Specifically, we should monitor the returns of the oil companies to ensure that they are being utilized in the national interest in support of our self-sufficiency objective". MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, further to the First Min ister, in view of the information disclosed is the Fir st Min ister now pr epared to make any representations to the Province of Alberta to turn the taps back on insofar as the production of oil so that Canadians will be able to enjoy some relief from the blackmail being attempted by the Pr ovi nce of Alberta? MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, as I' ve tried to make clear to my honourable friend, and I believe the Min ister of Energy as well, Manitoba believes that both the Federal Government and the Government of Alberta should get back to the negotiating table in terms of arriving at a consensus in the inte rests of all Canadians. Unlike the leader of the newly diminished party, Mr.

Speaker, we are not pointing fingers and saying that Alberta is the only culprit; we know very well that the National Energy Pr ogram which somehow or other, under economics that I suppose only my honourable friends opposite would understand, say that it is better to buy oil offshore at 1305

Wednesday, 4 March 1981 $40 a barrel than it is to buy it from Albertans at $18.00. Maybe my honourable friends subscribe to that kind of economic voodooism, but we don't. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, since the First Minister now admits that Alberta is one of the culprits, is the First Minister now prepared to review the position that has been taken by himself, personally, a position which recommended the sale of assets of PetroCan, involving production faciliti es; and is the First Minister also prepared to review the position that he has taken all along which has fav our ed sharp increases insofar as oil prices are concerned in Canada under the guise of some vague destination of self-suf ficiency? MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, the question has been answered on many occasions before.

I merely say to my honourable friend that the position adopted by the Government of Manitoba is precisely the same position that was endorsed by the six major nations of the world meeting at the Tokyo Conference, all of whom agreed that the price of energy in each of those countrie s had to move toward the world price. Tha t has been the co nsistent policy of this government and eight other provinces of Canada, including Saskatchewan, and the then Government of Canada. My honourable friend from the NDP and the Premier of Ontario are the only two who seem to favoure the opposite of that policy. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, further to the First Minister. In view of the information that has been dis closed this morning involving gouging to the extent of billions of dolla rs, apparently by oil companies, of Canad ians; in view of the First Minister's position that he's been adopting all along pertaining to defence of the position of the Province of Alberta and the oil companies, is the First Minister now, in view of the revelation of this information this morning, prepared to now ask Alberta to step back to a position in which, indeed, we were prior to this weekend, so that talks can be resumed federally and provincially? MR.

LYON: Mr. Speak er, I'm not aware of the nexus between what my honourable friend, or the connection, between what my honourable friend is talking about and the alleged statements that we are going to see from a report that no one has as yet seen. My honourable friend is free and quite capable of practising his peculiar kind of socialist mumbo jumbo. For our part, we will continue to advance positions with respect to a national energy policy which are in the long-term interests of the people of Canada. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Sp eaker, it's very clear that every time the First Minister finds himself in an awkward position he prefers to refer to socialist mumbo jumbo and Chile and Cuba and whatever it be. Mr . Speaker, on the other hand, we're qui te aware of th e Fi rst Min ister's insistence on represe nting the many other inter ests, interests outside of the interests of the people of the Province of Manitoba.

To the Attorney-General, in view of the information that has been revealed, is the First Minister prepared to recommend to the Attorney-General, at the next Federal -Provincial conference involving Attor neys General, the Federal Government, that the anti combines legislation be tightened up. So rather than we go through the charade of public inquiries we can get down to some tough anti-combines charges involving situations such as this. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MERCIER: Mr .

Speaker, as far as I'm aware that subject matter has never appeared on the agenda of the Provincial Attorne y-General since I have been Attor ney-General, nor previously, so I will have to, Mr. Speaker, take that question as notice and review that particular su bject matter. MR. SPEAKER : The Ho nourable Member for lnkster. MR. SIDNEY GREEN: Mr . Speaker, I would like to dir ect a que stion to the Attorney-General in his capacity as Minister for Urban Affairs and directly as it relates to the relationship between the province and the City of Winnipeg. Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact tha t cit izens in the north western part of Winnipeg are in a dilemma in that when other people attended meetings and got the Council to change it's mind it was refer red to as wonderfu l cit izen participation; but when citizens in the north end get together for the purpose of doing the same thing it is referred to as a mob. Can the Attorney-General determine from the City of Winnipeg the guide lines to offer the citizens of North Winnipeg as to whether they should stay home or come out en masse in order to get their will with the City Council. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs. MR. MERCIER: Mr . Speaker, as usual the Member for lnkster makes his point by asking a question. MR. GREE N: We ll, Mr . Sp eaker, I'm being very serious about a very serious qu estion.

Can the Minister determine from his liaison with the City of Winnipeg, whether the citizens of the north end, who need desperately a grade separation on Keewatin, should stay home and then be told you can't have it because you didn't come out or should come out and then be told you can't have it because you're a mob. it is a problem to these people as to how they are sup posed to behave in view of the way in which they are being characterized by City Councillors who previously said you did n't get the overpass because you didn't attend the meeting and now that you've attended a meeting you're a mob. it is a problem for the se people.

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, up until now I have never heard the Member for lnkster try to make the point that an elected pers on's decision should be based on the number of people who attend a meeting for or against a certain proposal. That should be the decision of the elected representative to make, not on the basis of the number of people who attend any meeting but on the basis of what is correct and right to do. MR. GREEN: Mr . Speaker, I wish to assure the Attorney-General that I am not making that point. As 1306

Wednesday, 4 March 1981 a matter of fact I totally agree with what the Mini ster has said but those are not the rules apparently as they apply between the City Council and the citizens of North Winn ipeg and since those rules do not apply, could the Minis ter in his capacity as Attorney General, related to the City of Winn ipeg, obtain from the City of Winn ipeg advice to these citizens if they want the grade separation on Keew atin? Should they come out and badger their councillors or should they stay home?

Because they've been told if they stay home they don't want it, and they've been told if they come out they're a mob and they have a dilemma, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Urban Affairs. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, that is a question which the people of the north end of the city, or of any

section of the city, should ask their own elected councillor. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honour able Mem ber for Brandon East. MR. LEONARD S. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question either to the Premier or perhaps to the Mini ster of Energy. Perhaps the Premier or the Mini ster of Energy might like to answer this question, Mr. Speaker.

Inasmuch as the half-c ent-per-l itre new tax, otherwise known as Lougheed's Levy, which has been caused by the recent cutbacks by the Alberta Government and which will cost the people of Manitoba millions of dollars per year, can the Mini ster advise whether the government has made any assessment of possible futur e cutbacks which the Alberta Government has indicated will take place over the next year? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi nister of Energy. HON. DONALD W. CRAIK (R iel): Mr.

Speaker, when these questions first started about a week ago, the government had examined the possible impact of the oil cutbacks and we said at the time that there would not be a dir ect impact at the gas pump or dir ectly from the change in supply of 60,000 barrels per day. That position is still valid. I indicated at that time that what the change did do, it reduced the amount of reve nue that the Federal Government would have achieved from their measures last November, which would have brought to the Federal Treasury some close to $4 billion a year and this would reduce that amount of 4 to somewhere around 3.

So, Mr. Speaker, I find the member's rationalization somewhat strange, to blame the pric e in crease on the Pr ovince of Al berta because in fact the Federal Government is still making some $3 billion more than they would have prior to last November, simply that their profits have been reduced. When Mr. Lalonde immediately tries to portray that this increase is caused directly by the reduction in supply in Alberta, is just not quite the facts. The facts are, that there is no direct tie-in; it took a distinct and different dir ection in Federal Government policy to bring about this price increase. There is no Mr.

Loughe ed, nor Al berta, nor Saskatchew an, nor any other producing province can affect the price of fuel supplies that dir ectly simply by controlling the supply as they are doing. MR. EVANS: Mr . Speaker, the Honourable Mini ster did not answer my question which was, has his depa rt ment, ha s his gov ernment, made any assessment of the propos ed future cutbacks; the proposed future cutbacks which could have a similar impact in terms of causing Man itoba oil product consumers to pay more money by way of whatever tax. Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minis ter the additional question, will his government or will his Min istry undertake to play the role of an active mediator to try to bring Alberta and Ottawa back together again ina smuch as, whil e we are geographically a western province, nevertheless in terms of oil consumption we are ind eed an eastern province? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, I can perhaps deal with the second portion of my honour able frie nd's question because he asked the Province of Manitoba to act as a mediator between the Government of Al berta and the Government of Canada on the national energy policy. A national energy policy, by the way, Mr. Speaker, which finds very little support throughout Canada except in the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party nationally. Mr.

Speaker, last August, in this Chamber when the 10 Premiers of Canada met in Winn ipeg for the Annual Premiers' Conference, we called at the time, the 10 of us, for a meeting to deal with the economy of the country. We asked the Prime Min ister to convene such a meeting to deal with the economy of the countr y and the other problems of Canada; such as energy pricing; such as high interest rates; such as the decline in housing; such as all of the other economic factors that afflict the economy in Canada. Mr.

Speaker, we have not had a response from the Prime Mini ster of Canada for that kind of a meeting and I suggest that rather than asking a province - whether is be Manitoba, Saskatchewan or whomever - to mediate as between the Federal and the Alberta Governments; if the Prime of Canada would respond to the very reasonable call that was made by the 10 Premiers of Canada last August, then we could get on to discussing some of the important econonic measures in this country, measures that are equally as important as the constitutional measures which are also important for the future but measures which need to be discussed concurrently in this country.

MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, we indeed have a very specific important problem facing the people of Manitoba right now which is causing Manitoba consumers millions of dollars more because of the Lougheed levy. Wha tever the Prime Mini ster, or the Premier of this province thinks, I ask him, I plead with him now, to play a role of active mediation whereby he can, this very day, pick up the telephone, call Alberta, call Ottawa and ask Mr. Lalonde and Mr. Lougheed, or whoever, to get together on behalf of the interests of all of the people of Canada, as well as Manitoba, to settle this thing quickly and expediently.

There is the challenge. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before Manitoba, the Government of Manitoba, has always favoured the reso lution of the energy pricing matter 1307

Wednesday, 4 March 1981 between Alberta and the Government of Canada in a reasonable and in an expeditious way that is fair to the people of Canada and fair to the position of the people of Alberta. But may I say, Mr. Speaker, that in government, and in the Constitutional discussions tha t we'r e involved in at the prese nt tim e, we understand tha t the provinc es of Canada have control over the natural resources of this country. Now, all of the provinces in Canada support that proposition, including the socialist government of the Province of Saskatchewan.

If my honourable friend, or his Leader, are trying to suggest, by implication, that a provinc e does not have control over its resources and over the amount of its resou rce that is sent outside of the pr ovinc e, I would like my honourable friend to tell me some time in the course, say, of the Budget debate, just what stance he and his party are going to take as and when the Federal Government imposes a tax on electrical energy, which they're bound to do one of these days, which they're bound to do; and I want my honourable friend to say very clearly then, whether or not he agrees that a province should have the control over its resources and tha t the Federal Government should not move in on that kind of a pricing structure, as indeed Mr.

Lalonde is moving in at the present time. The extra obligation that is being paid -(I nterjection)- Mr. Speaker, the extra obligation that is being paid by the people of Canada is an obligation th at was imposed by th e Federal Government, not by the Government of Alberta. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. LAURENT L. DESJARD INS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I should try to adjourn the debate, or ask a question at this time. Mr. Speaker, there's another speaker on that side.

I'll ask the question to the Minister of Energy who was quite fast in pointing out the tax that the Federal Go vernment was adding to the cost of gas, could he now point out how much the tax, the provincial tax. especially that 20 percent tax, is adding to the cost of gas to Manitobans? MR. CR AIK: Mr. Speaker, that question was dir ected to the Minister of Finance yesterday and I believe he dealt with it. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Speaker, it was the Minister of Energy who pointed out th at the cost to Canadians was increased because of the federal tax and I'm asking the same Minister of Energy how much increase is there to Manitobans because of the provincial tax, especially the 20 percent tax. MR. CRAIK: Well again, Mr . Speaker, I believe that was addr essed yesterday, but just to give th e member some further information, the Manitoba tax comes on after the pricing

schedule has been in place for some time and, if we are to believe what we are told by Mr. Lalonde, that once the affairs are settled with Alberta the levy that Mr. Lalonde has applied arbitrarily yesterday would come off; so let's all hope that it is off before Manitoba would arrive on the scene with a tax that would come in after the fact. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister saying that he is now making money on something that he disagreed with the Federal Government, by putting a percentage tax on the total after it's all over there's 20 percent of the total thing, is that what the Minister is saying?

MR. CRAIK: No, Mr. Speaker, again the Minister of Finance, as he indicated yesterday the provincial tax comes on after there has been an averaging taken of the pric es of gasoline at 20 self-serve stations in the Winnipeg area. Whether or not there is a return to the Province will depend on how long the Lalonde tax applies, and how soon there is a settlement between Ottawa and Alberta. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MS. JUNE WESTBURY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Honourable Attorney-General.

In view of recent comp laints about snowmob ilers outside of the city, but close to the city, does the Attorn ey-General intend to bring in any new regulations that will provide for better enforc ement and better control of snowmobiles and perhaps more easily identifiable licence plates, since apparently the licence plates are invisible to snowshoers and hikers who are being harassed and placed in a dangerous position. Another effect of this harassment has been, in a couple of instances, cruelty to animals.

The Attorney-General is ind icating, I think, that I should have asked the Minister of Natural Resources the question; if so, I would ask that whiche ver of the Ministers is prepared to answer it would do so. MR . SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Transportation. MR. DON ORCHARD (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, I might provide a small amount of information for the honourable member. The snowmobiles, in terms of licencing and identification, are quite frankly always going to be a problem, but they have had some large number identifications being part of the identification process used on snowmobiles.

The problem the member alludes to, particularly an identification by snowshoers or cross-country skiers, is a difficult one because, from time to time, errant snowmobilers may pass a snowshoer or a cross-country skier at some 50 and 60 miles and hour and identification, if not being difficult may well be, in fact, impossible, Mr. Speaker. MS. WESTBURY: I have a qu estion for the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker, one way or another. I wonder if the Attorney-General is proposing any changes to the Manitoba Building Code as th ey apply to ho tels construc ted before the present reg ulations came into effect.

I am refe rring particularly, of course, to the fire last July at the Holiday Inn and particularly insofar as regulations requiring heat and smoke detectors and sprinkler systems are concerned. Are there any proposals changed, especially retroactive ones, please. MR . ME RCIER: Mr. Sp eaker, I appreciate the Member for For t Rouge refe rring all of th ese questions to me, but the matter she raises now really is within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour and perhaps, in view of his absence today attending 1308

Wednesday, 4 March 1981 a funeral, the question could be taken as notice for him. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Transcona. MR. WILSON PARASIUK: My question is to the Mini ster of Healt h. I'd like to ask him if it's governme nt policy to pay funds to health care institutions that fail to pass provincial inspections, or to meet provincial regulations. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minis ter of Health. HON. L.R. (BUD) SHER MAN (F ort Garry): Mr. Speaker. it's certainly not a matter that comes under the area of government policy whatsoever.

The policy of course, is to attempt through the Standards Division to maintain the necessary qualities of care and of physical repair at all our health institutions and I'm not entirely sure of the point at which the Honourable Member for Transcona is driving. MR. PARASIUK: With respect to provincial inspections and regulations, I do so because last Friday the Provincial Audi tor indicated that large private profit-making corporations operating personal care homes refused to file audi ted financial statements, unlike non-pr ofit personal care homes, to the Provincial Government.

The Auditor said that he had a list of those private corporations but that I had to ask the Min ister of Health for permission for him to table them. I'm asking the Mini ster of Health if he would table the list of those priv ate corporations that will not file audited statements, indicating their size as well. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, that has nothing to do with the standards to which I bel ieve the Honourable Member for Transcona referred or at least which I inferred he was discussing in his initial question.

Standards are a matter that are supervised by the Standards Division of the Manitoba Health Services Commission or by hospital accreditation committees or whatever. What he is talking about now is a matter of meeting obligations that have been applied in some circumstances and not in other circu mstances with respect to the filing of audited financial statements in the personal care home field.

I might say this is a su bje ct of considerable discussion throughout Canada, in those provinc es that have ins ur ed personal care home programs where proprietary operators and non-pr oprietary operators operate side by side as in Manitoba. It has not been entirely resolv ed. It's my un derstan ding that what the Member for Transcona says the Provincial Auditor said, the Provincial Audi tor in fact did not say. However I will check the record and confer on the subject with the honourable member further. MR.

PARASIUK: I'd like to ask the Mini ster if he will provide a list of those private corporations which will not file their audited statements; and also if he can indicate in that list whether any of the corporat ions that received approval from this government in the last year to build personal care homes while this government at the same time said no to non-profit groups who wanted to build personal care homes, if he could indicate whether approval was given to any private corporations to build new personal care homes who do not meet the Provincial Government's own regulations in The Medical Services Act, to provide audited fina ncial statements, is that the case?

Can the Minis ter provide us with that list? MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I will not give such an undertaking at this moment but I will take it as notice, but I want to state qu ite clearly for the edification once again of the Honourable Member for Transco na, Mr. Sp eaker, that those pro prietary oper at ions that were licensed to go back into construction this year are known to the Honourable Member for Transcona and known to every member of this House.

They were operators who co-operated with the Government of this Province at a time when it was necessary to make some changes and make some moves because they had not had a chance under eight years of discrimina tory government by the previous administra tion, to bring their physical plants up to date. They could not meet the standards; they could not cont inue to meet The Public Health Act; -(I nterject ion) MR. LYON: They just jeopardized their lives. They didn't care about the problem then. MR.

SHERMAN: They could not continue to meet requirements under the fire code because for eight years that government over ther e when it was government, Sir, discrimina ted against them and made it very clear to them that they were going to be put out of business. We said you've got a good track record in terms of your care of patients; your physical plants have been allowed to deteriorate by' the previous government; if you will build up the standard you can come back into the field. That is what has been done and the Member for Transcona knows who those operators are. MR.

SPEAKER : The Honour able Member for Burrows: MR. BEN HANUSCHAK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and the Mini ster may wish to take the question as notice. Could he indicate to the House whether the companies which have recently collapsed in Ontario, leaving a $35 million loss, namely Astra Trus t Company and Remore (sic) Management Investment Corporation are registered in the Province of Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi ni ster of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. HON. GARY FILMON (Riv er Heights): It's my understa nding, Mr.

Speaker, that they are not but I will double check that. MR. SPEAKER : The Hono urable Mem ber for Roblin. MR. J. WALLY McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that relates to an interview that was held with the Leader of the Opposition by the Manitoba Busin ess Jo ur nal and one que stion in here the Journal asked: "Do you see a role in future for a 1309

Wednesday, 4 March 1981 resur rected Manitoba Development Corporati on?" and the Official Leader of the Opposition said, "Possibly, but I feel the message of the various und.ertakings of this area wasn't too clearly cold". The NDP inherited the Flyer, the Lord Selkirk and Saunders Aircraft. Mr. Speaker, my question is, to clear my mind, to clear the record, did the NDP government under the former Premier Schreyer, inherit Saunders Aircraft? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. PETER FOX: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

I believe you have indicated to the House this is a Question Period and that people should be asking qu est ions of the Mini stry in respect to information that they desire of the Ministry. Now the member is a member of the particular caucus of the government; it's a sorry state when he can't even commu nicate with his own members in his own caucus, but to contravene the rules of order in this House by reading into the record somet hing which was not a question because he didn't dir ect it to anyone, I think is going a little bit far. I do believe, Mr.

Speaker, that this poin t of order should be indic ated to the Member for Roblin. If he has questions and th ey're legit imate they should be answered; if he doesn't have any, he should find another time to debate. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The point raised by the Honourable Member for Kildonan is a point that is well taken. I would hope that all members when they'r e asking questions make them very short and direct without a long

preamble, by read ing from some other qu otation from some publication that is not an official document of this Chamber. I would hope that the questions would be to the point and the answers as well. The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I've been following the pattern that the members opposite have been using for weeks since the House opened on the

preamble so I apologize. I'll ask the question dir ect to the Minister of Economic Development. Did the NDP inherit Saunders Aircraft? HON. J. FRANK LIN JOHN STON (St urgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, I happen to have read the same

article and according to a news release by the Member for Brandon East on September 23, 1970, Mr. Evans said they had been dealing with Saunders Aircraft since April of 1970 and the records of the province show there was no dealings before that time. it's just another misleading statement by the Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, a supple mentary question. I'd like to ask the Honourable Minister of Economic Development if he's prepared to contact the Manitoba Business Journal and hopefully have this error or misstatement corrected. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. A.R. (Pete) ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, it's kind of a change to be able to stand up and ask a question. If I receive as much latitude as the First Mi nister I'll be qu ite satisfied , Mr. Sp eaker. (lnterjections)- MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. ADAM: I hope I get half the latitude that was afforded the First Minister I'll be quite happy, Mr. Speaker. On the 23rd of -(Interjection) MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Attorney-General on a point of order. MR.

MERCIER: On a point of order, Mr . Speaker. I believe the Member for Roblin indicated he has a second supplementary question which he is entitled to. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The recog nition of members in question period is the prerogative of the Speaker. The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, now that I am able to get the floor and ask my question, I direct it to the Minister responsible for Energy. Mr.

Speaker, I posed a question on July 23rd of 1980 in regard to a study that was being made on the oil industry and I dir ect my question to the Energy Minister today because the First Minister took the question on behalf of the Mi nister. I am wondering, Mr . Speaker, why they have not made themselves available of this study.

I am asking the Minister, there was a study, I brought it to his attention in 1980 on the 23rd of July, I brought it to his attention that there was a serious study th at had been undertaken by the Li beral Go vernm ent and supp ressed by th e Clark Government and that we wanted this study before we would pro ceed with any oil policy. I ask the Minister now, why did he not avail himself of that study? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful for the Member for Ste.

Rose to know that the Provincial Government is still not in possession of the study to which he refers but we are advised by the Federal Government that copies of it, that we have now read about in the newspaper, will be made available to the other governments and to th e public at large. I presume that it will be readily available to him and he doesn't have to acquire it through the Provincial Government. However, if we can be of help to him in acquiring a copy we will be most happy to do so. MR. ADAM: Mr.

Speaker, we were trying to get a copy from the Clark Government and they wouldn't allow us and I wanted him to get it. I ask him today, in view of the fact that I brought it to his attention in July of 1980 that there was a serious study made on the oil industry, why he did not get in touch with the Government in Ottawa and get that report and find out what was going on, Mr. Speaker? He has responded ... -(I nterjections)- MR. SPE AKER: Order please, or der please. I believe the honourable member asked that question 1310

Wednesday, 4 March 1981 with his first question. Has the honour able member another question? MR. ADAM: I would now like to ask the Min ister when he's going to respond to the question that the First Minis ter took on his behalf? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Energy. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I thought I just did. I indicated, Mr. Speaker, to the member that I would be most happy to share the report with him as soon as it was available. My un derst anding from the Federal Government is that they are going to make the report public today.

I assure the member that, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first time when the report he is alluding to has been made available to anyone other than whoever was preparing the report. However, I must add that if he had insight into a report like this six months in advance I hope he keeps it posted so we'll know now and frequently when he knows of other reports that are going to come out in the next six months. MR. SPEAKER : The Honour able Memb er for Churchill. MR. JAY COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We really must do something about the sound system, I think that's a classic example.

However, my question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Mi nis ter resp onsible for northern air ambulance and I'd asked the Mini ster if he can provide us with an update as to why we have yet to receive any word from the Min ister in respect to the replacement of the MU -2 and why we are forced to suffer thr ough inade qua te and unsatisfactory service as long as we have been forced to by the government's inability to provide su bstitute tr ansportation and su bstitute . ai rcraft which are suitable for that type of Medi-vac service. MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Mini ster of Transporta tion. MR. ORCHARD: First of all, Mr.

Speaker, I think it has to be poi nted out, as I have on previous occasions, when that member has questioned on northern air ambulance service that we have in fact provided replacement aircraft. There are two of them; they have been used for medical evacuation; we have upon occasion, as I understand it, used private carriers for that purpo se when our aircra ft were unavailable for use. The service is opera ting; it is not as disastrous as the Member for Churchill would have many people belie ve. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to advise the member about a replacement airc raft in the very near future.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, the time for question period having expired, we will proceed with Orders of the Day. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, would you call Bill No. 27? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for St. Johns. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry, I'd like to raise a point of privilege. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honour able Member for St. Johns on a point of privilege. MR. CHERNIACK: The matter having come to light to me just now, I have not prepared a resolution but if you so require it, a motion, I would try to dr aft one.

I'm just reading Hansard and a statement by the Honourable Min ister of Community Services relating to a statement which was quoted by the Member for Emerson that appeared in a New Democratic Party bulletin. The statement made by the Mi nister - it appears on Page 11 81 - would make it appear as if the Min ister is claiming that the program which is now paying $15 .60 a month to certain senior citizens is a new program of his government.

I'm read ing it that way based on the question and the answer; and the Mi nister when attacking the New Democratic Party statement, which I haven't seen, calling it untrue, and attacking the Leader of the Opposition together make it appear as if he is taking credit for his government of introducing a new program of $1 5.60 which of course, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely untr ue. What appears to be true is that they increased the payment from $7.82 to $1 5.60 or some increase of that nature.

I think he owes it to the people of Manitoba to clarify the position that he appears to have taken which I don't think he wanted to take or which I don't think, in all integrity, he would have taken. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. If you'll refer to Page 59 in our Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceed ing of the Legislative Assembly and I will quote the last sentence in the second paragraph: "But a dispute arising between two members as to allegations of facts does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privile ge.'' On that basis I would have to rule the matter of privilege out of order.

The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I'll try to keep your ruling in mind. I'm just wondering about the fact that the Minis ter yesterday in Hansard spoke of untruths. He says the statement is completely untrue, and he kn ows it's un true. Now, Mr. Sp eaker, is th at acceptable? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. Having once made a ruling I think the matter is finished. Orders of the day. The Honourable Government House Leader. SECOND READING -GOVERNMEN T BILLS BILL NO. 27 - THE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT MR. MERCIER presented Bill No. 27,

an Act to amend The Highway Traffic Act, for second read ing. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Attorney-General. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, on February 3 of this year the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of the Queen versus Boggs, declared that the Parliament of 1311

Wednesday, 4 March 1981 Canada did not have jurisdiction to enact Su bsection 238(3) of the Criminal Code. · That

section states everyone who dr ives a motor vehicle in Canada while he is disqua lified or prohibited from driving a motor vehicle, by reason of the legal suspension or cancellation in any province of his permit or licence or of his right to secure a permit or licence to drive a motor vehicle in that province, is guilty of an offence.

In his judgrnent the Su preme Cour t expressed concern that persons were being prosecuted under Su bsection 238(3) of the Criminal Code where driving privileges had been suspended for such relatively trivial matters as failing to pay a parking ticket or in one provi nce failur e to pay a fuel oil bill. The Su preme Court rule d agains t the scope of the present sect ion.

In this regard we have indicated to the Department of Justice in Ott awa that we would supp ort legislation to replace the present Su bsection 238(3) of the Code with a provision that makes it a criminal offence for a person to drive a motor vehicle where that person's driving privileges have been suspended as a result of a driving conviction pursuant to the Criminal Code. In the meantime when Su bsection 238(3) of the Code was de clared ultra vires, we started to prosecute under

Section 20 1 of The Highway Traffic Act. Unfortuna tely the present penalty provisions were not considered to be severe enough to deal with a type of flagrant offender who has been suspended as a result of several drinking and driving offences or for causing death or bodily harm by criminal negligence. The present act provides for a penalty from $50.00 to $500 and in default from seven to 30 days incarcera tion. Further the present

Section 201 of The Hig hway Traffic Act req ui res that where the suspended dri ver is driving his own vehicle, that vehicle must be impounded. The court has not given any di scretion in this regard. The impound ment provisions apply unfairly in that some drivers will have their car impounded while some dr ivers will not have th eir car impounded. For examp le, if the suspended dr iver is dr iving a car owned by somebody else, there is no impoundment of that motor vehicle. We have determined, Mr . Speaker, to repeal all of the provisions relating to impoundment of vehicles on conviction.

We have also redrafted the provisions relating to the offences to simplify the wording and to provide a more severe penalty for the offence of driving a motor vehicle while suspended. The penalty for this most serious offence is to be a fine of not more than $1,000 and/or imprisonment for a term not exce eding six months. For all other offences the penalty is to be a fine of up to $500 or in default, imprisonment for up to 60 days. Su bsection 2 of the Act doe$ also provide the repeal with respect to the impoundment provisions shall deem to have been effective on, from and after February 3rd, 1981. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. WII.!-IAM JENKINS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Elmwood that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, could you call Bill No. 8? MR. SPEAKER: Adjou rned debate on Bill No. 8. The Honourable Member for Logan. (Stand) MR. JENKINS: Let that matter stand, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, could you call the Motion on the second page of the Order Paper in my name? MR . SPEAKER: Prop osed Mo tion by the Honourable Attorney-General. The Honourable Attorney General. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister without Portfolio that the report of the Standing Committee on the Rules of the House received by the Assembly on Monday, February 9th, 1981 be referred to the Committee of the Whole for consideration and concurrence. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERC IER: I move, Mr.

Speaker, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Mu nicipal Affairs that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider and report of the Report of the Standing Committee on the Rules of the House received by the Assembly on February 9, 1981. MOTION presented and ca rried and the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole to report of the Report of the Standing Committee with the Honourable Member for Crescentwood in the Chair. COM MITTEE OF THE WHOLE MR.

CHAIR MAN, Warren Steen (Crescentwood): might point out to the members of the Committee that a copy of the report is in Votes and Proceed ings dated Monday, February 9th and copies have been distributed to all mernpers. The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MER CIER: Well, Mr. Chairman, it migh t expedite matters. I have discussed this report with the Honourable Lead er of the Opposition on a number of occasions and other members of the Committee, and it appears to us that there is one clear amendme nt th at should be made in Rule 33(2)(

a) and that would be in the second line of that clause after the word "given" to insert the word "prior". and then in the third line to delete the words "not later than one hour before the", and delete the fou rth line, "s itting of the House at which the 1312

Wednesday, 4 March 1981 member speaks in that debate", and that would then reflect the di scussion which we had at our Committee which was to the effect, that the leader of the government or of the opposition or of a recognized opposition party should only be requir ed to give prior notice. The rationale for that being, Mr .

Chairman, as an example if one of those leaders were, on an afternoon, visiting outside of the City of Winnip eg and for some reason were unable to return for reason of weather or mechanical difficulties, they would only then be required to phone in and give the notice that someone would be speaking on their behalf.

But if we followed the words as they are now in this report they couldn't give notice prior to the sitting and I think the consensus among the Committee, confirmed by my discussions with the Leader of the Opposition, is that we wanted to be as flexible as possible with that and not impose any rest rictions. It would then read as corrected: 33(2)(a). The Leader of the Govern ment, the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the recognized opposition party has given prior notice of the designation to the Speaker. The other words would be deleted. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Kildonan. MR. FOX: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

To a gr eat extent concur with what the Attorney-General has said, the House Leader, but I should just like to point out that I believe the intent was that a member speaking could also give prior notice because sometimes it may not be possible for a leader to phone in and get a hold of the Speaker because communications being what they are, if he's on the road that may be one reason; but the real issue was that we wanted to make certain that the Speaker had prior notice. It may be that a particular bill that is being debated may be the forte of some other member and not necessarily that of the leader.

So the only question that was raised was that there be distinct prior notice, but not necessarily by the leader. It doesn't say in here that it has to be the leader who has to give notice. It just says that the Speaker has prior notice in respect to that extension of time and that privil ege of having more time as is designated to a leader of any particular party and if that is the understanding, then we'r e prepared to accept the amendment. I think that is the intent of the amendment and not specifically what the Attorney-General said, that the leader would have to give the prior notice. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Inkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, let us assess this matter in a rational way. It does not give anybody additional time in the House, that on every motion on every res olution before the House a party leader is entitled to speak with unlimited time. Presumably the party leader could do that every time and then we'd be subjected to the same person over 40 minutes. What this rule permits is something that is very reaso nable and was never questioned until last year. It says that the leader may designate somebody else to speak for him on that particular motion. Mr.

Chairman, all that was intended at the Ru les Committee is that we clear it up and that all that we intended, and I think we all agree, is that somebody shouldn't speak for 40 minutes and then as an aftert hought say, well I'm going to take the leader's time and continue and that there be notice given. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that we should even be entitled to take an honourable member's word that he should be able to get up and say, which has been done and has never cau sed a problem, Mr.

Chairman, I am giving you notice now that I have been designated by the leader of the party to speak for him on this particular motion. Now can we avoid the problems of the leader not being here and not being able to give the notice - that might be the opportune time for somebody else to use his time and then he can 't do it - because the leader is not here and we're going to argue about whether the notice was given or not.

So I would urge the Attorney-General, knowing what we all intend, to make this as informal as possible that prior to speaking the member indicates that there be notice given by the member or the leader - how's that, the member or the leader because if the member gets up he can give the notice - the member or the leader that he has been designated by the leader to speak on that question. Would that solve the problem ? I don't think the Attor ney General is really objecting. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, there's no question that I think what we were attempting to do in Committee on this qu estion is be as flexible as possible, taking into consideration that we just do not know all of the circu mstances in which this situation may arise. While the Member for Inkster was talking and the House Leader of the Opposition was talking I was trying to look at the Report of the Rules Committee to work out in my own mind an appropriate amendment that would be made.

I take it the situation we're trying to overcome is one in which it's impossible for the leader of a party to give prior notice, perhaps he's somewhere where he couldn't even make a phone call, and I expect then the suggestion is that we would add in some words to the effect that the member gives prior indication that he is speaking on behalf of his leader in that debate. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think probably that is where we ought to go, the suggestion made by the Attorney-General.

If I can take just a moment to recall to my own memory an occasion when Mr . Molgat, the Leader of the Liberal Party, the then Leader of the Opposition was sitting in his normal chair and Mr. Campbell was sitting beside him and Mr. Campbell rose to speak and spoke for some two hours to the dismay of. a number of members present who didn't know that had been the designation. It was considered unfair that Mr. Campbell hadn't started by saying, I am speaking on behalf of my leader and taking the time he would normally take, and that that was considered unfair and I assumed that is wha t we are trying to overcome.

I'd like to suggest to the Attorney-General - I scribbled some words in - in 33(2Xa) to insert after the word "party" in the second line the words "or such member on his behalf". That would then 1313

Wednesday, 4 March 1981 mean that the leader or the member who has been desig nated then "on his behalf shall give prior notice", which as I interpret it means that a member can rise and say, Mr. Speaker, I have been designed by my leader to speak on his behalf and then proceed to speak. I think that would take care of any of the eventualities that we would be discussing but would not catch anybody unawares who may be looking at the clock and thinking that at the end of 40 minutes he will have his opportunity and discover suddenly that it's been taken away from him.

If that is the objective, as I unde rstand it to be, th en possi bly the words I'm suggesting would be acceptable to the House Leader as clarifying the question. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Winnipeg Centre. MR. J.R. (Bud) BOVC E: While th e Atto rney General's is considering that suggestion I would just like to comment on the change in the rules on still photographs. I welcome this change, Mr. Chairman, because it shows the rules can be changed.

I rise on that particular point because I caused a wee bit of a flap rece ntly because the rules were being transg ressed but rules can be ch anged and the manner in which this came about just shows that we are willing to move with the changing times. The fact that some photogr apher may ge t me in de ep contemplation is of little concern. So, Mr. Chairman, just to make the point that I welcome this change and I think most members will, time will tell as to how this change effects us all. As I said at committee in recommending that such change be made that the press doub tless will be responsible MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, in consultation with Legislative Counsel, his suggestion is just a simple change in the Membe r for St. Johns proposed motion. lt would be, instead of "such", "that" members; it would be after "party" in the second line; or "that member on his behalf"; and the reason for using "that" is because it is being used earlier on in that

section in the third line; and then Legislative Counsel also sugg ests in (

b) that you delete the words "whoever has given the notice" and substitute "on whose behalf that member is to speak". MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Kildonan. MR. FOX: Yes. I believe that would tidy up the question that was raised and which is mutu ally acceptable and if the Attorney-General would move the amendments, then we'd be prepared to proceed with the Rules Committee Report as it is, with those amendments; and that includes both amendments (

a) and (b). MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, it would appear that if those first two amendments are agreeable then there is a third amendment that has to be made in the second last line, which says "whoever has given notice of the designation" and Legislative Counsel suggests that it should then read "on whose behalf that member has spoken". In the second last line strike out "whoever has gi ven notice of the designation" and substitute "on whose behalf that member has spoken". MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Logan. MR.

JENKINS: For clarity pur poses if the Minister could read the motion, the amendment and the final thing as it will appear now so that we can get it in some context. Otherwise we're sort of operat ing at cross-purposes, and if the Attorney-General would read it out in its ent irety as he pro poses the amendment I think it would clarify it for a lot of the Members of the House. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, then

Section 33(2) from the beginning would read: The Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition or a leader of a recognized opposition party may each designate one member to speak in a debate for such time as he desires and that member may speak in that debate for such period as he desires if (

a) the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opp osition or the leader of the recognized party, or that member on his behalf, has given prior notice of the designation to the Speaker; and (

b) the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opposit ion or the leader of the recognized opposition party, on whose behalf that member is to speak, has not previously spoken in the debate for more than 40 minutes; and if the member designated speaks in the debate, the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the recognized party, on whose behalf that member has spoken, shall not speak in that debate for more than 40 minutes. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, I thought I heard it properly but I want to make sure that a member can speak twice; once for 40 minutes and then once as a person designated; because the way the Attor ney General read it, if that person has not already spoken for more than 40 minutes. He may not have spoken for over 40 minutes; does that give him the right to speak for more than 40 minutes a second time? If not, I'm not worried. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I think it's clear that the member can only speak once. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, if that's agreed as I think it is, Mr. Chairman, as the Opposition House Leader suggests, I would so move th at tho se changes in word ing take place in this whole

Section 33(2) as I belie ve the Legisla tive Counsel have recorded. MR. CHAIRMAN: it's been moved by the Attorne y General , you've he ard the amendments. All in favour? (Agreed). Any further discussions? If not, Committee rise and call in the Speaker. MR. FOX: . . . with respect to some experimental development in respect to the lighting, I wonder if we can be assured that we will be given notice when it starts so that we can become aware of whether it's going to affect us and for how long it will take place. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General. MR. MERCIER: think as we dis cussed the other day, the Speaker is making arrangements on that 1314

Wednesday, 4 March 1981 matter and as the Opposition House Leader and I suggested, it would be helpful I think, if he and I were to receive some advanc e notice from the Speaker and perhaps came in the House prior to the sitting of the House to observe it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee rise officially now. IN SESSION MR. STEEN: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the report of the Standing Committee on Rules of the House and request leave to sit again. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Crescentwood . MR. STEEN: Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Emerson, that the report of the Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Min ister of Finance that this House concur on the report of the Standing Committee on the Rules of the House received by the Assembly on February 9, 1981 and amended by the Committee of the Whole. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr . Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Min ister of Finance that Mr.

Speaker, do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented and carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Supp ly to be gr anted to Her Majesty with the Honourable Member for Emerson in the Chair. The Honourable Member for Emerson. COMMIT TEE OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - CONSUMER AND CO RPORATE AFFAIRS AND ENVIRON ME NT MR. DEPUTY CHAIRM AN, Albert Dr iedger (E mers on): Call the Committe e to or der. For consideration of the Committee, Page 31, Resolution 37, Item 2.(

a) Salaries - the Member for Burrows. MR. BEN HANUSCHAK: Mr. Chairman, in rising to this item in the Estimates, I did a quick comparison of the breakdown of the appropriations as shown in the Estimates before us with those in 19 77 and there are a couple of lines which did appear in the 19 77 Estima tes which are no longer shown in the Estimates before us. One is, at one time an appropriation for Research and Planning within the Consumer Affairs Branch was shown and that does not appear. It was a significant item proportionately; it was $56,400 for Salaries four years ago and $1 5,7 00 for Other Expenditures.

Now it may be contained within the two lines shown in Resolution No. 37 that we're dealing with now and if it is I would like the Mini ster to explain, to indicate the amount that he has set asi de for Research and Planning within the Consumer Affairs Branch. Another item which did appear in the Estimates four years ago and no longer does and that was under an item which we have already approved, but nevertheless it was related to Consumer Affairs as I recall it, and that was a separate item for Commun ica tions.

In '77 it was in the order of $10 0,000 or so, $74,000 for Salaries and $24,000 for Other Expenditures and again my recollection is that was for what perhaps could be called a Consumer Education Program, quite separate and apart from Information Services which we had dealt with yesterday. Under that appropriation moneys were spent for the publication of consumer information material. One that was published I think dealt with dir ect sellers; another dealt with information with respect to an

interpretation of The Landlord and Tenant Act and that sort of thing. So with respect to that matter, Mr. Chairman, my question is, is that function still being cont inu ed by the Consumer Affairs Branch? The third question, Mr. Chairman, and this arises out of the fact that in this session we have a new Min ister of a department, very recently appointed I admit, but I would think and I would hope that he comes in to this de partment with a certain philosophy, with certain aims, certain objectives; a certain philosophy as to what he hopes the role to be of his department.

In other words, does he envisage the Consumer Affairs Branch as being merely one th at reacts to situations with respect to the enforcement of legislation? In other words, if he should find some evidence of contravention of a sect ion of The Consumer Affairs Consumer Protection Act, that the branch then steps in to remedy that situation, to enforce that particu lar

section of the Act? Or does he envisage the role of his department as being a preventative one, a consumer education oriented one, one that would disseminate information related to issues of interest of concern to consumers and related to his branch, that he feels that consumers ought to be made aware of; and di ssemina te that information in whatever might be the most effective way possible in any given situation, whether it be via the print media or the electronic media or whatever other way?

I would like to hear the Min ister's philosophy with respect to the role and function of his department and I ask that for another reason and that is, that Consumer Affairs, whether it's Consumer Affairs departments or Consumer Affairs br anches of another department, whatever name tag they may bear, in virtually every jurisdiction within Canada if not the whole world, are relatively new legislative creatures. A decade ago or more, there were very few jur isdictions which had a Consum er Affairs depar tment.

Certainly in Canada the Consumer Affairs departments were ju st in the process of evolution in the late Sixties and early Seventies. So they are new and in this area governments are breaking new ground, so that is another reason why I would be very anxious to hear from the Minister what 1315

Wednesday, 4 March 1981 his though ts and views are on the role of his department and of the dir ection in which he intends to take it. I .would also like the Minister to indicate what liaison he sees between his department and his counterpart at the federal level because as we know certain consumer matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Government, others within federal jurisdiction.

In the event that the people in his department should become aware of some matter requiring the attention of the federal department, do es his department take the initia tive to communicate with their counterparts at the federal level or does the Minister prefer to leave that matter to the consumer as it were, and if he wishes to seek some particular remedy let him, the consumer, take the initiative and contact the Federal Government? Or does the Minister's staff assist the consumer in commu nicating the matter to the Federal Government? I suppose what brings this to mind, Mr.

Chairman, is a matter which had recently been brought to my attention - in fact, it came to my home and I'll mention it to the Minister. I was going to raise it by way of question but I think it can be more properly and fully dealt with in the conside ration of his Est imates rather than att empt ing to resolve the matter within the context of two or three questions.

A number of weeks ago, a firm by the name of Eat-Right Food Packers Winni peg Lim ite d , 811 Portage Avenue - and I will give the Minister a copy of this; in fact I'll attempt to find the original because he may wish to have it - a flyer was dis tributed throughout the entire city or not, I don't know, but certainly in my part of the city, which reads as follows: "A ttention Food Shoppers: Offered by one of Canada's largest freezer food supplier and growing, valuable coupon, $20.00 value off any Eat-Right freezer food order. One coupon per customer". Now it is my recollect ion, Mr.

Chairman, that type of advertising is a violation of a law, I think it's of a federal law and not a provincial one. I have a distinct recollection that this was taken care of a number of years ago and in fact I think that it was food -freezer operators, in Manitoba and in other parts of Canada and the manner of operation of some of them, that led to the enactment of such a law.

That is to say, that if one is to offer a dis count off the purchase price of any item, one has to show $20.00 off what? $20.00 off 100 or 50 or can I go in and buy $20.00 worth of food and present this coupon and say, well, here's my $20.00 coupon, give me the food for free. Now I do believe, Mr .

Chairman, that type of advert ising is misleading because it doesn't indicate the quantity of food that one has to buy and in fact I'm quite certain that if one were to check with this outfit, you would find that you might have to have about an 18 or a 21-cubic foot freezer in your home to take advantage of this $20.00 offer. In fact, I did make a very qu ick cursory che ck. There was a telephone number shown here somewhere and I telephoned the number and I said, I received your coupon in the mail and I'd like to take advantage of your $20 .00-offer. Can I drop down and pick up some meat?

Wel l, the response was th ey don't operate that way. They will have to refer my name and telephone number to a food counsellor. I said, well, what are you talking about, a food counsellor? I've never consulted with a food counsellor in buying groceries previously. I said, look, I plan to be in the west end this afternoon, can I drop in and pick up some meat? Well, we don't have a warehouse at this address. So she said, if you would leave your name and number, our food counsellor will call you. So I said, well look, I'm very busy and I'm going to be out.

In fact, I do intend to go passed 811 Portage Avenue very shortly and my wife gave me a shopping list and I thought this was a darn good bargain to pick up. So he says, well, how large of a freezer have you got? I said, what difference should it make to you? You're selling meat and nobody else has ever asked me that ques tion. Well, it depends as to whether you can advantage of our food offer.

So I said I don't how large the freezer is, we don't have a separate unit in our house but we have a fair-sized refrigerator and a separate freezer unit above it, about two-and-a-half cubic feet, it might hold about 75 pounds or so if it's properly packed. He said, oh, no, no, no, you'll need at least an 18-cubic foot freezer or something. Then, of course, if you read the fine print they also sell freezers. So then he told me that it's a 9-month meat plan that I would have to buy to take advantage of the 20 bucks.

Then another offer, specials available with food order, T-bone steaks, $1.63; oh, there's a better one, the standing rib roast, 99 cents a pound. Ten pound limit per customer. So I said, oh yes, and I also want to pick up 10 pounds of steaks at $1.63 and a couple of standing rib roasts because we're having company for Sunday dinner at 99 cents a pounds, and I said the pork chops at a $1.00 a pound, that's look good, I'll want 10 pounds of those. So he says, no, no, no, the 10-pound limit applies to the entire offer.

If I buy five pounds of T -bone, I can only a standing rib roast of five pounds, or if I buy 10 pounds of steak, I can't buy any standing rib roasts. This type of thing, it's a recurrence of a type of misleading advert ising which had occurred I remember back in the Forties and the Fifties and legislation was passed to curb it. lt appears that it's beginning to rear its head again and I would like the Minister, in fact, to assist the Minister if one of the pages would be kind enough to take this over to him and this provides him with the name of the firm.

If it falls within his jurisdiction, I would like him to check that matter out; if it does not, to refer it to the federal authorities and have it checked out; and if it should be found to be in contravention of the law then I would hope that appropriate action be taken to put an end to that type of thing.

As I said, the Minister having been recently assigned this portfolio, I would also like to know whether he and his department have identified any areas presently not covered by consumer protection law that he feels his department should take a close look at and perhaps even bring in legislation or regulations governing their operations. The reason why I ask that is because the whole area of consumer protection is so unlike all other areas within which we pass laws.

I suppose one could pass a law limiting the speed limit on a certain roadway to 25 miles an hour so everybody dr ives at 25 miles an hour and do esn 't exceed that speed limit. (Interjection)- That's right and doesn't find ways and means of getting around it. 1316

Wednesday, 4 March 1981 The unfortunate thing within consumer protection is, the moment you pass a certain law immediately there are batta lions of lawyers and cha rtered accountants and business administration types that go to work somewhere, to find ways and means of getting around the law. I can recall a decade ago when I held the same portfolio as the Honourable Minister does now and at at th at time pyramid sales, pyramid sel ling operations were infesting and plaguing the province and we passed Legislation governing the operation of direct sales.

Of course we did not want to impede the operations of church groups and schools and the fund-raising operations and having every little kid that goes out with a little box full of chocolate bars to have to go and get a direct sellers licence so we set a minimum of $10 that anyone selling items under $10 was not obligated to get a dir ect sellers licence. The figure might be wrong but I know that there was a lower limit set. lt so happened that at the time that the regulation or the Legislation was passed.

I've forgotten which way that was done, there was a busi ness in operation in Manitoba - I think it was in the area of pyramid se lling or something related to it - they were se lling, I think it was a discount coupon or something, that you could take to a number of designated shops and get a certain discount; they were selling these cards or coupons for $12.50 and we attempted to clamp down on them so they changed their system of operation. As I recall it they came up with a scheme where they were selling the card for $9.50 and the case for it $3.00. So they were selling two separate items.

But the way the sale went you pretty well had to buy both and that way they obviated the law.

So, like I said every time that you pass consumer protection law there is somebody that goes to work in finding ways and means of getting arou nd it because, particularly in the area of dir ect selling, it's a mu ltimillion dollar ope rat ion, perhaps not a multimillion dollar operation from the point of view of the guy who's out there knocking on doors but certainly it is from the point of view of the people in Toronto and Montreal or New York or from wherever the company is being operated and they can afford to spend the bucks to find ways and means of getting around the aw.

The reason why I raise the whole area of direct selling is because I have the impression that in recent years there has been a type of direct selling that has come into being which - well it's not new, its been around for 30 or 40 years - but this method of organizing house parties and, you know the y sell jewellery in th at fa shion; th ey sell copperware in that fashion; they sell ladies clothing; cosmetics; I dis covered last night my wife was invited to a plant party, they sell plants in that fashion and God knows what else. -( Interjection)- and pottery, yes, well pottery is the grand daddy of them because selling pottery in that fashion I can remember when my wife, long before she was my wife, she was conned into buying, parting with about 200 bucks for a set of pots and pans at a time when she was earning only half of that amount a month; so that's the grand daddy.

But there are others that have come into being and I'm wondering whether the Minister is keeping a su rveilling eye over operations of that kind, both from a point of view of protec ting the consumer, that is the ultimate purchaser, as well as the person who might wish to become involved within this type of operation as a way of making money. Also related to that is the other form of direct selling, well it's dir ect selling-related and that's the sale of franchises.

I can think of th e insulating busi ness and that has become quite a big business in recent years, particular in recent years when we've become more energy conservation conscious and I would thin k that by reason of our ge ographic location, our cli matic cond itions, to the energy conservation enterprises, Manitoba is a very very lucr ative place to operate because they know that within a province such as ours there must be many homes in need of having their insulation upgraded.

I'm wondering whether the Minister is monitoring - to use an expre ssi on often used by the government - is monitoring business operations of tha t kind because it has been brought to my attention by who I feel is a reputable roofing and insulation contractor, that the way some of the busi nesses in this area operate could raise a few questions in one's mind. No. 1 they sell franchises; that is to say they take their money off the top.

If you want to get into the insulation business you've got to buy the materials to insulate X-number of homes, five, six, ten or whatever; you pay cash or you pay a su bstantial downpayment for it and you are told that giv en the energy cons ervation awareness of the people that there'll be no problem; by sundown you'll have your 10 customers and tomorrow you go out and insulate the 10 homes and you'll be back to us and buying materials for another 10 and you'll become a multimillionaire by the end of the year, by '82 anyway; that type of thing.

This contractor told me that there are some small operators who, you know, have sort of a yen for making a dollar in the private enterprise system and they get hooked on an operation of this kind only to find that there isn't a line-up of people clamouring at the door to have their homes insulated and the chemicals, they sit around in the dru ms, and apparently there is a certain life expectancy on the chemical; if it's used beyond the life expectancy of the chemical that could lead to undesirable results, some of the evidence that we have found, the fumes leaking from the - I'm talking about the foam chemical - could have resulted from using old chemical.

So, what I'm saying to the Minister is that here is another example of a new type of sales operation coming into being which I think makes it necessary for the Minister, or if he doesn't have the resources to maintain the proper checks on operations of that kind, perhaps it might be environment, perhaps working in conjunction with health or whomever; but nevertheless I feel that it should be the res ponsibility of the government to take the necessary steps to make sure that the consumer has proper and adequate protection within this area.

Those are the questions that I wish to pose at the comm encemen t, or near com mencement, of the considering of this Res olutio n of the Mi nister 's Estimates and I would think as the debate proceeds there might be other matters that I may want to raise or question him about. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. FILMON: Thank you, Mr . Chairman, I appreciate the remarks given by the Member of 1317

Wednesday, 4 March 1981 Burrows; as a former Minister in this portfolio I know he has a great deal of information to share with me and I've been taking notes but he posed a number of questions and I'l l try and go through them in order but if I miss any perhaps he can remind me.

Firstly, the items under Consumer Affairs that he asked about, there isn't a breakdown but I have the breakdown of the areas that deal firstly with, he referred to as I believe Research and Planning. it's now called Program and Policy Support, has a st aff of four SMYs and a Budget of $130,000 and it continues to perform the same functions that it did in the past and perhaps has expanded to some extent because of the staff involved and their abilities and capabilities that they bring to the job.

We have, for instance, one person on sta ff who does have tec hnical backgr ound that allows him to deal perhaps in more scientific areas that we might not have been able to do research in before. They certai nly perform all of th e func tio ns th at were previously performed unde r th e Research and Planning title that the member recalls.

Secondly, he asked about the function of, shall we say, Outr each or communication with the public on the Consumer Affairs side and cer tainly that continues to be a very vital part of our respo nsibility as we see it and this whole area of communication with the public, both to inform them of their rights under consumer legislation, as well of course the rights of those who are selling or merchandising in the field that are related to them; such things as exchange of goods and all of those things continue to be put forward.

They are responsible and, in my opening remarks, I indicated that this is now under the area that we refer to as the Community Relations Branch and it's role is to foster increased public awareness, not only in the Consumer Affairs side but also for environmental concerns which are becoming more and more a part of the public's awareness. The y are respo nsible for th e production and dissemination of brochur es, films, aud io-visual displ ays, advert ising and so on.

The former consumer communication's office which served only Consumer Affairs and the departmental reference service which involves the libr ary services of Consumer Affairs and environmental management are all now melded into the new program. I'm not sure if I indicated it's six SMYs and a Budge t of $206,800.00.

They are continuing to produce brochures and folders; they are continuing in their Outr each to the public to make appearances in highschools; to appear on open-line talk shows, any area of communication with the public that we can avail our selves of they respond to and through and we believe are continuing to provide a very worthwhile service and, in fact, have an enhanced role and will continue to have an enhanced role.

I think in general terms the member asked about the role that we see our selves playing; whether it was simply react ing or responding to a situation that arises and utilizing the legislation to allow us to prosecute or bring forward some corrective action to a situation that was not acceptable; whether or not he saw us being initiators or we saw ourselves being initiators. I think, that in addition to our resp onsibility to be vigilant and to always protect the consumer's interest, the public interest, we certainly do look for areas in which we can be initiators of services for the good of the public.

One of the best examples in this year's program that I can call his attention to is the one th at I introd uced in my opening remarks. I believe that there is a press release being prepared that gives more detail on it but it's the addition to our existing program of a Credit Counselling Service. Currently in Manitoba, as the member is well aware, there are agencies off ering information on money management, budgeting, borrowi ng, income tax reba ting, etc.

The Consumer's Bur eau will co ordinate now the existing work of such offices with community counselling committees to be established throughout the province and we'll also be encouraging credit grantors to actively participate in exte nding counselling services beyond that which is prese ntly prov ided. This program will become operational in 1981, it is our intention. So that is one of the areas of shall we shall outr each and initiation that we are involved in.

I might also say that we are involved in new areas such as dealing with product warranty and product liability legislation; developing standards in legislation in those areas through our discussions and our input to a Federal-Provincial task force that is currently studying those areas and I would imagine, depending on their results, depending on what they come forward with, it may well initiate some new legislation or it may well initiate the basis of industry standards that are accepted by the industry in these areas.

I think the member also asked a question about whether or not, when we have matters brought to our attention such as this particular promotion or advert ising campaign that's being done by the Eat Right people, th at the member sugge sts might involve false or misleading advertising whether or not we would simpl y just say, no, that's not our respo nsibi lity, tha t comes under The Combines Invest igation Act and you mus t go to them.

If something of this nature is brought to our attention and from time to time examp les of false or misleading advertising are brought to our attention, the Member for Fort Rouge did so a few days ago a matter that she believed was misleading, I'd like to assure him that not only do we firstly, look at the situation to see whether or not there's a responsibility on our department's part but we do in fact refer the matter dir ectly; our department refers it to the federal people to expedite the matter and get it to their attention and have it looked after as quickly as possible because after all whether federal or provincial, we serve the same consumer and our interests and concerns are to ensure that we are doing everyt hing possible to protect their interests.

The member referred to house parties and that is of course, becoming a more and more common form of sel ling, a more and more common way of distributing products to the public and he referred to a variety of different types, whether it be for jewellery or makeup or any of those, but those come under direct sellers legislation. We are constantly ensuring that the people are licensed and that as much as possible, we are ensuring to our satisfaction that they're meeting the standards and regulations within the legislation that we have to control this type of selling.

If any instances of breaches of the legislation come to our attention, then we are quick to act on it, I can assure the member. The area of home im provement of course, is not a new area. I recall stories of people who used to 1318

Wednesday, 4 March 1981 come around to sell you asphalt driv eways and they just happened to be in the area and they had a half load left on the truck and they wanted to pave your dr iveway for you at a great saving and so on and so forth; or the siding companies; or any of those types of promotions, awnings that were done on a door-to door selling basis, in effect.

If they are being done and for instance, insula tion is being sold door-to door. any type of home improvement, then certainly they fall under the area of di rect selling and musd be li censed; so in tha t respect our dep artment is concerned to ensure that they are abidin g by all the regulations that the legislation provides for. All of those are certainly of concern to us.

I'm not sure if the member was suggesting that there ought to be a whole new field of legislation developed for them. but cert ainly if they operate by virtue of newspaper advertising or normal media advertising and people come to them and make agreements, then we're not involved . If it's false or misleading advertising, certainly we turn that over to as I said, the federal people. It it is di rect door-to-door selling then it comes under direct selling legislation, under our control. I'm not sure at this point in time, whether I've covered all his points.

I think I have by virtue of my notes. so I'll leave it at that. MR. JENKI NS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to apologize to the Min ister that I wasn't here yesterday dur ing his opening remarks, but I had to be in another Committee. I did welcome him last night to his new portfolio. I guess time will only tell whether he is of the same bent as the former Mi nister, who seemed to have a laissez-faire attitude toward the whole cons umer pr otection legislation. In other words. his idea was that the marketplace would rule.

I hope that this new Min ister is not going to adopt this attitude, that looking after his portfolio will be vigoro us and one that will be looking after the interests of the consuming public, whom we're all trying to look after in this field. I would like to ask the Min ister just how actively the department is in monitoring adverti sements that appear in newspapers, I think one has already been discussed this afternoon by flyer, that may be a little bit more difficult for the department unless these are brought in particular attention to the dep artment, but does the department itself have a

section in the Consumers Affairs Branch that looks at adverts in papers to see that the consuming public is getting exactly what is being advertised? Because we see lots of times in the newspapers that an ad will appear and a day later in the newspaper will come a correction. Now is this being done on behalf of the department or just how are these changes coming about? Because if people are advertising objects for sale and then the next day's paper comes out and says sorry, that item is not stocked, that creates a false impression with the public.

The public go to that particular store and want that particular item that may be mentioned as a sale item, but only to find out when they get there, sorry, that was a misprint in the newspaper and a correction is being publi shed. I think that if it isn't false advertising, Mr. Chairman. it's broaching very close to it. I would like to know just how actively the department, if it has a section. is looking into this matter. This has been one that I have noticed. It seems to be becom ing more common that we see corrections to a flyer that has appeared in the newspaper the following day.

I would like to be assured that the department is on top of this and making sure that as humanly as possible, that what is being advertised is there for the consuming public. I would like to raise also with this Min ister, the question of the univ ersal pricing code. I know that we passed legislation last year which ga ve the Mi nister I believe, authority by regulation to be able to deal with this problem if it became of a more general nature than what it was. I believe last year we had three or four of the supermarkets that were using the univ ersal pricing code.

Has the department any up-to-date figu res on whether this type of selling to the public is on the increase and what are the regulations that have been proclaimed? Jus t what authorit y do they give the Min ister under this deal? I think we all realize that our senior citizens I think over the last two or three years, have been very act iv e in this fiel d; the Cons umers Bu reau of Manitoba has been very active in this field.

In fact, I int rod uced a Pri vate Memb er's Bill which unfortunately died on the Order Paper, which would do something toward making sure, not that people could use the universal pricing code system checkout if they wanted to, but that the people that were actually purchasing things in the store, that a price would be on that object, so that when you went to the checkout, you knew exactly if you bought a can of pork and beans, it was 62 cents, that when you had the checkout and you received your bill, that it matched.

I know when we were dealing with the legislation last year, one of the people who appeared before Committees suggested that we save our bills so that we know that the next time we went to the store what that it em cost, but most people ar e not prepared to do that, Mr. Chairman.

The only way that you know what the price of anything has gone up if you bought a package of salt three months ago and it cost say, 95 cents, you kn ow when the housewife or whoever's purchasing wants to buy another package of salt, he looks at the package what he paid previously and he goes to the store and he finds now it's up to $1 .00. I can't see people keeping checkout slips from the supermarkets for months, to make sure they can check what prices are.

With the inflation that we are suffering in this country, not only in Manitoba but all across the countr y and across the North American continent, people are very conscious of their buying these days because they want to know that they are getting value for thei r money, for what they're putting out. They want to know how much things have risen in cost. So I want to know from the Min ister, just what regulations have been put in place. Has there been an incr ease of stores using the universal pricing code in the checkout system?

I also want to ask the Mi nister and his department how actively they are policing The Sunday Retails Act. because I heard within the last couple of weeks that another large store is now intending to open up on Sunda ys, I believe it was on Panel Road over in Elmwood off the 59 Highway, that they were going to be open for certain hours on a Sunda y. Has the department checked to make sure that these people 1319

Wednesday, 4 March 1981 are living within the spirit of the Act and there are no violations? Does the department have people who do this sort of checking? I don't know what happened with the previous Minister. As I say, with his attitude, the attitude that the previous Minister had, was one of letting as little interference in the marketplace as possible. I don't think he was a gr eat advocate of consu mer protection legislation at all, but he was the Minister and we had to deal with him.

I hope that this Mi nister is one who is very conscious of the resp onsibility he has as a Minister of the Crown, looking after the interests of the consuming public.

Another thing I want to ask the Minister, is that if a series of complaints of a certain product on the mar ket are brought to the attention of the department, it may be soap powders, it may be I don't know what, it could be any product and they'r e multi-varied on the market today, but if there are considerable complaints being received by the department, does the department have a products testing branch in order to see that the product, as it is listed on the package, is what the people are getting?

If it doesn't, does it work in conjunction with - I believe the federal department maybe have something like that and I believe that yes, it may be beyond the scope of the Provincial Government I'm not sure - but if complaints are received consistently about a bad product being on the market, I would hope that the Consumers Affairs Department and its officials would be those who would be looking actively into that complaint and seeing that the products that are being sold on the market are what they are listed on the package. There are complaints on various products.

I imagine the Minister receives them, I receive them and I imagine other members of this House have. With those few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to sit down and let the Minister answer those questions. MR. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again I'll try and follow my notes to ensure that I follow through on the various topics that the Member for Logan covered.

Firstly, the matter of advertising, whether it be newspaper, or th rough flyers, or di re ct mail, or whatever, if it's false or misleading it definitely comes under federal jurisdiction, so we do not have a staff of people who are constantly monitoring all advertising in the province because we do not have the legislation therefore to prosecute any instances which we find.

On the other hand, if in the course of looking through adver tising which we do do for othe r reasons because we want to see whether it complies with various provi ncial Acts that we have, for instance, if an ad infers that there's dir ect selling involved in whatever product is being advertised we ensur e th at the people who are sel ling tho se products, on a direct sale or home sale basis, are licensed under our Act, and that they are abiding by all our regulations. So we are monitoring advertising for tha t rea son, not for false or misleading advertising.

If on the other hand, we find or we have brought to our attention what app ears to be fals e or misleading advertising, then we do refer it to the Federal Go vernment unde r the Combi nes Investigation Legislation. We also are monito ring, from time to time, advertising to see whether or not there appears to be all of the requirements being met under credit granting and in that case to make sure that the full disclosure of what the costs of credit are to the consumer.

So we do some types of monitoring of the advertising but for the purposes of ensuring that they are abidin g by our legislation, not the federal legislation. With respect to the unit pricing code, it appears as though that matter is sort of in a hiatus right now.

There continue to be three stores in Manitoba, two Loblaws and one other one, the Food Box it's called I think; they utilize unit pricing codes and, as the member knows, the legislation that was passed allows the government to pass regulations that would require pricing but the position of our department has been to watch what happens and to see whether or not there becomes a widespr ead use of this and, if there is, whether there are concerns that should be add ressed by the consumer.

But when it's only available in a few locations it appears as though the marketplace is going to be far more of a dictator of who's going to use that. If people are opposed to shopping in stores where there are not prices on the products then certainly those stores are going to suffer because they are very much in the minority now, there are only as I say three of them in all of Manitoba and tha t cert ainly would be to their detriment if people stopped shopping in their stores because of the UP C. So we are looking at it very closely.

We're well aware of the issues on both sides as we have had a great deal of input from various interested consumer groups, the Consumer Association of Canada and other groups who have told us what they perceive to be the negative points to the system. We've certainly listened to what are the positive sides as proposed by the industry and we've got that in a very thorough form and we are sharing it with anybody and everybody who's interested in looking at both sides and seeing what the issues are to do with the UPC.

I won't go into them becau se I know they were debated last year in the course of the discussion in the committee when the bill was passing through committee. On the other hand, the member has referred to the product testing and we don't have a branch that deals with product testing. On the other hand, if we were to find a produc t tha t was de fective or hazardous we would certainly take it to the Federal Government for testing to prove whether or not that was the case because they do have the facilities and the lab availability to test that.

On the other hand, if we find something, the member referred to certain food products, grocery products that might not be what they're supposed to be, there we're equipped to test that kind of thing through the laboratory set up that we have under the Envir onmental Ma nagement Branch of the department and we would be more than happy to do that testing to prove whether or not the product was not what it should be, or was what it should be. I think I've covered the points that the member has raised. MR. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have another qu est ion for the Min ister.

Does the department monitor the legi slation tha t it is respo nsible for in order to see that the legislation is 1320

Wednesday, 4 March 1981 current. In other words, I belie ve the Member for Burrows raised an issue that is one that I think merits a bit of discussion is that legislation, in order to be current, has to be reviewed periodica lly because we may think that we pass a perfect piece of legislation that plugs all loopholes but, lo and behold, there are people out there in the general public whose job it is to find and pick loopholes in legislation and to circumvent the law as it is set up.

I just wonder if the department does monitor its legislation to see that it is working properly, if there are areas where the department is having problems. I don't expect the Mini ster to be able to answer today that he may have some legislation that he might be wanting to make some amendments to and I realize that's a matter of policy and would be annou nced in due course, but what I am intere sted in is whether the department actively monitors its legislation to see that it's trying to do the job that it was set out to do. MR. FILMON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we defin itely do do that through the department.

Last year certain adjustments were made to leg islation that were spe cifical ly to bring them in line with the requir ements of the time. One that I recall was raising the limi t of the purchase from $7,5 00 to $25,000 of items that were now to come under the credit granting legislation that the provinc e has so we are always in that situation.

As well those task forces, those federal-provincial task forces that I referred to, we have input too on product warranties and produc t liabili ties; looking at all aspects of consu mer protection legislation along with tho se specifics to ensure tha t we are bringing our legislation into line with what's required today and also being able to share with other provinces what they have brought forth in their legisla tion th at perhaps we can make use of in updating our legislation from time to time; so that's definitely an ongoing responsibility of the department. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Wellington. MR.

BRIAN CORRIN: Yes, I want to go back in the few short moments we have left this afternoon, Mr. Chairman , talk a bit about unit pricing. I guess to do that we first of all have to review what has happened in the food marketplace in the past year. As I'm sure most members are aware, anybody who does weekly shopping, food prices are continuing to escalate and appreciate dramatic ally. Many montt1s they lead the way in terms of cost of living inflation passed on to consumers.

Last year this Ass embl y considered, during the course of Private Mem bers' debate, a resolution that was introduced by this side calling for a food prices review board. Mr. Chairman, I continue to be very concerned about this issue and I'm sure I can correctly suggest that virtually all the people I repr esent, all the people of Welli ngton constituency, are equally concerned about this particular issue. In my opinio n this

part icular matter has not been addr essed by this government; they saw fit to leave the resolution die on the Order Paper: they did not follow the lead of the Ontario government who in 19 79 called into being a Commi ssion of Inquiry into food pricing practices in tha t province. Mr . Chairman , as was ind icated in the course of extensive debate, there were many dramatic findings, reve lations that flowed from tha t particular Commis sion of Inquiry. So, Mr. Chairman, we confront a situation today where food prices continue to dramatically escalate, leading the way along the inflationary spiral.

We have a Mini ster who as successor to the now Mini ster of Government Services seems to be taking very much the same approach to this particular aspect of his responsibility. The Honourable Mem ber for Logan asked the Mini ster whether or not he was going to be taking any more assertive or affirmative position respecting unit pricing - the move to computerize through the univ ersal product code, all supermarket commercial activity throughout the com mercialized western world I suppose, because this trend is now extensive and prevailing right through the United States and most parts of Canada and Europe.

So he's asking whether or not th ere will be any affirmative action taken to resist this trend which many consumers are concerned will lead to even greater price incr eases in this particular area of com merce, vital area of comme rce, and I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman, to hear th e mem ber saying virtua lly in the same words as his predecessor that the department was monitoring.

Last year on Wednesday, June 18th in the course of a debate on Bill No. 76, which was the bill that in fact brought into being the enabling amendment that my honour able friend was referring to, th e then Mini ster said that he wasn't considering bringing into play the enabling legislation because, and I quote "There are only three such stores operating in the City of Winnip eg at the present time, there is still considerable option provided for customers if they are unhappy or dissatisfied with item pricing as in the stores that do have the scanning equipment".

And that's not gram matical but I'm reading from the record. "But I suppose " and I'm quoting again, "But I suppose that ultima tely it will be the intention of major supermarkets to extend the universal product code in scanning to their opera tio ns". He says, "We'd like to be in a position to be able to deal with that matter if the occasion does arise". Actually, Mr.

Chairman, I discredited the former Mini ster, he was more affirmative in his position because he said that he wasn't going to leave it to the market, he seemed to indic ate an evincive desire to int ervene if the produc t code was extended within the marke tplace. Mr. Chairman, I say and I' ll put it on record, because I think it's im portant that some matters be recorded.

I say that if the government continues to follow this do nothing approach, what will happen is bingo, one Monday morning the Mini ster will wake up probab ly to a telephone call from the Canadian Consumers Association President in Manitoba and be adv ised that one or more of th ese large conglomerate chains have completely converted their operations to the product code, so that the scanner system ha s been imp lemented throughout th e spec trum of th eir operations in the city or the province. He's smiling and he's saying, oh no, it could n't happen.

Well I tell you that's how it happened in many states in the Uni ted States - that's how many other things that have been adverse to the consumer interest have taken place; that is how the large monopoly inte rest tend to act; that is the methodol ogy usually emplo yed and practised when th ey take initia tives, becaus e unlike 1321

Wednesday, 4 March 1981 go vernment the y don't sit back and say we're monitoring, we're watc hing, we' ll look, we' ll see what's happening tomorrow, we'll let the marketplace determine; they take affi rmative action. They say we're going to influence the marketplace; we're going to make more profit next month and next year and the next decade; we're going to dominate; we're going to compete with the Momma and Poppa stores and we're going to put them out of business in the next three or four or five years, and we're going to net another 5 percent or 7 percent chunk of the mar ket .

They desig nate, th ey targe t and the y rationally program and administer programs that are designe d to enhance their com pet it ive posit ion. Governments that take a passive approach to this sort of very agressive marketing strategy simply get consumed and they don't represent the interests of the consumers that send them to office. So, Mr . Chairman, I'm suggesting tha t if the Minister doesn't do something more assertive he's going to be facing a real problem.

I would like to see, because we all know that the material that was brought out in the course of Bill No. 76 debate and the other extensive material that we have on this sub ject matter which comes from a congressional study in the United States, from the State Legislature of California which did I think about a 200-page report which we can share with the Minister if his department wishes and doesn't have access to it, there have been extensive research stud ies done by concerned legislators who by the way were in most cases Republicans, not even more liberally inclined Democrats, so that the matter has been polled and extensively reviewed and all of them are coming to grips with the problem.

The State of Massachu setts has implemente d legislation which re quir es unit pricing on merchandise. They have legislation on the books and it goes into some detail, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't just say that there is going to be a requirement that there's unit prici ng. lt ta lks about the actual methodology and I suppose this is done primarily by reg ulation, by which the stores must meet the requirements set out in their legislation and it talks about all sorts of very funda mental consumer oriented issues. So, Mr.

Chairman, the Minister is very wrong if he thinks that he's going to be able to stand in his place the morning after 27 or 30 chain sto res have implemented the universal product code and tell them to unit price, because their comeback is going to be that he, by virtue of his passive approach, by virtue of his previous inactivity, misled them into believing that it was acce ptable to affect the conversions. They are going to remind him that it cost $200,000 to convert every store and that's not such an ir rational arg ume nt.

I mean when a merchant has, through no fault of his or her own, gone out and spent almost a qu arter-of-a-million dollars converting his premises in order to take advantage of this new technology, I think that it's somewhat questionable that a government should be able to turn around and say it's all valueless and worthless and I don't think this government, I don't think any government would be able to do that easily. lt would be highly irre sponsible to sugge st to somebody who had made th at sor t of ca pital investment th at they should simply rescind their decision and capitulate with government and pull out all the har dware.

The hardware is essentially almost red undant if th ey have to do the unit pricing approach. I mean it does have some benefits. I suppose we could get into the pros and cons and we might in the course of this debate because I hope that many members will participate and that many different points of view will be shared, but I suppose it can be argued that it makes for better inventory control, that it helps the merchant's schedule, it makes for more productivity in the storeplace, I suppose the accumulation of statistical data would be of some benefit but by and large, Mr.

Chairman, when you get right down to it, the nuts and bolts are th at it is supposed to enhance the competiti ve position of the merchant. Mr. Chairman, the evidence is not in. The ar gum ent th at the large agglo merate s or conglome rates are going to pass on the price benefits of this sort of technology to the consumer, has not been substantiated by any of the studies that have been done anywhere else, there is no evidence to sustain that. There is every reason to believe that initially th ere will be some competitive position taken.

Certainly if Safeway does a wholesale conversion next Monday morning I would expect that they're going to compete with Loblaws and Dominion for a sustained period of time and they are certai nly going to try and drive out the Mama and Papa stores. They're going to try and isolate them and they're going to try and work them into the ground but after they've dominated their market sector, I think it's naive to think that there will be any of the small stores left. I think the reality, Mr.

Chairman, is that the big conglomerates, the monopolies, will all make the co nvers ion as th ey've done in California, in Massachusetts, New York and so on; they will all make the conversion wholesale and they will all do it quickly because they can afford to do it. Once one jumps in they'll all get in and, Mr. Chairman, what will happ en is the Mama and Pa pas will be liquidated, they'll be wiped out because they can't afford the $200,000-odd investment so they're put in an invidious position, they can't compete and the small busi ness person goes down the drain.

Quite literally, th ey're not allowed the privilege of competing. So what I'm suggesting, and we already have a crisis in this respect, in the the Member for Fort Rouge's constituency we have a situation where there's a very large population that is not being presently even served by -(I nterjection)- I don't know who whistled. it's uncalled for and unsport conduct on the part of the member. I don't mind being heckled but I won't stand being whistled at, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I say we already have a crisis in this regard, it's evidenced by the situation in Fort Rouge.

There is nobody moving in to pick up that market. The government has a resp onsibility which we will deal with I think at a different time and place to do something but I'm suggesting that this is opening the door, an avenue which by the large monopoly interest in the food reta iling industry - and those are integrated interests and not just in retailing, Mr. Chairman - can run roughshod over the small Mama and Papa operat ions in the city. 1322

Wednesday, 4 March 1981 Mr . Chairman, I would like to know why the government is refusing and resisting to take some more positive approach to this problem. I agree with the Memb er for Logan; I suppor ted his pri vate member's init iative last year. I'm sure that although the matter didn't come to a vote, as a matter of conscience I'm sure that many members on both sides of the House were supporting the position he took and ag reed with him. I think that th ey recognized that it was not only protective of the in terests of the consumer but also of the small business pers on.

Th ey real ized that it was a balanced, rational approach to a problem and a problem that was eminent and one that should be dealt with by government. Mr. Chairman , I would like to kn ow whether the government in tends to do anything about this at all. MR. DEPU TY CHAIRM AN: The Hon ourable Mi ni ster. MR. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that I have much time to reply to that lengthy dis sertation.

In fact, I'll say this though to the member that I'm not sure whether he has spent much tim e in evaluating the situation personally or if he has merely been reading peoples' opinions of what might happen under the circumstances. In the past while I'v e made it a point even though it's a great deal out of the way to shop at a particular store tha t uses the UP C and to try and follow through the arguments on each side and how they would affect me as a consumer. I think that I have a much better understanding of it and I'm prepared to debate the whole issue with him but I'll just leave him with one thought.

The first store that int roduced it in Winnip eg and I repeat that it's in competition with many other stores who don't have the UPC has had to double in size in the past six months so consumers are certainly not staying away from the ... MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hour being 4: 30, Private Members' Hour. Committee rise. Call in the Speaker. The Deputy Chairma n reported upon the Comm ittee's deli berat ions to Mr. Sp eaker and requested leave to sit again. IN SESSI ON MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Emerson. MR. DRIEDGER: Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Mem ber for Cr escen twood , that Report of Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. PRIVATE MEMB ERS' HOUR RES. NO. 8 - CA RE FOR THE ELDE RL V MR. SPEAKER: We are now in Private Members' Hour dealing with resolutions. Resolution No. 8. The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge has eight minu tes remaining. MS. WESTBURY: Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker, in concluding my remarks on this resolution referring to abuse of the elderly, I want to say that I was surprised at the attitude of the Member for St.

Ma tt hews in re sponding to my pr oposal and surprised that he took such an antagonistic manner in responding to something that shou ldn't be a partisan motion. I wondered why the government chooses to be so defensive on this, Mr. Speaker. It sounds like excuses, excuses, excuses. When I ran out of time on the previous occasion I was referring to the Health Minis ter's use of the words "simplistic, premature, superficial" when any one comments or brings in a motion on anything to do with health or the elderly.

I just quoted some words from the Chief Medical Officer of the City of Winnip eg and also of the President of the Manitoba Health Organizations with whom I was agreeing in my resolution. I wonder if the Mini ster or his spokesman for St. Matt hews, neither of whom unfortun ately can hear my words apparently today, whether they concerned these in formed men as sim plistic, or hysterical, or superficial in their comments, Mr. Speaker.

To quote from a few more of the experts in the field of elderly health care, I wanted to refer to a statement in February, 1980, by the President of the Canadian Medical Association who was quoted as saying that more than 70 percent of people, 65 and over, suffer from one or more chonic ill nesses. He said society must not fall into the trap of dealing with the elderly in the very expensive medical framework. Is that super ficial, Mr . Speaker, or jumpin g to conclusion?

May, 1980, two of Winn ipeg's leading geriatric specialists, to quote the Tribune of May 27 said, "There is depression and despair among old people forced to stay in unsuitable accommodation waiting for nursing home beds. " They said there is a lack of proper assessment, the selection of only the fittest for proper rehabilitation and there should be an inquiry into the present system of elderly care and a full program dr awn up and that's what my resolution is calling for. In December, 1979, Dr.

Skelton, who when he came here was much talented, much referred to, as an expert in geriatric care, somebody who many of us met in the years he was at St. Boniface. He left Manitoba and went to Al berta and he said what is depressing is that in 1974 we met as a government-sponsor ed commit tee at which we proposed the need for assessment of the elderly for active rehabilitation and appropriate placement. Now the present government is looking at this matter. "How many ti mes must we reinvent the wheel?" Dr. Skelton asked. Mr. Speaker, the head of geriatric medicine at the Univ ersity of Sa ska tchew an, a Dr.

Duncan Robertson, was commenting. He said we see elderly patients who have a history of wandering, tied to their chairs and the chairs tied to radiators. He said the childlike dependency of the senile elderly is a stress on families who must be alert and vigilant 24 hours a day. The Member for St. Matthews denied that there was any stress on families. He called for self-help groups and day care centres for the elderly with doors rigged with loud alarms to prevent wandering and so on. I haven't time to read it all.

But are th ese people sup erf icial , jumping to conclusion, hysterical; words that were applied to either to my statements in reply to this Throne Speech or to this resolution, Mr. Speaker? 1323

Wednesday, 4 March 1981 In December, 1979, there was an

article in the Rupertsland News that had a quote from Psalms,

Chapter 71, "Do not reject me now I am old." But it was about a conference on the problems of aging and qu oted the head nurse in the geriatric unit at the Health Scienc es Centre who said, "You lose status because you are no longer the hostess or the provider. You lose your role, your material possessions and your loved ones. You lose your healt h, your sensory percept ion, often you lose control over your physical control; that is, someone tells you where to go, when to go, where, when, and what to eat. Of course, you often lose control of your bodily functions," she said.

The elderly have a sense of helplessness and depression is one of their primary problems, Mr. Speaker. Surely not superficial comments, Mr. Speaker. Now I' ve never tried to pretend that the suggestions I made in the resolution or any time in this Chamber are mine alone. The Mi nister referred legitimately to my recent arrival in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, but in my 10 years as a member and chairperson of the Municipal Hospital Boards and also on the City Health Comm ittee and as a Board Member of MHO and Age and Opportunity, I've worked with health professionals, especially in the area of geriatric care.

And so, perhaps in drawing together their concerns I have the benefit of their expert knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I want to refer to one more authority. Four months ago one Manitoba health authority said, I have a copy of the speech, "Geriatric specialists are needed and geriatric teams are needed to addr ess the geriatric aspect of medicine with the same zeal that we approach cancer treatment and heart surgery so that our elderly may be maintained happily in their ho mes. We need a fresh infusion of medical participation and expertise.

Something that has too long been subordinated and frustrated , both by the structure of our system and by the historic emphasis of repair medicine. Our problems repose in

part in his toric and time worn attitude held by health professionals and much of the public. These barriers in attitude must be brea ched ." Mr. Speaker, is that simplistic, superficial or uninformed? I have to say that th ose remarks were made by the present Minister of Health, himself. And they simply bear out the material that I have presented in bringing forward this resolution.

On December 19th the Minister of Health, said on Page 175 of Hansard, "I would welcome constructive comment or proposals from the Member for Fort Rouge." I have accepted his invitation in bringing forward this re solution and I appr eciated the invitation and I work towards complying with the invitation. I would suggest also, that he have a look at the Evergreen Program in Saskatoon, funded in part by the Provincial Government. Mr. Speaker, in closing I have to say that we must all wake up to reality as far as the problems of aging are concerned; talking is not enou gh.

The government took a major step with the Council on Aging and their rec ommendations came down after my resol ution had been filed or I would have recogn ized the value of their work and their rec ommendations, that perhaps, if this government in replying to my resolution had been more sensitive to the well-being of Manitoba elderly people than they were in making mine political points and partisan

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-5-30
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 5th hansardpdf 30.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6aced2347dcb5cb634d6e793b690ad648ab538fb

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