Manitoba Committee Hansard — 9 June 1977 (Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 9, 30th Legislature, 4th Session)

30-4-la9

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba HEARING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AMENDMENTS Chairman Mr. William Jenkins Constituency of Logan THURSDAY, June 9, 1977, 8:00p.m. Printed by P.N. Crosbie-Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba

Law Amendments Thursday, June 9, 1977 'IME: 8:15p.m. :HAIRMAN, Mr. William Jenkins MR. CHAIRMAN: The Co mmittee will come to order please. Bills for consideration in front of the ·Ommittee this evening are - I'll read them out - the fo llowing bills: Bill (No. 9)-

An Act to amend KHE Brandon Char ter. Bill (No. 10 ) -An Act to amend The County Co urts Act. Bill (N o. 12 ) -An Act to amend The Local Authorities Elections Act. Bill (No. 13 ) -An Act to amend The Municipal Act. Bill (No. 19 )-

An Act respecting The St. Jame s-Assiniboia School Division No. 2. Bill (No. 22) -An Act to amend The Personal Property Security Act and certain other Acts relating > Personal Property. Bill (No. 25) -An Act to amend The Buildings and Mobile Homes Act. Bill (No. 39) -An Act to amend The Plan ning Act. Bill (No. 57) -An Act to amend The Man itoba Telephone Act. Bill (No. 59) -An Act to amend The Human Rights Act. Bill (No. 67) -The Credit Un ions and Caisses Populai res AKCT. Bill (No. 69) -An Act to amend The Public Schools Act. Bill (No. 73) -An Act to amend

An Act to Incorporate the Sinking Sund Trustees of The Winnip eg chool Division No. 1. Bill (No. 77) -An Act to amend The Pension Benefits Act. Bill (No. 82) -The Statute Law Amendment Act (1 977). Bill (No. 85) -An Act to amend The City of Winn ipeg Act (2). Bill (No. 86) -An Act to amend The Election Act. Before we proceed this evening, it's the usual procedure of the Commit tee to call for 1presenta tions. Before I do that, I'll read out the list of names that I have of people who wish to Jpear and have notified the Clerk's office on Bill (No. 57) -

An Act to Amend The Man itoba elephone Act: I. Mr. Ronald L. Coke representing Brazzell and MacD onald; 2. Mr. D. James Flood, Canadian Business Eq uipment Manufa cturers Association, Rexdale, ntario; 3. Mr. Allan H. Fitch, Q.C., McArthur, Fitch and McArthur; 4. Mr. Tony Swann, Canadian Manufacturing Association; 5. Mr. Frank Burshtein, Charter Equi pment; 6. Mr. Jack Wy lie, National Typewriter; 7. E. Cortens, Ca lculator World; 8. D. Alien, D.E.M. Alien and Associates Limited.

Ae there any members in the audience this evening whose names have not been called out who ish to make representation on any of the bills that we have before the Co mmittee this evening?· MR. D.C. LENNOX: Mr. Chai rman, I wo uld like to appear in support of Bill No. 85, the second City • Wi nnipeg bill that deals with technical and ad ministrative matters. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are there any other representations to be made to the Co mmittee? MR. ALLAN HOWl SON: Mr.

Chairman, my name is Allan Howison and I'm here in case there are 1y questions to do with the Act to Incorporate the Sinking Fund Trustees of The Winnip eg School ivision. I'm for the changes, just to simply let you know I am here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. There are no further representations to be made tonight before the ommittee? Perhaps then we could deal with The City of Wi nnipeg Act. There is only the one presentation on that. Is that the will of the Comm ittee? (Agreed} Mr. Lennox. MR. LENNOX: Mr.

Chai rman, members of Co mmittee, I'm here to support Bill No. 85 which is the 1cond City of Win nipeg bill. lt deals with various sections of The City of Wi nnipeg Act and all the nendments therein have been requested by the Council of the City of Wi nnipeg.

Basically it deals ith financial amendments to the pension scheme of the City of Winn ipeg and the amend ments are e same or are similar to those amend ments which have been passed by the Manitoba Civil Service Jperannuation Act. lt also deals with certain changes to assessment procedures and these changes e again similar to changes in the Man itoba Municipal Assessment Act.

The remainder of the bill, as I said before, refers to various sections of The City of Wi nnipeg Act 1d these amend ments have been requested; they deal with technical and ad ministrative matters. 1ey have been requested by the city to enable it to discharge its duties and responsibilities in a more ficient man ner and also to clarify certain powers of the City of Winnip eg. I think it would be best if I perhaps answered any questions that any members have either now or if is the wish of the Co mmittee, when the bill is being considered clause-by-clause. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Any questions any members of Co mmittee have of Mr. Lennox? Mr. Axwrthy. 249

Law Amendments Thursday, June 9, 1977 MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chai rman, one of the questions that I had related to

Section 447.1 wherE there are some chang.es related to the definition of "terrace." I. gather that probably refers back tc some of the confusion that arose as a result of the fir e that took place three or fo ur months back anc the appli cation of the Enforcement Codes. Could you perhaps explain in more detail what thE implication of this particular change would mean in relation to that problem? MR. LENNOX: Mr. Chai rman, it actually did not refer to that unfortunate fir e but this came up, believe, at least two years ago and it relates to the health provisions of The City of Winnip eg Act anc we were having great diffi culty in applying them to a terrace because it did not fit in any of thE

definitions we had in our various by-laws. There was no defi nition of a terrace and the point came up how could we handle them? Co uld we demolish them? They just weren't covered, that's all, becausE of their nature. This amendment defines what a terrace is and it refers then to the various othe sections of the Act which give us the power to enforce unsan itary buildings and other health matters MR. AXWORTHY: One other question I had for Mr. Lennox, Mr.

Chai rman, is whether there il anyth ing in this particular bill that flows back into any of the proposed changes under The City o Winn ipeg Act {1) I understand these are mainly technical changes but is there any conflic resulting out of the proposed amend ments and changes contained in Bill {1)? MR. LENNOX: No, Mr. Chai rman. MR. AXWORTHY: There is none whatsoever. Thank you, Mr. Chai rman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there further questions? Hearing none, Thank you, Mr. Lennox. MR. LENNOX: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, I wo uld ask the Co mmittee, if they have any questions of Mr.

Lennox would they like to ask them now dealing with Bill 73, and it's kind of awkward for me to ask becaus• I'm the sponsor of that bill and I would not be expected to explain - (Interjection)- Mr. Howison. I there are any questions any members have with respect to Bill No. 73, any questions with regard t< that bill that honourable members may have, I would suggest you ask him now and then perhaps Mr Howison could go. There are none. Then fine, you don't have to stay, then, Mr. Howison. MR. HOWISON: Than k yo u, Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I then would refer honourable members to the list that I gave you. lt's nov deal ing with Bill No. 57 -An

An Act to amend The Man itoba Telephone Act. Mr. Ronald L. Coke. Mr Henderson. MR. HENDERSON: Maybe I did n't take it down right, but is there not somebody that is going t• report on Bill 67? You said 57 was what you are going to deal with, did you not? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. I have no representations on 67. Not before the Comm ittee. Just let m1 check here to make sure. I have asked, is there anyone here who wishes to make representation 01 Bill No. 67 deal ing with the Credit Un ions and Caisses Populaires? Evidently not. Proceed then, Mr Coke, please. · MR.

RONALD COKE: My name is Ronald Coke and I'm appearing this evening on behalf o Winnip eg Videon Limited. I wish to make some comments to the Co mmittee relative to Bill 57. Primarily the thrust of my remarks relate to the fact that so e question has arisen in the past abou what rates or other activities of the Man itoba Telephone System are subject to review by the Publi1 Ut ilities Board.

Section 39 of he Manitoba Telephone Act provides that: "The telephone servic1 supplied by the Co mmission shall be app roved by the Public Ut ilities Board under the Public Utilitie Board Act." We have some concern, however, that other rates and other activities of the Telephone System an not properly subject to review by the Public Utilities Board, and I sas "doubt" rather than "certainty.

There are some sections in the Public ,Utilities Board Act which provide for complai nts to b1 investigated but in the Public Util ities Board hearings held last year, the Public Uti lities Board in it wisdom declined to consider the matter of what it considers to be competitive situations and it i therefore our proposal that in future the Public Ut ilities Board have the opportunity to review al l th1 activities of the telephone system and all the rates set by the telephone system.

Ainnipeg Videor Limited is a major contributor to the revenues of the Manitoba Telephone System and it believes tha it as well as all other subscribers, should have an opportunity whenever MTS fixes its rates, to mak1 representations on that subject before a public body such as the Public Ut ilities Board. According I} we request this Co mmittee to ensure that

section 39 continues to be operative insofar as all current o future rates of MTS are concerned, and that subscribers will continue to have the right to mak1 representations before the Public Util ities Board relative to rates to be charged by MTS. M1 Chai rman, I would like to recommend the fol lowing amendment either to the bill as proposed as Bi 57. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have copies of yo ur recommendations? MR. COKE: Yes, I do. I thought I wo uld read it. I only have one copy, I'm sorry. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I see. Would you leave it with the Clerk when you leave? MR. COKE: Yes indeed. Notwithstand ing any of the other provisions of t his Act, al l tarif fs and fee 250

Law Amendments Thursday, June 9, 1977 ·oposed to be charged or levied by the Co mmission shall be fi rst approved by the Public Util ities oard at public hearings. Mr. Chairman, I should add to that that from a legal point of view the Bill before you seems to deal uticularly with the matter of interconnections. Tha t is, equipment, other devices that can be )Oked in to either telephone lines or other equipment including cable lines, owned by the Manitoba �le phone System.

Because the Bill is specific in that area and because it does not provide for any �aring or review necessa rily by the Public Utilities Board, it is our suggestion that, in fact, some nendment is in order to insure that the specific provisions provide for review and/or do not displace 1y existing prov isions which specifically prov ide for review by the Public Util ities Board. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. COKE: I'll pass this on to the Clerk. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we'll get that copy. There may be some questions, Mr. Coke, that some )nourable members may wish to ask. I have Mr. Pa ulley. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Coke, deal ing with Bill 57, you referred to a

section in the present Act, if I heard )U correctly, being

Section 39. MR. COKE: That's correct. MR. PAULLEY:

Section 39 is not, as I understand it, Mr. Chairman , before the committee at the ·esent time. We are deal ing with Sections 43 and other sections in the Act and I wonder whether or )t the representations made by Mr. Coke are competent to be heard by this committee because it )pears that there is a dif ferent subject matter than is contained in Bill No. 57. 1 wo uld suggest that, in I due respect, Mr. Chairman, that if Mr. Coke is raising a question of a dif ferent

section in the anitoba Telephone Act, that while we appreciate his representations it is not within the competence • this committee to deal with a

section that is not contained in Bill No. 57. MR. COKE: Mr. Chai rman, with respect, my remarks deal ing with

Section 39 were merely tended to indicate what the current situation is inside the Telephone System Act and not to, in a 1nse, indicate that what is before this committee is the question of

Section 39. My remarks, in fact, lated to Bill 57 and amend ments which I thought approp riate to that particular bill. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chai rman, I would suggest that in respect to the representation that has been ade, I have no objections at al l. I think it's extraneous insofar as the Bill that we are considering at e present time, because that particular

section is not under review by the committee. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chai rman, I speak to a point of order on that. I think that the Honourable inister is not reading the Bill very carefully because under

Section 43 the Bill is all about the mnection of various hardware devices to the Telephone System and I think that the argument ·esented by Mr. Coke is deal ing with the fact that the tariffs, as outlined under sections 1 and 2 of �ction 43 of this Bill, simply say there is no way of therefore ad judicating upon those tariffs. So I ink it is highly relevant to the consideration of this Bill as to who is or where the reference of tariff tes relate to the interconnections and I think that that was the brunt, as I understood it, of the presentation. So I think that it is highly relevant. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Chairman, on the point of order raised by the Honourable Member for Fort )uge, the delegation made specific representations and reference to

Section 39 and we are deal ing th

Section 43. Now it could be a legal

interpretation that 43 is connected with 39. I don't know. I'm >t a lawyer. I'm just a dam ned old ex-rail roader, but in all deference, we are deal ing with nendments in respect of 43 and I don't think that the point raised by the Honourable Member for >rt Rouge prevails at all. However, I do not wish to curtail the oppo rtunity of the delegation to :press his opinions insofar as the Telephone Act is concerned. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham . MR. GRAHAM: We ll, Mr. Chairman, on that same point of order.

I just want to say that the person at is giving testimony here today is not and should not be involved in what goes on internally in 1at a co mmittee can do and what it can't do. He is here to give us informati on which may be very luable to all members of this committee and for that I commend him. MR. PAULLEY: That's right, for the future. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Toupin. MR. TOUPIN: Mr. Chai rman, I would like to attempt to deal with some of the questions raised by r. Coke. MR. McKENZIE: . . . a point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: Speak ing to the point of order. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chai rman, speaking to the point of order.

The witness is dealing with rates, 1ich is

Section 39, the one which he is referring to and I think that's the subject matter that's iOived in this Bill, is

Section 39 which deals with the rate of the Manitoba Telephone System and I 1n't see how you can tell him that he can't reflect back on

Section 39. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. A MEMBER: On the point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Let the Chair clarify the situation. Now we've got awf ul sticky here lately. 251

Law Amendments Thursday, June 9, 1977 Members of the Opposition have got sticky that we keep on to what we're supposed to be dealing wit and

Section 39 is not under amendm ent at this time, before this committee. I'm not going to call th gentleman out of order, but I'm just saying to honourable members you can't have it both ways. Yo can't sit and say you're not going to deal with it and then not discuss it. Now either one way or th other, you want to and the committee has ag reed that anyth ing that is not in the Bill, contained wit hi the Bill, we will not deal with. So I think that's what we should be deal ing with. Just what is the subjec matter of the Bill. MR. COKE: Mr. Chairman, with respect to my remarks, deal ing with

Section 39, they were on I intended as background for this committee. In fact, the operative

section in this Bill that deals wit tarif fs and with the business of interconnections is

Section 43 and I would direct the committee' attention to that

section to determine whether or not my comments are relevant or not. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Toupin. MR. TOUPIN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add ress myself to

Section 43 and more particularly t sub-section (2) being terms and condition of connection and I be lieve that Mr. Coke has bee wanting to receive clarification in regard to certain conditions being asked by the Manitob Telephone System. I would like to inform members of the committee, Mr. Chairman, including M Coke, that Bill 57 does not preclude what now exists under an appeal from the Manitoba Telephon System to the Public Util ities Board. The Public Ut ilities Board has had , has now, will continue t have a broad general power over this public utility. Un der the Public Ut ilities Act, Mr.

Chairman, MT is fully accountable to PUB. Any customer or interested person may apply to the PUB if they are ne happy with the way MTS is operating and that includes the setting of tariffs. Therefore it would not b correct to assume that MTS can thwart the PUB by not filin g tariffs. I would refer honourabl members to Sections 74, 76, 77(

b) of the Public Ut ilities Board Act as example s of broad powers th Public Ut ility Board has over amts. MR. CHAIIRMAN: Mr. Axworthy. MR. AXWORTHV: Yes, Mr. Chairman . I would like to ask Mr. Coke some questions based on hi representation. You stated that the Public Ut ilities Board last year decided that it did not ha\1 jurisdiction or authority over so-called competitive matters. Now what would be the rationale forth PUB deciding that in relation to what we just heard from the Honourable Minister who said that it hE full autho rity and power? MR. COKE: Mr.

Chairman, my understanding is that the situation in the past has been that th specific provisions requiring the Telephone System to file its tariff and to appear before the Publi Ut ilities Board to justify rate increases with respect to telephones, has resulted in scrutiny of all sue telephone rates by the Public Uti lities Board.

In respect of other services offered by the Man itol:: Telephone System also in a monopoly situation, it has been the position of the Telephone Syste1 that, in fact, no such scrutiny should occur simply on the basis that because they are competing wit other bodies they, in fact, should charge competitive rates.

That logic only fo llows so long as one able to identify competition and in the case of cable companies for one, certain data processing fi rrr for another, in fact there is really no alterna tive butto use the services of t he Telephone System and t interconnect with the telephone line for the purpose of transmitting data. The alternative is to crea1 entire new systems where any substantial distances are required. There are few people like CN-C Telecommunication that provide similar service. lt's not av ailable in anywhere near as wide a way e telephone system lines. That basically is the point. MR.

AXWORTHV: I'd like to get this clear. Who is it that decides whether the reference should g to the Public Ut ilities Board? Is it the telephone system that decides for itself that it will not appear. it a decision by government that the Crown Corporation does not have to appear or is it that tt Public Ut ilities Board does not call them. to appear? MR. COKE: lt's an interesting question. The Telephone System has taken the position that it wE not always necessary to file its tarif fs and, therefore, as a general matter the Telephone System WE not accountable to the Public Ut ilities Board. There is, as Mr.

Toupin pointed out, provision in the A1 providing that the Board may, by order, fix just and reasonable rates and that, in fact, where complaint in writing is received, the Public Uti lities Board may investiga te upon its own initiativett complaint in writing, appraise and evalua te the property of any public utility wherever, in tt judg ment of the board, it is necessary to do so for the purpose of carrying out any provision of this A1 and require every owner to file their complete schedules of every classification employed of eve1 individual or joint rate, toll, fare or charge made, charged or enacted by it, tor any product suppl ied< service rendered within the province as specified in the requirement.

Now in fact what happens as matter of course is that a complaint in writing, file d at the Public Ut ilities Board, requires the Publ Util ities Board to determine whether or not it wishes to investigate and so for th.

The essential point 1 my representation is that whenever a monopoly service is established, such as the telephone servic provides, and it's recognized that there should be a monopoly to protect the public interest, that the1 should correspondingly be some forum of a public nature where interested parties can go and ma� such representations as they see fit regard ing rates to be charged, or, in this particular case, the rig I 252

Law Amendments Thursday, June 9, 1977 >f those parties to hook certain types of equipment into telephone lines when there is, for practical )Urposes, no alternative but those telephone lines for the purposes that equipment was intended. rhat includes, as I say, cable TV equipment, data communication equipment and a large number of >ther types of equipment other than simply personally owned telephones or answering services, IVhat have you. MR. AXWORTHY: We ll, Mr.

Chai rman, as I understand it then, the only time in which there is a ·egular routine applic ation to the Public Util ities Board by the Telephone System is just n telephone ·ates per se and that all those other uses coming off the cable or off the telephone line are, in fact, not ·eferred to the Public Util ities Board? Other than if some individual took an appeal or made a �rievance? MR. COKE: That's correct. MR.

AXWORTHY: And you are claiming that under the actual conditions of the operation of the relephone System which supplies the lineage for connecting this equipment and under this bill >bviously more control, that it is in fact a monopoly situation that virtually exists in the province in ·elation to that. Wo uld that be correct? MR. COKE: That's correct. That's correct: lt is a monopoly situation and, as such, it is our ;ubmission where it is a monopoly situation, as a public utility, there should be some public forum vhere representations could be made. MR.

AXWORTHY: And this was the thrust of your recommended amendm ent, that we require the relephone System to come before the Public Ut ilities Board to justify its rates or its services in elation to these new services that are being provided off the line. Wo uld that be a fair

interpretation? MR. COKE: That's correct. Wher ever a monopoly service is involv ed it would provide some public nput into the operation of that monopoly with respect to those services. MR. AXWORTHY: As a matter of interest, Mr. Chai rman, I co uld perhaps ask Mr. Coke if this ituation that we presently have in Man itoba is an unusual one, where the public utility providing the ervice is not required or has chosen not to go before a regulatory board . What happens in other 'rovinces where there must be similar kinds of developments occurring as we become more tlectronically connected? MR.

COKE: The situation varies somewhat but in Ontario, for example, Bell Telephone is required o go before the CRTC pursuant to the laws applyi ng in that province in order to have processed, 1a ve rev iewed, have app roved any rates which it wishes to put into effect. What we are suggesting is hat in that situation there is, in fact, a public forum where it is insured that public representatio ns can 1e made whenever rates are to be put into effect as a monopoly generated rate. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr.

Coke, would you be able to comment on other provinces where there is a ;rown Corporation running the telephone line as opposed to, say, the Bell Canada system down ast. What happens in Saskatchewan and other prairie provinces? MR. COKE: I can't supply that informa tion. MR. AXWORTHY: You can't supply that informa tion. One fur ther question related to Bill 57 on this uestion of the connecting requirement. How does this affect the operation of the cable companies 1emselves in terms of the management or ownership of hardware? Does this mean thatthey give up proportion of their hardware arrangements to MTS?

Is there a transfer in some way? MR. COKE: In fact, the situation that prevai ls at the moment and it's been a subject of hearings efore the CRTC for about the last three days. I haven't been reading the newspapers recently, I �gret to say, so I don't know quite what's been going on. But in fact, the Province of Manitoba has ntered into an agreement with the Federal Government as of November 10 th, 1976, I believe, rhereby jurisdiction in respect to hardware supplied for cable television companies was to be ·ansferred to the Pro vi nee of Man itoba without question by the Federal Government.

Un der these ircumstances any cable television company wishing to have a cable system in the province would e subject to the jurisdiction of the province with respect to hardware and, in fact, the Manitoba elephone System, which is a Crown agency, has taken the position that it wishes to own, virtually, 11 equipment to be used in the cable system subject to negotiation on some matters or other. lt becomes a matter of some substantial importance then to see that there is some public lgulation of that kind of monopoly position.

The previous situation where the CRTC dealt with 1atters pertaining to the cable system permitted a review, public fo rum, for all such questions of ttes to be charged by the cable companies and by anybody else providing the service. There is not, owever, since jurisdiction has been transferred, any guarantee that there will be a correspond ing ublic regulatory function in respect of the Telephone System's activities.

This is of particular 1portance in terms of any attempt to use new types of equipment, new levels of technology because 1e regulatory function then becomes twofold, one with respect to rates and one with respect to the �u ipment itself. There was some discussion at the CRTC hearings, as I understand it, about the use f some special panels which can only be suppl ied by the attac hment of a mechanical device to tlevision sets known as a converter. Since the cable hardware is to be owned by the Telephone System, or may well be owned by the 253

Law Amendments Thursday, June 9, 1977 Telephone System, the cable hardware becomes subject to the provisions of this Act and anyth in� attached to that hardware becomes subject to the provisions of this Act and the jurisdiction of th1 Province of Manitoba. In fact, one's right to attach a television set to the cable system, theoretically� it's an extreme example - could become subject to the regulation of the Prov ince of Manitoba and, ir fact, to the control of the Telephone System pursuant to the provisions of this bill. MR. AXWORTHV: We ll, Mr. Chairman, I think that's an important point I'd like to follow up.

Do yot mean, that prior to the signing of the agreement, there was a regulatory forum that would establisl rates and services for these electronic connections' cable and whatever, and that since then there ha1 now been at best an ambigu ity whether there is any form of regulation, or regulatory bodythat woul< hear public representations and so that we are, in fact, we did have forme rly under the CRTC arrangement a body in which the representations could be made; we now do not hav1 representations in respectto these particular items. Is that a fai r assessment? -(I nterjection)- Well I'm ask ing the gentleman.

MR. COKE: I think the situation at the moment, Mr. Chai rman, is that the jurisdiction with respec to these matters has been conferred on the Province of Manitoba. I think it's incumbent upon th1 Province of Manitoba to exercise that jurisdiction and I am sure that there is some public input int< the activities that go on in the field.

The Telephone System has always . taken the position that the� are in fact a private entity that operates on a contract basis only with cable companies, and therefon that there is in fact no compulsion for anybody to make a contract with them, and therefore n1 compulsion for them to accept the rates. I suggest, Mr. Chai rman, that in fact the situation for practical purpose is otherwise, and that th1 rates to be charged by the Telephone System become monopoly public utility rates and that thos1 rates should be subject to review in some public form. MR. AXWORTHV: Just one final question, Mr. Ch air man.

Considering the fact that the Ministe stated previously that he felt that the Act authorized the Public Util ities Board to hold hearings, is th1 problem that the law itself is not sufficient or just that up to this point in time, for reaso ns that can no be fix ed at this stage, the Telephone System has not gone to the Public Util ities Board or no one ha asked it to go in respect to this broad area of software services. MR. COKE: Mr.

Chairman, I think my answer to that has to be that whatever the apparent effect o the legislation in place at the moment, in fact there has not been a proper or sufficient airing of th• rates charged by the Telephone System in the past. The amend ment that I put forward to you is a1 attempt to provide that kind of regular review that we suggest is approp riate when a public uti lit monopoly is involved. MR. AXWORTHV: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Toupin. MR. PAULLEV: Und er what

section of the Act are you refe rring to? R. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Toupin. MR. TOUPIN: Mr. Chairman, I repeat for the benefit of the Co mmittee that under the Publi Util ities Board Act, MTS is fully accountable to the PUB, and that's either directly or indirect! through complai nts by customers, interested persons or corporations. I've been advised by legal counsel, Mr. Chai rman, that to put a further direct reference to Publi Utilities Board powers in this legislation would be redundant and poor drafti ng. MR COKE : Mr.

Chai rman, with respect to that last remark of the Minister, my concern, as expressed it earlier, is exactly with the question of drafti ng, that a specific bill is being proposed her which does not provide for any review by, the Public Uti lities Board. In fact, because it is specific as matter of legal

interpretation it might have the effect of disp lacing the general provisions relating t the review powers of the Public Util ities Board and I, therefore, put forward the amendment that yo have, to req uire a regular review. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur ther questions of Mr. Coke? Mr. Paulley. MR. PAULLEV: Just one, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Coke. He realizes that we're not deal ing wit

Section 39 of the Man itoba Telephone Act, but rather 43, and that the Minister's indicated, as understand it, that this

Section 43 under review has no basic relationship to the points raised by M Coke. MR. COKE: Yes, sir. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Johnston, state your point of order, please. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Just so that we will be clear on this for the rest of the evening, Mr. Chairnar and I'm sure it will help your position as well; we are well aware of t he Rules of the Co mmittee and the the rule is that we can hear people who come before us on certain bills. The Minister keeps referrin to other sections, and I think, Mr.

Chairman, to clear it up is, that none of the government members c the opposition members or memb ers of the government generally are allowed to bring in a amendment that refers to a

section that is not in the bill before us. I think that's what we've bee 254

Law Amendments Thursday, June 9, 1977 discussing for the last three nights - but to keep referring to our delegations when they're discussing a bill is not what we've been referring to other nights and let's keep it that way. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pau lley. MR. PAULLEY: On the point of order, Mr.

Chairman, raised by the honourable member who has just spoken, it's not my intention and never has been to deprive public representations to allow themselves or to exp ress their opinions, but it was the Conservative Opposition that raised the question on numerous occasions that we're deal ing with specific items in legislation, and all my point was that because we are deal ing with certain sections, in this particular case 43, that we do not suggest to Mr.

Coke that he hasn't the opportun ity to make his observa tions; but as far as we are concerned, as members of this Co mmittee, we're dealing with specific items contained in the Man itoba Telephone Act and amendments thereto. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions? Mr. McUenzie. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Coke, after listening to the answer from the Minister, are you still satisfied that there is need for your amendment? MR. COKE: Yes, sir, I am. MR. McKENZIE: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions? Heari ng none, thank you, Mr. Coke. I understand that Mr.

Flood is not here this evening, but there is someone from the local area who might want to make some representation on behalf of the Canadian Business Eq uipment Manufactu rers Association. Come forward , sir, and give your name to the Com mittee. MR. ALLAN H. FITCH: Mr. Chairman, my name is Allan Fitch. MR. CHAIRMAN: Allan Fitch. -(I nterjection)- Oh, I see, and you'll be speaking on No. 3, will vou? MR. FITCH: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed. MR. FITCH: Thank you. Mr.

Chairman, and honourable members of this Co mmittee: I am �ppearing on behalf of the Canadian Business Eq uipment Manufacturers Association and ·epresentative members of the Association are Addressograph, Multigraph, A.B. Dick, Dictaphone md I. B.M. There are also other manufacturers of hard equipment such as typewriters, dictating �q uipment and photocopying equipment which are members of the association.

The request that I am putting to this Comm ittee is that the association be provided with an )pportun ity to come in to make representations pertainin g to matters in the proposed legislation 111 hich are of genuine concern to the association and its members. I am able to say that we have had a ·equest to the Cle rk's office to be notifed of the date when this Co mmittee would be meeting to hear ·epresentations on this bill prior to its second reading and we have been monitoring the progress of his bill hroug out.

I was notified late yesterday afternoon that it was to be heard today and on 1otifying the Canadian Businessmen Equi pment Man ufacturers Association in Toronto, they were ;aught in a situation where the people who would be coming down here to make representations >efore you were, I understand, attending a conference and it was logistically not possible forth em to ittend here tonight. That is the only request I have at this time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Fitch. You realize that, as the Chairman, I do not control the lictates or try to control the will of this Com mittee.

The will of this Com mittee- if they wish to hear lelegations they make that decision. MR. FITC : I u dersta nd. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions of Mr. Fitch? Hearing none, thank you. MR. FITCH: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Association would like to make representation in person >y personal representatives - and I would like to have it determined, if possible tonight, whether or 1ot I can advise the Association that an opportunity will be afforded to them to do that, and if so is here a defi nite date at which they could appear. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pa ulley. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest to Mr.

Fitch that the Government of Man itoba is ilways open to hear representations but that we cannot conduct the business of the Legislature of tlanitoba to continuously make available opportunities to any group that we would continue just at heir convenience. We have our responsibilities as well and I would suggest to Mr. Fitch that the tlinister concerned and his office, is always prepared and willing to hear representations from his 1ssoc iation and I'm sure that I am cognizant of the responsibilities of the Minister and his indication hat he would be prepared at any time to hear representations.

Bill 57 has been before us for some :onsiderable period of time and I would in all due respect, Mr. Fitch, suggest that representation can 1e made to the Minister responsible directly. However, the democratic procedure of t e Legislature of �anitoba is such that we have to at some stage of the game expedite the business of the House. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McGill. MR. McGILL: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be the hope of the Co mmittee to be able to .ccommodate the witness and the people who were unable to be here tonight. If this Commit tee does 255

Law Amendments Thursday, June 9, 1977 meet again and I would think from the list of bills in front of us it is conceivable that there will b another meeting of the Law Amendments Co mmittee, could it not be ag reed that if another meetin1 does occur that the opportunity be then afforded to the representatives who are unable to appea tonight to appear at that time. MR. PAULEY: No objections at all, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. We have another member who wishes to speak. MR. PAULLEY: As Acting ouse Leader, I've no objections on behalf of the government to indicat1 to to Mr.

Fitch that if possible such accommodation will be made, but on the other and, however, want to indicate to the delegation that we are in a position where termination of the deliberations a the Legislatur e are rapidly coming to a normal end. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chai rman, I hope the witness will understand what the House Leader ha said here, that the government is always prepared to meet with the witness in the Minister's Office but we happen to sit in the Opposition Benches and we will not be given the privilege to hear th' witness and his friends on this particular matter.

I hope that the witness doesn't understand that th' opposition members here tonight support the sentiments of the House Leader who says ope1 government and you can meet with the Miniser in his Office, but that depriv es the opposition c hearing what you have to present to this Co mmittee. I don't support that motion at all Mr. Chairmar MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Before we proceed I might say I have before me here comment on Bill 57 from the Canad ian Business Equipm ent Man ufacturers Association which I am prepared t' have the Clerk distribute. MR. TOUPIIN: Mr.

Chairman, On that same point, and this is in answer possibly to Mr. McKenziE The Standing Co mmittee of Public Ut ilities have received, I'm informed, all members on the Co mmittee have received a brief from the Canadian Business Equ ipment Man ufacturers Associatio and the brief is dated February 23, 1977. Mr. Chairman, I could indicate equally that at the stage c review of

section by

section I wo uld be in a position to indicate what the reaction of governmer would be in regards to the recommendations made by the Association. So it's notthat we haven't ha the opportunity of the views that have been made to the Standing Co mmittee on the bill itself whic has not changed since that stage, apart from a few amend ments that we've prepared ourselves. Th recommendations and comments made by the Canad ian Business Equ ipment Man ufacturer Association still stands and I believe would be probably the same comments they would make noVI MR. FITCH: Thank you Mr. Minister. But, Mr.

Chai rman, the Association is requesting th opportunity to make representations before the Law Amendments Comm ittee. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller. MR. MILLER: No one can guar antee when the next hearing will take place and therefore it's quit possible that just as they couldn't make it tonight they might not be able to make it then either unles they give them 48 or 72 hours notice and I don't think that can be given at this point in time.

So I woul suggest, fran kly, that the brief from the Association be distributed so all honourable members ea have it and they can read it and when you've done that certainly any questions when we getto claus by clause can be based on the contents of this particular brie f. lt can be taken into account b members opposite or by any member of the House. But to tell Mr. Fitch that in fact there will be hearing on a certain hour of a certain day is just not possible because we don't know at this point. gather you people were notified yesterday about today.

You may get the same very short notice an we may be back in the same position agai n. So I wo uld suggest that the distribution take place an then you play it by ear, Mr. Fitch. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham. MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I think. that what has been said can be interpreted as showing general indication that all members, both government and opposition, would like to have th opportunity to hear the personal brief of members of your Association. I would like to say that if th government is not prepared to hear that brief personally then I wo uld say that members of th opposition are. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.

Wal ding. MR. WALDING:: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Most of my questions ave been asked. I just ave on for Mr. Fitch. Can you indicate to the Co mmittee, Mr. Fitch, whether the position of the Canadia Busi ness Equi pment Manufacturers Association as of now is any different from May 3rd when the produced this brief. MR. FITCH: Yes, I understand it is. MR. WALDING: Can you inform the Co mmittee in what way it is dif ferent? MR.

FITCH: No, I cannot due to the fact that the matters with which they're concerned are of fa irly highly technical nature and I'm not prepared to be able to articulate what this position is an whiCh way it has been altered since the time of the representation, the time of the filin g of th submission before the Public Utilities Com mittee. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McKenzie. 256

Law Amendments Thursday, June 9, 1977 MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chai rman, agai n to the witness -I think we have rules in the Comm ittee that we abide by and I'm sure the Chairman can advise you what the rules are on matters such as you raise tonight and you'll be given some time in advance of the next hearing of the Co mmittee and hopefully your friends can be here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pau lley. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, I just have one observa tion. Mr. Fitch, in all due respect to you and this was referred to my colleague, the Member for St. Vital.

If your Association on May 3rd, which I would sugge st is over a month ago, documented the position of yo ur clients in respect to Bill 57, and at that par ticular time you had arriv ed at a tentative position and you made the statement tonight, if I understood you correctly, in opposition to railroad ing - and I use that term because I'm an ex ra ilroader - of attempting to push through legislation at this late hour ... MR. FITCH: I never made that statement. MR. PAULLEY: Well, Mr. Fitch, that was my

interpretation of your remarks. I would suggest, in all due respect, that your Association has had a reasonable time to make representation on Bill 57 by virtue of yo ur documentation of May 3rd, which is well over a month ago and I feel sure that your organization and others are or should be acquai nted with the process of the operation of the Legislature of Manitoba and other jurisdictions.

We have hearings for representation of companies and the public and for us to be placed into a position where we have to accommodate the end or termination of our session simply to accommodate representations because of a convention or otherwise of your association actually would be tantamount to suggesting to us that our conduct of business would have to be tantamount to whether or not you were prepared to proceed. On May 3rd this document was submitted as to your asso ciation; it is now June 9th, one month and six or seven days.

I think that you have some responsibility as well to make your representations to this Co mmittee. MR; FITCH: Mr. Chairman, on Nay 10 th of this year I wrote to the Clerk's Office as king to be advised when the bill would appear on the Order Paper at this session. And, in the ordinary course of :lvents I was informed and passed the information on to the Association that the bill had reached ;econd read ing and subsequently I requested to be notified when the bill would be referred to the :o mmittee.

I was informed it would be referred either to the Public Utilities Com mittee or the Law 1\mendments Comm ittee. lt was only yesterday afte rnoon that I was informed that it would appear oday. All I'm as king for on behalf of the Association, from the honourable members of this :o mmittee, is to afford the opportun ity to representatives of the Association, The Canadian 3usiness Equipment Man ufacturers Association to make personal representations. That's all that I'm lsking for.

I'm making no suggestions, no insinuations and extending no restrictions, or suggesting my restrictions insofar as to how this Co mmittee or the Honourable Minister proceeds with ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Toupin. MR. TOUPIN: Mr. Chair man, I personally appreciate the fact that Mr. Fitch is here this evening to >ring the message that he has. I for one, and I'm sur e that all members of the Co mmittee would be lOping to be able to receive the comments of the Canadian Busi ness Equipment Man ufacturers �ssocia tion, when and if they meet agai n on this bill.

If not, we do have the recommendations that 1ave been sent by your association on May 3rd that related to the bill as it stands today before the �om mittee and that bill had gone through second read ing al ready by that time. I would personally :ertai n ly want to receive any fur ther recommendations that the Association may have either through he Commit tee or directly by telegram or whatever, before the Bill is given final read ing, if possible. �ut at least we have two documents, Mr. Chairman, before us.

One that I referred to awh ile ago which vas dated February 23, 19 77, sent to the Standing Co mmittee on Public Utilities and Natural lesources - members of that committee received a copy - and then the document, containing ecommendations of the asso ciation, dated May 3, 1977. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Cha irman, on the same point of order. A MEMBER: lt wasn't a point of order. MR. McKENZIE: Wel l, on the same principle, then, and I regret that the government has not seen t to hear the witness and his friends and they are using every vehicle at their disposal to hopefully ..

We in the Opposi tion haven't had a chance to sit down with the associa tion or with you, Sir, to iscuss this matter. They have and it appears, the way they are operating, that that's the way they rant to carry on with their so-called open govern ment. So we leave it to them, Sir. We in the )pposition would very much like to hear your brief and hear your sentiments on this very iortant Bill. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chair man, I wo uld like to ask Mr. Fitch one question. MR. TOUPIN: Mr. Chairman , on the same point of order. MR. PAULLEY: Wel l, that's on the point of order, Mr. Toupin, that I'm raisi ng. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Paul ley, the point of order , then Mr. Toupin. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Fitch, did you or your association indicate on May 3rd to the Opposi tion uggested amend ments or have you been silent insofar as the Opp osition is concerned as to your 257

desires? Law Amendments Thursday, June 9, 1977 MR. FITCH: Wel l, Mr. Chairman and mem bers of this committee, the assoc iation has ne proceeded, to my knowledge, is not proceeding and does not intend to proceed on the basis c dealing with either the gover nment or the opposition. We're deal ing with the committee. MR. PAULLEY: That's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. To upin. MR. TOUPIN: On the point of order, Mr.

Chai rman. it's for you to decide if the Honourabl Member for Ro blin had a point of order but I fi gure it's complete hogwash in the sense that a members of the Public Utilities Comm ittee had received the recommendations and the comments c the assoc iation. And that's on the record . . MR. FITCH: All I'm as king for, Mr. Chairman, is what I believe is a right to make representation before this committee now. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Fitch. Next I have Mr. Tony Swarm, Canad ian Man ufac turin Association. Is Mr. Swan here? Mr. Frank Bur shtein, Char ter Equ ipment. MR. FRANK: BURSH TEIN: Mr.

Chai rman, honourable members of the committee.

While I'm sur my B ard of Di rectors of the corporation employing me would not object to identifica tion, it's ne specifically as their representative that I appear before you this evening, but rather in a privat capacity , citizen; someone who believes that over a period of time, having paid some heed to th news of a burgeoning, technical revolution in this area; someone - if need be, I'll substantiate - wh has some qual ification to interpret the trends and to endeav our to forecast some of the impend in changes and their profundity, that I come to speak with you and visit with you this evening.

I' m concerned, and substantially so, for a number of reasons. As a citizen I believe, if I'm ne presumptuous, that the in the grand scheme of things that $20,000 of lost revenue is highly materil to the fi nancia l health of the Telephone System when they have so many more things in the futu re t look forward to that would provide income, revenue streams that make that appear paltry.

The Telephone System has so much in the way of activities generating capital investmen generating jobs, providing service and benefit to the users to look forward to that they needn'tand w consumers wouldn't benefit, by their havi ng a monopoly over the entire aspect of telecorr munications. They can look forward in the next ten years even to basic changes in their hardware a we move from wave -carrier which is to say wired telephone systems to pulse transmission.

By that mean the transmission of signals from ground satellite stations to satellites, back down agai n and th conversion from the copper wire cabling system that exists now to fibr e optics and laser propul sio of signals. The consequence of which is to expand the telephone company's capacity while reducin their cost base of orders of the magn itude and rang ing from 650 times to 10 ,000 times their preser capacities to generate income and provide services. Man itoba Legislature and you preceding then have incumbent upon you a special car13 in this situation for the consuming public's interest.

Th more so because of a duplication or perhaps a multiplicity of --:-I reserve or hesitate to use the word conflict that fa lls from the situation wherein the legislation deals through a Crown agency, th Manitoba Telephone System, and each of the two of those need not necessarily be precisely th consuming public's interest. I'm concerned because some questions have occurred to me from some of the information th� has been kindly provided to me, initially of a technical nature.

My qualific ations don't include a du abil ity to interpret the proposed legislation, but as I read it it would seem to me to raise the question< conflict with expressed opinions in the earlier readings of the Bill, in respect of what is in questio technically. In question apparently is interconnect equipment that, according to the bill as I e read i is wired to, attached to, above, below, beside, behind, in front of, or in any other way, a proximit; near elements of the Man itoba Telephone System's hardware. I thought that I had perceived something the other day and a few minutes ago, Mr.

Cok confirmed my perception that, in the extreme, in presuming that the drops on the cable syste1 become a part of Man itoba Telephone System, that it is not an unreasonable read ing of tt legislation. From my reading of it, that instead of a Panasonic or an RCA or some other brand on television receiver connected to or even induced by the cable system, it will have to be, in a practic; sense, appl ied by Manitoba Telephone System to the consumer. That raises some concern to me, lt not an understandin g that I had and, quite frankly, I don't hold myself to having this understand in alone.

My understanding is that the Manitoba Telephone System is, in effect, a public carrier. Let rr make an analogy. it's perhaps like a highway,. if you can relate the telephone wires to the highway, you can relate the stop signs to the switching part of the system. The analogy I have, in terms of highway is, perhaps, that this legislation intends that the users of the highway use only vehiclE provided by the operators of the highway. That is, the Man itoba Hig hways would say, if you want 1 put a truck or an automobile on the road, it must be one of ours.

You must lease it from us or otherwi� arrange to acquire it from us. I'm concerned about this because it brings to me the question as to whether the drafters of th legislation intend this and whether the committee and the govern ment support that intention. If that 258

Law Amendments Thursday, June 9, 1977 o, and it isn't clear to me or others I've spoken with, then I think it's incumbent and approp riate that 1at intention be explicitly stated as policy. If it is not and for reasons I'll try very briefly to express to ou, I urge that on this matter of legislation there be pause and due consideration. I spoke ea rlier about a technological explosion. There are vast technical changes and perhaps it fO uld be unreasonable for others unfamiliar with the communication industries and the electronic 1dus tries to realize on these.

By no means wha tever is the concept of a telephone receiver, �lephone wires, a switching system to another telephone receiver the extent of the system. Indeed, fe see where the Man itoba Telephone System has begun to exert energies in a more vertical 1tegra ting nature, but as soon as five to ten years from now, procedures that most people don't ecognize as having any relationship to the telephone system will be an element of telecom- 1unic ations.

And it's not clear to me that the Manitoba Telephone System is author ized, except by nis legislation, to have a universal control in the province over telecommunications. This is a concept that is fraught with repugnance in other jurisdictions and I submit that the lirection that's being suggested by this legislation for Man itoba is entirely opposite to the direction hat's being taken elsewhere and let me be very brief about that.

The American trade authorities are ndeav ouring to break up the American Telephone and Telegraph System into subcomponents, ay ing that long lines are not necessari ly to be maintained as a unit of a telephone distribution system uch as one of their operating state systems might be. In Canada, and I'm speaking now at a Federal level, there has been emphatic suggestion by the >apartment of Co mmunications to sepa rate these fu nctions rather than integrate them.

The Bell "elephone Company of Canada has lost in the cou rts their expressed preference for the 1aintenance of a monopoly in terms of provision of eq uipment. I spoke about the vast changes - and I just want categorically to suggest those to you.

EFTS tands for Electr onic Funds Transferri ng Systems and compared with the manner that's onventional presently for banking to electronic funds transfer systems, - albeit as far as consumers oncerned true also as far as corporate fund transfer is concerned - the way banking will be done, 1e way banking has begun to be done already in some areas, the electronic transfer of funds rather 1an paper transfer is impending. The implication of that is a terminal attached to the wire system of 1e telephone company, in turn connected to a receiving terminal in the ban king institution.

During the interval of time when somehow I failed to be able to appear e before this committee or erhaps a sub-committee in connection with this legisla tion, headed by Mr. Shafransky and now, a ery startling thing has become known to me. At that time I was considering, in connection with lectronic mai l, a unit cost of something of the order of $4.60. That is to say, using fac simile machines s between two places, the cost of transfe rring the contents of an 8-1hx1 1 piece of paper looked like bout that amount of money.

I was startled a week ago that responsible people were ta lking in the hort term of a 10 cent unit cost. That's about 20 percent less than the cost of a postage stamp and re've disregarded the cost of the envelope in the transacti on. Yesterday, yet still a re sponsible ourcewas quoting, albeit for large vo lume, a penny and a half.

Nowthat says to me -a nd indeed not ) me alone because the government of France combined their postal and telephone services on a at ional basis - that the convention of transmitting, communicating mail will very shortly be in a ifferent mode and of necessity, require the use of the telephone distribution system, but by no 1eans, appropria tely or advantageously to the consumer, will it necessitate the ownership of the �rminals - that is to say, the fac simile machines.

I can go on but I think that the other examples that I'd give of data transm ission and philosophical hanges in terms of education and com munication, based on an electronic media, distributed by the 1frastructu re of the telephone system, other than the ones that I have suggested to you, may only be �dundancie s and I would hope to minimize that. 1 can appr eciate the quest of the Telephone System in the mai ntenance of the integrity, �chnically, of their system, but when the U.S.

Federal Co mmunications Co mmission were receiving �presenta tions from the American telephone operators, they quickly came to the conclusion that 1e concern that was expressed was highly exagge rated and certainly now that private interconnects ave become an everyday af fai r in that jurisdiction, that's been borne out.

In terms of maintai ning the integrity of the fi nancial element of the telephone system, I'm wontto nderstand and ag ree that the expressed 10 ,000 units of pirate telephone sets, al legedly connected > the system, now are a deep threat to the integrity of the financ ial structure of the telephone ompany.

They, of necessity, are no more than extensions and I somehow doubt that In a nutshell, some uncertainty arose in my mind whether these futu re realities had come to the cm prehension of the Co mmittee and if so, a question arose in my mind whether it was the intention 1f t he Co mmittee by the legislation and of the Legislatur e, to carve a whole new quantumly larger role xclusively for the telephone company, the effect of which would be to limit the technology to that fhich they selected, to limit powerful fo rces which move to reduce costs to the consumer, increase ervices, bring on those sooner.

I can say to you in that connection that there is threshold now, a very 259

Law Amendments Thurs day, June 9, 1977 significant battle, the glove has been tossed down in connection with IBM who have made the fi r early moves to take on and to challenge AT and Tworldwide in respect to telecommunications, tt consequence of which is expressed in the cost reduction, service improvement, broadening of varie ty of services that I ope I have suggested to you with sufficient clarity to have made myse understood. To sum up by way of repeating my opening remarks.

Gentlemen, if this is what you intend, I thir it's incumbent, I think it's urgent, I do therefore urge you to state clearly that that is the policy of th Com mittee in the intention of the legislation. We then in the next period of time will understand, 111 consumers will understand that was the determination of policy on our behalf that you took. If on tt other hand by examples that I may have passed to you, the full implications of what this legislation and will be ierhaps not bein entirely anticipated by you begs the suggestion that there be pause an due consideration. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr.

Burshtein. Mr. Toupin. MR. TOUPIN: You're aware that we've held hearings under the Public Uti lities Commit tee 1 discuss the proposed legislation before us which is an amend ment to the Man itoba Telephor System Act. MR. BURSHTEIN: Yes I am. Im mediately after noticing the advertisements in the newspapers made representation - I have come to understand appr opriate appropria tely - and I asked to t: heard.

I hoped very much to be fitted in at that time, because quite frankly it's my understanding thi this legislation was not at that time crystalized and tha t there was at that time opportunity to seek 1 persuade the form of the leislation. I appr eciate that now it's received second read ing. I shoul sugg est to you that since drawi ng to the attention of the Office of the Cl erk, that I had not bee invited, though I had expressed a wish to appear before Mr. Shafransky's group at that time, that continued interested and it was only yesterday I was told that there would be av aila ble to me som time this evening.

MR. TOUPIN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to indicate to Mr. Burshtein, that in regard to the

section of the bill that are bei ng amended now by means of Bill 57, there is still time to consider an suggestion that you may have in regard to possible amend ments to those sections that are bein treated by means of Bill 57. We would not be in a position to bring new sections on dealing

section b

section at Comm ittee stage or on third reading. I would not consider that. I'd like to indicate to y01 sir, that amend ments are being contemplated, wel l minor amend ments in a sense, based o representation that will be considered at Co mmittee stag e. You made a comparison , sir, in regard to the Man itoba Telephone System being comparable in sense with a proiincial highway.

Again, you're quite aware, sir, based on the knowledge that you'v displayed here this evening there are rules and ' that regulations on highways, whether they b municipal, provincial or interprovincial highways, and this would be the same in regard to th additional responsibility that the telephone system being the common carrier is and can contemplat insisting upon when an agreement is reached with a company wanting to offer a certain type c telecommunication services and that be ing av ailable to the PUB. MR. BURSHTEIN: Thank you, perhaps I can very succinctly respond.

In respect of t he suggestio that there remained yet briefly though some time to amend, I don't mean to be frivolous by an means. I'm here and serious in my submissions. Were I to be frivolous in my appr oach but consister with my objective and agai n, were I capable, in this sense, I would come with the suggestion that th amend ments commence after the word "whereas," but I believe there has been due consideratio given.

I believe that somewhat frivolously i must apologize but still with some seriousness, that ther is a basic simple amendment that would effect my objectives but at the same time I must be candi and say tha t it would be transparent.

Because the effect of it would be to reduce the effe ctiveness c the legislation and in that regard what I had in mind was to say this, because I believe in connectio with your second point, that of rules and procedures that provide an order, that as it is and mor importantly as it soon will significantly be, the legislation stacks the cards because it provides, fa example in terms of technical ap proval of equipment that the Man itoba Telephone System if it has t• - and there is nothing even to suggest that - seek the appr oval of others of its selection c equipment can do so on a tight basis.

In other words to pick an example, a telephone answerin! device. lt can go, need it go, to an app roving authority and say, "Here is model X. Please appr ove it. And thereafter, at the expense of ha ving approved model X once, all the model Xs the Man itob Telephone System care to affix to their system are app roved devices.

By virtue of the draft smanship of the legislation, the implication is that any consumer who come along with a telephone answering device which they prefer to seek to have attached to the systenr they must go to the approving authority, one which in a moment I'll express an aspect of redundanc' about, and have a unit appr oval made. So that if they selected Y notwithsta nding the fact that an· number of others had sought and paid for the appr ova, the testing of for appr oval of a model Y device they would have to go to the expense and difficulty and the time to obtain the appr oval.

Then the: would have to go as it were to their competitor, the Man itoba Telephone System, who competes tc provide that device and cause the Telephone Company at their tariff to make the physical connectio1 260

Law Amendments Thursday, June 9, 1977 nd to deal with other impediments in the legisla tion such as reporting. I spoke ab ut redundancy and let metry todeal with those very quickly. l'm not sure, but I think I'm orrect that the implication is that the Public Ut ilities Board will be obliged in becoming the body that rovides ap proval technically of the hardware, to establis h capacity to do so. There exists in Ottawa ow, commissioned by the Department of Commun ications such a facil ity. This is only a cost adding �ature which impinges on we consumers.

I spoke of red undancy and (.suggest to you that those add costs.

If those costs are unique to lanitoba or unique to Man itoba and a few other jurisdictions and if that means that in an electronic 1ai ling of a piece that my company has to spend $4.00 and we are substantial mai lers, compared with 1e transm ission by fac simile in another jurisdiction at a unit price of a penny and a half, an economic npact occurs on us. lt is a limiting factor to our employment and to our increased commercial ctivities in this jurisdiction. lt is an element of pricing ourselves in this location out of the national 1arketplace that we operate within. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wa lding. MR, WALDING: Mr.

Burshtein, in listening to your iresentation, I got the impression that you were oeaking not so much about this bill but about policy implications for the future for the Man itoba elephone System. Was I wrong? MR. BURSHTEIN: The ad monition, if that's not too harsh an

interpretation of what I'm trying to ring this evening, is specifically in connection with Bill 57 because it applies specifically to Bill 57. 1t as, if there is more of the same in other intended legislation, the same result or perhaps worse ecause if there is a consistency and it compounds itself, it's not a matter of one plus one equal ling vo, but it's a matter of a geometric consequence. If we're hit with increased costs, impediments, etc., ne after the other those don't add up but they multiply. MR.

WALDING: Are you aware of the amount of money that the people of Man itoba have invested 1 Manitoba Telephone System? MR. BURSHTEIN: Yes I am. MR. WALDING: Are you aware os appr oximately how much it is? MR.

BURSHTEIN: The Man itoba Telephone System talks about a unit asset value of $2,000.00. hat is to say that they have a capital base of $2,000 times the number of telephones they have in peration, which is more than other telephone systems whose unit base is $864 and less than some here you're into scattered transmission in remote and sparsely serviced systems such as in the orth country where the asset va lues can go appreciably higher. But, if I understand the implication r your question correctly, is there a substantial exis ting asset base that is the Man itoba Telephone ystem, the answer is, yes.

But that's nothing compared to what that base will be even if the 1lephone company limits itself to distribution and switching. I can th ink of astounding ranges of Jmbers if the Manitoba Telephone System as a consequence of Bill 57 becomes not the utility but 1e monopoly for data processing, for data transmission, for electronic mail, for electronic banking. MR. WALDING: Wo uld that investment by the people in Manitoba Telephone System be in excess ! half a billion dollars? MR. BURSHTEIN: lt would be in excess of $10 billion in the next 20 years if the full and absolute 1pl ication of this bill occurs.

I leave out the example I gave of television sets being a mandatory ·ovision of the telephone company earlier, but in fact, perhaps some judge might in his wisdom hold 1at even that was the case. If that were to be the case I' m afraid I'm beyond my competence in )mprehending the scale of numbers. lt would be astronomically higher. MR. WALDING: You mentioned other services in the telecommunications field as being troduced in the future. MR. BURSHTEIN: Yes. MR.

WALDING: Now if those services should come in at a c eaper rate than Man itoba Telephone (stem can presently supply because of its present investment do you feel that the System should ·otect the investment of the people of Man itoba by getting into those and averag ing its cost down or lowing a private concern to cut it out of the ma rket in effect? MR. BURSHTEIN: We ll, the more particularly because we're ta lking about technological novation do I feel very strongly that the premise that the fi nancia l integrity of the system will suffer rough its inability to gain these new areas of involvement.

The loss is a double negative, if I may, 1d what I'm sayi ng is this - that the Manitoba Telephone System would be losing prospective venues. But let me be as silly as the dickens. Mr.

Fuller incidentally, a far-out thinking guy says that is isn'tas far-out as we thought 500 mile an hour air travel was in the 19 40s. lf for example here was a eans of elecronically converting and transmitting liquids such that the dai ries would have mverted a quart of milk into an electronic signa l and then reconvert it into our house doing away ith that, you're into then the area of the telephone company being in the milk business.

Then one ::>uld raise the question, well wouldn't it be good for the province if the telephone company could 1ve the ad ditional revenues from becoming participants, or indeed sole participants in the milk Jsiness because that would help to maintain the cost structure to the consumer of the telephone 261

company as it exists today. Law Amendments Thursday, June 9, 1977 I'd like to suggest something to you, that if the telephone company were to do away - that is sas discontinue its involvement with the telephone set, the one we pick up and dial and ta lk into a1 listen from, it would reduce its mai ntenance costs by 40 percent.

In a currently popular term, itwoL increase its bottom line. lt would increase its profitab ility. lt would allow, therefore, in terms of tl cost to the consumer of the distribution service and the switching service, which I believe ought to I with no one else than Man itoba Telephone System, a lower delivered cost. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: I recognize, Mr. Burshtein, that we're in a technical field here and a lot of us a laymen sitting around this table. But I wonder if you'd elaborate on this, and maybe in a laymar lang uage, the full implications as you see it of this bill that's before us.

A MEMBER: In other words, come down to earth. MR. BURSHTEIN: We ll, I gla nce ad miringly from moment to moment at Dr. Axworthy. He h been able, notwithstanding the doctorates that we'd share, to speak and be understood. Th continues, and I suspect will be forever a problem I suffer, and I thank you for your indulgence.

But a nutshell, at risk, through simplify ing, of introducing a risk element of error I say this to you, that tl ultimate consequence of this bill can be said to be this, that in a word "omnipresence" that tl Man itoba Telephone System is the universal deliverer and the exclusive deliverer of, not the narrc things that we conventional ly believe the phone company and the phone system to be, but substantial cut of the pie of our everyday life. The gathering in, the grab as it were, of things that I a: you, have you perceived the role of the telephone company ... A MEMBER: We haven't. MR.

BURSHTEIN: ... to be, and if you have so perceived it, that it is your clear intent be the poli1 that the people of the Province of Man itoba will operate under, perhaps for the next 20 years durir which technological changes will be made that will pale the last hundred 10 0 years. MR. McKENZIE: Well I suspect, Mr. Burshtein, I guess we should be calling you Dr. Burshtein, th we haven't, a lot of us that are laymen, recognized this legislation at that depth or that breadth, in fa! You are speaki ng of postage rates, a cent and a half, which is a brand new perspective that's broug into this legislation.

I certainly have been brought up to date by your comments, and I'm sure tl members of the Comm ittee, much broader than we had on the second reading that the Minister ga' this bill. MR. PAULLEY: That's right. All we do is use the telephone for ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Any further questions? Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: May I ask you just one more question? You suggested that the legislation befo us has not crysta llized the way it should be. Cou ld you elaborate on that remark, sir? MR. PAULLEY: Oh, goodness, away we go agai n. MR.

BURSHTEIN: I think that if the capacity of the Manitoba Government in place to deal with tl1 level of consideration - and we're talking maybe at the upper levels of policy and we're ta lking at tt interface of philosophy - if those be considered I believe that the full implications - and one has expect that if the legislation provides for itthat eventually it will be ad ministered accordingly. The h implications of this haven't been clear.

Perhaps further enquiry, the receipt of fur ther represe1 tations, the proof of my contentions and of others, would bring to this Commit tee a dif fere understanding or will bring to this Co mmittee a reaffi rmation of its ea rlier beliefs if that's what tt determination of the Commit tee is. I am saying that the implications are so broad and so far-reaching that they couldn't possibly ha1 received the clarity they would from fur.ther investigati on. MR. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Cha[rman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McGill. MR. McGILL: Dr.

Burshtein, I was interested in your remark that this bill might be read as givir authority to the MTS to control the kind of television sets that would be using their cable system You think that this bill is broad enough and general enough that that could be a legal interpretatior MR. BURSHTEIN: We ll fi rst of all let me say that I have no pretentions that al low me to interpr the law or draf ting of legislation .

But as a lay person and imparting whatever technical competencE may properly be able to, to a read ing of the draft legislation, that's abundantly clear because itsimp says that the full effect of this legislation appl ies to any device which is wired to, or as I said placed prox imity to, the hardware of the Telephone System. And if the cable television hardwar e then assumed by the Man itoba Telephone System simply the "drop," that is to say the coaxial cable in1 the house, then becomes a part of the Manitoba Telephone System.

Then either by connecting th; cable wire to the television set or as you might know placing it nearby and causing the signal to t received on the television set, it clearly then can be concluded that I would have to go to the Publ Util ities Board at my expense and say, "Gentlemen, I'd like to put an advent projector-television SI into my house and attach it to the cable or I'd like to put a table portable model that the Man itot Telephone System doesn't carry," and I wo uld have to go to a unique and repetitive expense 1 262

Law Amendments Thursday, June 9, 1977 �complish that provid ing I could, and then the Man itoba Telephone System conceivably would �ve to come into my house at rates they would determine to make the connection, or to place the set 3side the cable, because it needn't be connected. A MEMBER: Hear, hear. MR. McGILL: Mr. Chairman, to Dr. Burshtein. At one time Man itoba Hydro used to sell a lot of avices that were plugged into their systems. I be lieve now that they're out of the sales of those 3Vices.

Wo uld it be equal ly logical for Man itoba Hydro to have a bill providing that they would )ntrol all of the devices connected to their systems, as it is logical for the Manitoba Telephone vstem to wish to control all of the devices connected to their transmission systems? Is there any 1alogy there? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pau lley. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Is this deal ing with Bill 57, the point raised by 1e Honourable Member for Brandon? -(I nterjection)- I'm listening. I've been listening for a long me and I just want to know whether or not, Mr.

Chairman, that the point raised by the Honourable lember for Brandon is dealing with Bill 57, and that is the bill that we have to consider. MR. McGILL: Mr. Chairman, on the point of 'order, I'm endeav ouring to use the competence of the itness to determine whether or not there are some special circumstances in his view that would add � the arg ument of MTS, that they should control al l of the devices actuated by their system, and if 1ere would be some similar logic involved in another transmitting system - A Crown corporation - 1 controlling all of the devices connected to their systems.

I would hope that the Comm ittee would ,t Dr. Burshtein give us the benefit of his views. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, I have no question as to the competence of the Doctor that is :>pea ring before this Co mmittee. I recognize his expertise. But in order to expedite the business of lis Co mmittee, I wonder whether or not the point raised by the Honourable Member for Brandon is aali ng· with Bill 57 or whether or not the expertise of the Doctor is unrelated to the proposition that e have before us. But that's my only point. MR. McGILL: I wonder then, Dr.

Burshtein, if you could give me your comments on that subject. MR. BURSHTEIN: Okay. Thank you. Let me try and do it two ways, in terms of present and in 1rms of realistical ly foreseeable future. In terms of the present the comparison is as to whether the tme as is being suggested by Bill 57 is appl icable to Hydro.

I can do that by dealing with it in reverse. lt's my conclusion taken from the competent conclusions of others that there is no significant risk I loss of integrity, technically of the Telephone System; and therefore, I would say to you in analogy 1at there is presently no risk of loss of integrity technically of the Hydro System by vi rtue of my :re wing into my sockets light bulbs that I purchase from my ordinary commercial retai l sources. Now; let's go to the futu re just briefly and not too far into the future.

Very interesting researches ·e being done and yield ing results today motivated by the energy crisis that we suffer. One of the 1i ngs that people are sayi ng, a substitute for fos sil fuel , and fos sil fuel power generation is the 3velopment of solar power. of the manifesta tions of this is to suggest that there will be put up into ·bit satellites that will gather this solar energy convert it to microwave and transmit it down to earth here it will be run into the distribution system of the Hydro utilities.

The reason why I brought that out is because we're not tal king about an electric signal as ·esently but we're tal king about the same electronic wave for power as we're tal king for lecommunication signals and the same conclusion holds. That is to say, the same conclusion for e futur e is for the present, as for Hydro, as for the Telephone System that an electronically signal led 1d transm itted power source will not suffer a loss of the technical integrity because I have put in my IVn light bulb rather than one which I can only exclusively obtain from the utility. MR. CHAIRMAN: No further questions?

Thank you, Mr. Burshtein. Mr. Jack Wylie, National mewriter; Mr. E. Cortens, Ca lculator Wo rld; Mr. D. Alien, D. E. M. Alien and Associates. Is Mr. Al!en �re? -(I nterjection)- Mr. Alien is not here. We don't have a quorum. I wo uld suggest that Comm ittee rise. A MEMBER: We do have a quorum. MR. CHAIRMAN: No. We do not have 16 members. A MEMBER: Pardon? MR. CHAIRMAN: We don't have 1. 6 members here. Co mmittee rise. -(I nterjection)- We have 2,3, 4,5,6,7 ,8,9,1 0,11, 12, 13,14,15. -(In terjection)- Where? MR.

PAULLEY: We ll, just a minute now. lt's on the question of a quorum and I want to countto see hether or not we have a quorum. Is the Honourable Member for Minnedosa a member of the ::>mm ittee? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. PAULLEY: Have you counted him? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. A MEMBER: Twice. MR. PAULLEY: Pard on? Counted twice? 263

A MEMBER: Yes, sir. Law Amendments Thursday, June 9, 1977 MR. CHAIRMAN: We only have 13 members. A MEMBER: Fifteen. MR. CHAIRMAN: There are people here who are not members of this Comm ittee. MR. PAULLEV: We ll, Mr. Chairman, it's your prerogative under the Rules of the House, if y� observe that there is not a quorum, then the Comm ittee ceases. And maybe it's a good idea after . BRIE F SUBM ITTED - NOT READ CANADIAN BUSINESS EQUIPM ENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION: COMM ENTS ON BIL L 57 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MANITOBA TELE PHONE ACT The proposed bill consists of 8 paragraphs modifying the existing act. The fo llowing commer will add ress these paragraphs in the order they are presented in the bill.

"Connection of Eq uipment to System 43( 1) Co nnection to the telecommunication equipment of the commission of equipment, devic or contrivances capable of transmitting or receiving messages passing through the system of tl commission and not suppl ied by the commission may be authorized under the general tariff of tl commission as app roved by the Public Util ities Board and, unless such equipment, device, contrivance is so authorized for connection, no person shall connect it to the telecommunicati� equipment of the commission." Comments Un der the wording of this paragr aph , the Man itoba Telephone System (MTS) has the sole abili to determine what equipment or devices will be connected.

There is no statement that tarif fs must I reasonable, non-discriminatory, or in the public interest. The only role of the Public Ut ilities Boa (PUB) would be appr oval of the tariffs.

There is no provision in this statement fo_r subscribers appeal a ruling, and there is no provision in the bill for the PUB to have authority to direct or ord MTS to write or revise a tariff. lt is interesting to note that in its own brief to the Standing Co mmittee on Public Uti lities ar Natural Resources, MTS asked for legislation to " ... al low the Public Util ities Board of Man itoba appr ove specific practices for interconnection of customer owned terminal equipment to the publ switched network.

The Public Utility Board would then become the independent arbiter." This arbit role has not been reflected in this legislation. Further, this paragraph does not restrict itself to attachment to the public switched network, b specifies connection to the telecommunication equipment of the commission. This means that evE devices which attach to MTS provided equipment such as modems or voice connectir arrangements would require a tariff to permit their atta chment. Also, any devices attached to oth networks such as the Dataroute or Multicom would require a tariff to permit attach ment.

"Terms and Conditions of Connection 43(2) Where the connection of any equipment, device or contrivance to the telecommunicatic equipment of the commission or to the system of the commission is authorized as provided subsection (1 ), the connection shal l be made in a manner and undertheterms and conditions set o in the general tariff of the co mmision." Comments Again, this paragraph gives MTS complete power to establis h the manner, terms and conditior under which equipment will be attached to the network and provides no means for appe al.

This paragraph would, for example, give MTS the power they have requested in their submissic to the Stand ing Comm ittee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources to insist that all installat ions· subscriber-provided equipment be made by MTS personnel. In our opinion, such a provision wou add an ad ditiona l and unjustified cost to' users.

"Meaning of "Con nected" 43(3) For the purposes of t his section, any equipment, device or contrivance shall be conclusive deemed to be connected to telecommunication equipment if it is attached or affixed thereto � placed on, over, under or adjacent to, the telecommunication equipment." Co mments This defi nition makes no reference to the intended use of the equipment. lt is so general that would apply to anything placed on a table adjacent to a telephone. This definit ion would bring under the terms of the act devi ces that are acoustically coupled to tt telephone.

Such devices, ranging from speaker phones which ampl ify the voice signa ls from telephone to facsi mile machines, have been in operation for many years. Many ad ministrations c not now require tarif fing of acoustically coupled devices. There is no technical requirement f< including acoustically coupled devices under the control of any attach ment program, and to do so ' this time would be a backward step to the detriment of telephone subscribers. "Disconnection of Eq uipment 43(4) Where any equipment, device or contrivance is connected to telecommunicatic 264

Law Amendments Thursday, June 9, 1977 �ui pment of the commission or to the system of the commission, if, in the opinion of the commission ·t he Public Ut ilities Board, the connection will or might injuriously affect the telecommunication �uipm ent of the commission, the commission or Public Util ities Board may disconnect the �uip ment, device or contrivance from the telecommunication equipment of the commission or from te system of the commission." omments This paragraph gives MTS the abil ity to disconnect devices from their equipment based only on pinion.

There is no onus on MTS to provide proof of injury to their equipment and no provision for te subscriber to appeal this disconnection. �otic e by Supplier of Eq uipment 43(5) Every person who sells, leases or distributes or otherwise provides any equipment, device or )ntrivance which is capable of transmitting or receiving messages pass ing through the system of te commission and which is not autho rized under su bsection (1 ) or is authorized subject to )nd itions of connection, sha ll, before he completes the transac tion, notify in writing the person btaining or acquiring the device or contrivance. (

a) of the prov isions of this section;· and (

b) whether or not the connection of the equipment, device or contrivance to telecommunication equipment of the commission or the system of the commission is authorized under subsection (1) and whether such authorization is subject to conditions under the general tariff of the commission." omments This requirement would add an unnecessary ad ministrative procedure which will be reflected in jd itional costs to users. In ad dition, the ph rase in this paragraph which says " ... before he )mp letes the transac tion" is impractical.

Such a rule would preclude placing a notice in a shipping :>x with the device since the purchaser may not open the box until af ter the transaction is completed. the device was ordered by mail or telephone and shipped to the purchaser, it would not be possible 1 provide the purchaser with written notice prior to completion of the transacti on.

Suppliers from Jtside the province would have little or no incentive to provide such a notice to customers located in lanitoba. �otic e of Supplier to Comm ission 43(6) Every person who sells, leases, distributes or otherwise provides any equipment, device or lntrivance which is capable of transmitting or receiving messages pass ing through the system of te commission and which is not authorized under su bsection (1) or is authorized subject to :>nditions of connection, shal l, within 10 days after delivering the equipment, device or contrivance 1 the person obtaining or acquiring it, notify the commission in writing. (

a) of the nature of the equipment, device or contrivance sold, leased , distributed or otherwise provided; and (

b) of the name and add ress of the person who obtained or acquired it." omments This regulation is simply unworkable. If a device is authorized tor attac hment to the MTS system, 1ere is no requirement tor MTS to be advised of the name and add ress of the purchaser. If a Jrchaser buys a device that is not authorized tor attach ment, he obviously will not co-operate by ·oviding his name and ad dress. Again, for suppl iers outside of the province, there will be little or no centive tor them to comply with this regulation. )iscontinuance of Service 43(7) In addition to any other penalty which may be prescribed therefor, where a person >ntravenes subsections (1) or (2), the commission may (

a) stop providing telecommunication service to that person and remove any telecommunication equipment of the commission that is in the possession of that person; or (

b) stop providing telecommunication service to any person in posse ssion of telecommunication equipment that has been used in respect of the contravention and remove any telecommunication equipment of the commission that is in the possession of that person." omments The intent of this paragraph is vag ue, but the power given to the MTS is absolute. There is no Jalification requiring reasonableness and no provision tor an appeal.

Disconnection of the tbscriber's service is described as a penalty for having contravened subsections (1 ) or (2) ofthe bill 1d yet no proof is required to substantiate a contravention, and no provision is made tor appeal . Jrthermore, no state ment is made concerning the duration of penalty or whether, in tact, service will •er be reinstated. lecording of Messages Prohibited 44(1 ) No person in the province shall use any recording equipment to record any message 265

Law Amendments Thursday, June 9, 19 77 transm itted through the system of the commission unless he makes the person sending the messag' aware, prior to the recording, that the message or a part thereof will be recorded." Comments The wording of this paragraph is so general that it would apply to many instances wher, compliance would be impractical and undesirable. For example, it would not be practical to appl this regulation to the recording of emer gency messages such as fire, police and ambu lance call� Further, the paragraph does not specify voice messages and could apply to any message such as th, transfer of computer data to be stored in the file s of another computer. 266

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-4-la9
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 4th hansardpdf la9.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a61bda23813473a6f3477ba56d6884c708b5ed22

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