Manitoba Hansard — 10 August 1970 (Sitting 170, 29th Legislature, 2nd Session)

29-2-170

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8:00 o'clock, Monday, August 10, 1970 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. 4399 MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees; Notices of Motion; Introduction of Bills; Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR. HARRY E. GRAHAM (Birtle- Russell): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Agriculture.

I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the fact that certain areas of the province had very difficult conditions this spring and early summer, if there has been any change in the policy regarding the noxious weed control in the province. HON. SAMUEL USKIW (Minister of Agriculture)(Lac du Bonnet): No, Mr. Speaker. The problem that my honourable friend mentions to me has not been brought to my attention. I am sure that if there was a problem emanating from the Noxious Weeds Act or the implemen tation thereof, it would have been brought to my attention. MR. GRAHAM: A supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker. It has been brought to my attention that there are areas in the province where the control of noxious weeds has indeed been lax this particular year, and I was wondering if the Minister would be considering a policy of enforcement of the Noxious Weeds Act in areas where it is brought to his attention. MR. USKIW: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member would submit to me some details, I'd be prepared to look into the matter. MR. WARNER H. JORGENSON (Morris): Mr. Speaker, I'd be happy to draw to the Minister's attention a particular problem that does exist within his own Cabinet.

I wonder if the Minister would take up with the Minister of Transportation the policy of mowing along the public provincial roads. There is a very serious weed problem arising as a result of the failure of the Department of Transportation to carry on the . . . MR. SPEAKER: Is the honourable member making a speech or . . . ? MR. USKIW: I'm not answering that question. It's out of order. Mr. Speaker, I'm rising on a different point. I don't believe that that was the question . . . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. JACOB M. FROESE (Rhineland): Mr.

Speaker, the other day I invited members to the Manitoba Sunflower Festival in Altona. Because of the session, members couldn't attend and so tonight packets of sunflowers have been distributed. I hope it will soothe the members' nerves. When we get down to committee work, instead of smoking they can eat some of the little peanuts. These are compliments of the Manitoba Sunflower Festival and Vegetable Oils. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. HARRY ENNS (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Honourable Min ister of Finance.

I wonder if he's had time over the weekend to check his mail and see whether or not the decision of the Manitoba Hydro Board with respect to Southern Indian Lake has been transmitted to his office. HON. SAULCHERNIACK, Q.C. (Minister ofFinance)(St. John's): Mr. Speaker, actually over the weekend I didn't check my mail but just before the weekend I did and there was a letter with certain recommendations received from Hydro, not a decision as I inter preted it, but recommendations. I'm now in the process of considering it, as are other members of cabinet. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. DONALD W.

CRAIK (Riel): A subsequent question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minis ter advise, or the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, either one, whether a license has been applied for? MR. CHERNIACK: I read the letter very superficially. I do not recall a license being applied for but rather a recommendation for consideration, for consideration on the over-all project. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a further question to the Minis ter of Agriculture and ask him if he would check with the Noxious Weeds Act and make sure

4400 August 10, 1970 (MR. JORGENSON cont'd.) . . . . . that

Section 3, ~tubsection (3) of the Act and

Section 19 (1) of that Act are being complied with insofar as the Department of Transportation is concerned. MR. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, I lhlnk that point has been well taken and the Minister of Transportation has ears and has heard the representations gl ven in this House on that matter, so I'm not going to comment beyond this point. I want to answer a question put to me by the Honourable Member for Morris a few days ago, the one dealing with lhe question of crop insurance payments for losses incurred in the year 1969. I had checked with the Crop Insurance Corporation.

I find that this is not unusual, that these were fields that were left unharvested throughout the winter months and as a result of that the assessments of damages were not completed until some time this spring, and in most instances the delay was the claims not being filed by the farmers in time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SIDNEY SPIVAK, Q. C. (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the First Minister.

I wonder if he'd inform the House whether he participated in a news conference this afternoon which, in its announcement, indicated a convention centre to be built by the Metro Corporation. HON. ED SCHREYER (Premier)(Rossmere): Well, Mr Speaker, there was a new con ference this afternoon at 2:15 in that connection, but it is not correct for the honourable mem ber to suggest that there was an announcement that the convention centre was going to be built by the Metropolitan Corporation. No such statement was made. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, not any such statement by the government, but by the developer.

Was he not present v.beillhe developer made that statement? MR. SCHREYER: The developer did not make that statement, Mr. Speaker. The devel oper in the course of his statement indicated that he was hopeful that such would be the case. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Has the government arrived at a decision on the convention centre yet? · MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, there is a policy position of lhe government in lhat con nection, but there is no decision relative to actual location. MR. BUD SHERMAN (Fort Garry): ... Mr. Speaker, to the First Minister?

When the First Minister refers to "the developer" does that indicate that a developer and a site have been settled upon? MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure in what sense the honourable member means that last question. A developer has made a statement at a news conference this after noon with respect to intentions to proceed with certain construction. Now, beyond that, v.bat is the honourable member wishing to know? MR. SHERMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's really a question of clarification, I suppose. The term "the developer" was used.

There's quite a difference between the term "the devel oper" and the term "a developer", as I'm sure the First Minister would concede. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member's point is well taken. A devel oper made a statement at a news conference this afternoon. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. J. WALLY McKENZIE (Roblin): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank whoever provided the sunflower seeds. MEMBERS: Jake - Jake. MR. McKENZIE: Thank you, Honourable Member for Rhineland. My question is to the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources.

I wonder if the Minister can indicate the policy that's been followed by this government as they bulldoze down the trees in the Turtle Mountain area. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member. for Rock Lake. MR. HENRY J. EINARSON (Rock Lake): Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to the Minister of Agriculture. Manybog producers are concerned about the prices, the dropping prices of hogs over the past many weeks. I wonder if the Minister could indicate why the great spread in the Toronto prices and the Manitoba prices.

In other words, if I may just elaborate further to the Minister, the normal spread has been from $1. 00 to $2. 00 but is now around $6. 00. Could the Minister give us an indication of why this is? MR. USKIW: I'm not sure, Mr. Speaker, but I would assume that it could be as a result of local supply. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris.

Au gust 10, 1970 4401 MR . JORGENSON: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transportation and ask him when the residents in the Morris constituency can expect to have the bridges on Highway 205 and Highway 336 replaced. Those bridges were knocked out by floods early this spring and nothing's been done to repair them as yet, and I wonder if the Minister would ad vise the House just how soon we can expect to ha ve those bridges repaired. HON . JOSEPH P. BOROWSKI (Minister of Transportatlon)(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I can't tell but I will check into it. MR .

SPEAKER: The Honourabl e Member for Roblin. MR . McKEN ZIE: Mr. Spea ker , I'd like to pursue my question which wasn 't answered -- (Interjection) -- If I could fil l you in , Mr. Speaker, it is my priv ilege . . . Can I ask the Minister again for the policy that's being followed? MR. SPEAKER: . . . the honourable member had asked this question once. MR . McKEN ZIE: Yes, I didn't get an answer. Can I direct my question now to the Fi rst Minister? MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, lf i recall the question, it was why it was decided that certain trees in Turtle Mountain Park were being bu lldozed down.

We ll, I can only tell my hono urable friend that since he has brought that to my attention that it'l l be looked into. I can assure him that I'm just as concerned as he is about any despoilage of nature. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR . ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I direct another question to the Minister of Finance. This is as a result of his · answer to my last question. In view of the recommendations that the Min ister of Finance now has, can he indicate to the House whether any flooding of South Indian Lake has been recommended and is being contemplated? MR .

CHERNIACK: The letter from City Hydro is under study , Mr. Speaker . MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Souris-Kill arney. MR . EARL McKELLAR (Souri s-Kill arney): Mr. Speaker, I'd llke to direct a question to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Is there a master plan for the development within the Turtle Mountain Park llke the new development park that you're developing down there? I think it contains- it's all within - it's the part of the province that the Honourable Member for Rob lin's discussi ng. HON . PETER BURTNIAK (Minister of Tourism & Recreation)(Dauphin): Mr .

Speaker, we are working on a master plan for all of Manitoba. MR. McKELLAR: A subsequent question, Mr . Speaker . Would you be good enough to come out to Boissev ain and explain this plan to the _people there of Boisse vain district? MR. BURTNIAK: Whelle.Yer that plan l-s ready:, Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourab le Member for Wolseley. MR. LEONARD H. CLAYDON (Wo lseley): Mr. Speaker, I ha ve a question for the Mlnls ter of He alth and Socia l Ser vices. I wonder if he can tell us if there are any plans or studies under way to include nursing homes in the Manitoba Health Serv ices program.

HON . RENE E. TOUPIN (Minister of Health and Social De velopment)(Sp ringfleld): Mr. Speaker , we're looking at the posslbl i!ty. We're negotiating with the Federal Government and I do hope that we 'll find a happy so lution for both levels of go vernment. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourabl e Member for Fort Garry. MR . SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd llke to direct a question to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and ask him if he has received any reports this summer, as I have , of exces sive weekend rowdyism in the Grand Beach provincial park which makes it unpleasant for legitimate family campers. MR . BURTNIAK: Mr.

Speaker, that is some-what correct. We have been made aware some time back o he situation and I am glad to report that that's pretty: well been. remedied. MR . SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, a supp lementary. Cou ld I ask the Minister if he could advise the House what he means by the situation being pretty well remedied. Are there extra security personnel, for example, on duty? M-R. BURTNIAK: That is correct. Ther is extr.a ecurity guards there, extra po lice guards, as well as we'r not llo iog any vis.ltors after U: OO o'cloc� at night, and that seems to he lp the situation. MR . McKEN ZIE: Mr.

Spea ker , I believe I heard the Ministe r of Touri sm and Recre ation say he had a plan for all the tourist areas of the pro vince. Can I ask him to lay on the table a plan for the She llmouth Reservoir and the Asessippi Provincial Park.

4402 August 10, 1970 MR. BURTN IAK: Mr. Speaker , the Member for Roblin seems to want to lay everything on the table , and as I said, untll we are prepared to do so, Mr. Speaker, -·u be glad to lay lt on the table. MR . McKENZ IE: Mr. Speaker , a supplementary question then. Can I ask the Minister of Mines and Natural Re sources, has he had a directive from the area asking for a pl anner? HON. SIDNEY GREEN , Q. C. (M inister of Mines and Natural Resou rces)(I nkster): Mr. Speaker , not that I'm aware of, but I will admit that there are certain things that happen that I am not aware of. MR .

McKE NZIE : A supp lementary question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Has be had a directive from that area asking for planning ? �· SPEAKER: . . . propriety of questions canvassing members of the front bench. The Honourable Member for Swan Ri ver. MR . JAMES H. BILTON (Swan Ri ver): Mr. Speaker, I can understand your feel ings and appreciate them very much, but I have mentioned on two or three occasi ons during the ses sion. I wonder if I may direct my question to the Minister of Health and Social Services .

Co uld he tell me tonight what the standing is insofar as the government is concerned toward the extended care home for Swan River ? MR . TOUPIN: Mr. Speaker, we are going ahead with this plan. MR . SPEA KER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR . ED WARD McGILL (Brandon West): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce. It relates to Order for Return No. 19 as amended and agreed to, April 17, 1970. I hope the Minister won't think I'm too impatient, but I wonder when we're going to get this Return. HON. LEONARD S.

EVA NS (Minister of Industry and Commerce)(Bra ndon Ea st) : Mr. Speaker , I' ll look into the matter. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cbarleswood. MR . ARTHUR MOUG (C barles wood): Mr. Speaker , I'd llke to direct my question to the Honourable Minister of Highways. I wonder what priority warranted the six miles of pavement from the Perimeter Highway to the Town of La Salle , Manitoba. MR . BOROWSKI: I didn't catch that, Mr. Speaker. MR . MOUG: I realize that this microphone doesn't work too good , Mr. Speaker. What priority -- (Interjection) -- Okay mouthpiece , you don't need a microphone; I do.

What priority warranted the six miles of pavement from the Perimeter Highway around the City of Winnipeg to the Town of La Salle , Manitoba? MR . BOROWSKI: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a question that was asked by the Member for Morris and this is the type of Tory muck-raking that I don't think we should be subje cted to. I explained the situation when it was asked of me and he ruddy well knows the answer why it was done. MR . JORGENSON: ... the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. At no time, at no time did I ever make any kind of a suggestion such as made by the Minister of Transportation.

The Minister of transportation talks about not being abl e to tell the truth in this House. He'd better try it once in a while. It' ll do him good. MR . SPEAKE R: The Honourable Member for Lakes ide. MR . EN NS: Can the Minister of Transportation indicate on what date he purchased property in that general area? MR . SPE AKER: I believe the honourable member is aware that that is not a proper ques- tion before Orders of the Day. The Honourable First Minister. MR . SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you .. . MR . EN NS: That's not charging or asking people to be suspended from . MR . SPEAKER: Order please. MR .

SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker , perhaps you could advise me whether under the rules it is in order for me to answer a question that may have been asked, directed to another Minister, because I wouldn't mind answer ing the question put by the Honourable Member for Cbarleswood. If it's in order, I would certainly answer it. (Agreed) MR . MOUG: Sorry Mr. Speaker, I didn 't hear his note there. MR . SPEAKER: I believe I heard indication of leave being granted to the Honourable the First Ml nlster to answer the question put by the Honourable Member for Cbarleswood. MR . MOUG: Yes, certainly I would.

August 10, 1970 -"<.,,_ ~'-"-"). ::" ";,~''!':F..r~~-,<;·->~'~',~ c~' :--~->'. 4408 MR. SCHREYER: The honourable member indicated he hadn't heard what I had said. I offered to try to answer his question as to on what basis was a particular road built. My answer is that if he will take a highway map of the Province of Manitoba for each of the past many years he will see that gradually over the years road improvements were made in the area of the periphery of Greater Winnipeg and to the area of East St.

Paul, Hoddinott Road, the road to Dugald, from there to Oak Bank, and that's on the northeast sector of the city; the same applies to the southwest, and I don't know that anyone got up in the House to ask questions at the time in a suspicious vein because particular roads were being built in different sectors of the periphery of Metropolitan Winnipeg. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Transportation. MR. BOROWSKI: The Honourable Member for Morris suggested that I attempt to tell the truth in this House.

The Leader of the Opposition a couple of weeks ago said to me that if somebody walked up to me and punched me in the nose I wooldn't understand cooperation. I suggest to the Member for Morris that if truth walked up and punched him in the nose he wouldn't see it. MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order. The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of parliamentary privilege, a point of privilege affecting the decorum of this House.

I know, Sir, that you have been requesting order from those in the public gallery and I believe, Sir, that it is so important that that be observed that I woold urge that this request for order be made repeatedly and as often as is necessary in your judgment, and I would also request that members on both sides of the House refrain from any kind of reaction to whatever response comes from the public gallery. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of privilege, if I may.

I accept the words of the First Minister, and up unto some time - in fact I was hoping that perhaps some action would be taken because I deplore it, and \\hen the applause went the other way in the Public Utilities Committee we very soon had armed commissionaires-- pardon me, not armed, but commissionaires there, yes, commissionaires there to stop any demonstrations by those per sons. However, it seems that as the applause is favourable to the government here, you, Sir, or the government have not seen fit to do anything about it.

Now I would suggest that it is evident that you have to ask the galleries to be cleared if they repeatedly do not follow the rules of the House, and I'm quite prepared to do it. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. LAURENT L. DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): On a point of privilege, I might say that I take full responsibility and I did take full responsibility as Chairman of Public Utilities to calling, to requesting that we have the same facilities as we have in the House here, that is, security people, and that was not a request or even a suggestion of the government. I did that on my own. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. BILTON: Mr. Speaker, again realizing your position, and I notice over the last two or three days you and the Chairman of the Committee have repeatedly requested that order be maintained in the gallery, and I suggest to you, Sir, that you use a firm hand and the next time it happens the gallery be cleared. MR. SPEAKER: I do believe that the point has been sufficiently impressed on honourable members of the Chamber and ladies and gentlemen of the gallery. The Honourable Member for Morris. MR.

JORGENSON: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transportation and ask him if he can produce any statement that I've made, inside or outside of this House, criticizing the highway that was mentioned by my colleague from Charleswood. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address a question to the Honourable the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources. Has the Minister any further information in connec- tion with the Pembina Dam since the Return was tabled in the House some time ago? MR. GREEN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I made a full statement as to the position of the gov ernment during - not during the estimates but during the concurrences, and there has been no change since that position. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Com merce. I wonder if the Minister can state permanent policy with regards to the rapeseed plant that's scheduled for Grandview.

l 4404 August 10, 19'10 MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows full well that it's out of order to ask members of the treasury bench to state matters of policy. MR. McKENZIE: A supplementary question then, Mr. Speaker. Can I ask the Minister then for his opinion? MR. SPEAKER: . . . ask for an expression of opinion. The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Industry and Commerce, of whom were we going to ask matters of policy if the government are not going to answer them? MR. EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, matters of policy will be announced in due course when such policies are formulated. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable House Leader. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister for Cultural Affairs, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the following Bill, No. 56, The Automobile Insurance Act. MR.

SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House resolved Itself Into Committee of the Whole with the Honourable Member for Elmwood in the Chair. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE MR. CHAIRMAN: We are dealing with Bill 56,

Section l(z). The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, In the deflnltion

section that's before us, (

z) becomes probably the most Important deflnltion that we have to deal with because it deals with the uni versal compulsory automobile insurance plan, and we're now talking about government monopoly and we're now talking about the implementation of a plan that would be compulsory and would have universality, which would be the monopoly aspect of government involvement in insurance. Now, Mr. Chairman, I've listened with great interest to the remarks of the Member for St.

Boniface and the Honourable Member for ChurchUl, and I've I think shared with the mem:.. bers in this House and the members In the gallery, some of whom have been present throughout almost all of the sessions, the tlme, shared the discussion and waited for the time, the moment of truth, when we would really know whether the words that were expressed inside thls House and out were really the true feelings, were really the true expressions and the true beliefs of the people who expressed them, because ,Mr.

Chairman, there's a tendency to look at this Bill and to look at government Insurance with some blurred vision as lf all we are talking about is a question of compensation for a group of people who will be dislocated as a result of govern ment nationalization of Its industry, and what appears to be the primary and uttermost factor in the minds of those who have spoken already in connection with this . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: May I point out to the Honourable Member for River Heights that we're dealing with a definition of universal compulsory automobile insurance and I would ask him to attempt to stick to that clause.

MR. SPIVAK: Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman, and I wish that the Chamber would at least be quiet so I could hear myself speak. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. SPIVAK: I assure you that I know you're not interested, but for the record, and because we are reaching the final point, I think It has to be said agaln. I'm dealing with this particular

section which I believe should be rejected in this Bill because I do not believe that the government has put forward a case in which there should be universal compulsory automobile Insurance In this province. Compulsory insurance- yes; universal- not in terms of a govern ment monopoly. And that's what I interpret this

section to mean, and I Interpret that

section to mean that. I've Indicated to you, Mr. Chairman, that our vision is blurred in that we have now super imposed the whole issue of compensation on the question of the principle of government involve ment. Now, Mr. Chairman, in spite of what the honourable members may say and think on the opposite side, I have no hang-up on government involvement. I say that quite frankly and I say that without any equivocation. No,none at all, and as a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, during the period of time when I was Minister of Industry and Commerce, there were serious

August 10, 1970 4405 (MR. SPIVAK cont'd.) . . . . . discussions of 1he exercise of

Part II of the Manitoba Develop ment Fund in terms of those specific areas in which the government had to enter because in fact private industry would not do 1he job that was required for the province. -- (Interjection) - No, we did not use

Part II but I must say 1hat our discussions were towards this, and I have a suspicion, Mr. Chairman, that we would have been well on our way to using it in a very positive way had we still had the opportunity of being in office. But Mr. Chairman . MR. SCHREYER: Would the honourable member permit a question? MR. SPIVAK: Yes, I will at the end. MR. SCHREYER: At the end? All right, thank you. MR. SPIVAK: Mr.

Chairman, those who have spoken seem to forget that what we are talking about is the principle of government involvement in an industry that has not as yet proved- and I say that- has not as yet proved that it cannot, under certain conditions, fulfil 1he requirements and provide cheaper and better insurance for the people of Manitoba. Now, Mr.

Chairman I'd like to, if I may, refer back to the interview, and I've already made reference before, of July 5, 1969 in the Tribune, the interview with the Premier, and I think it's important to note this for 1he record, the Tribune said and I .uote: "To nail it down, could you give us your definition of a Social Democrat?" The Premier ... MR. CY GONICK (Crescentwood): You're hung up. MR.

SPIVAK: I'm not hung up, but there are some Democrats that are hung up about it. ''Yes, a Social Democrat is one \\ho endorses the notion that government is an instrument to be used by society to achieve certain ends, to bring about certain objectives, initiate certain pro grams in order to protect people against the exploitation in the market place, against exploita tion by the zealous minority, who over the decades have been able to indulge in a bit of success ful exploitation of their fellow human beings.

To make it a little more precise, this willingness to use the instrumentality of government is used with moderation in 1he sense that where there is a successful private enterprise that is serving the public interest, 1here should not be any wish to bring that under public ownership. We are not, as Social Democrats, doctrinairely opposed to the use of government ownership of a particular industry or service, but on the other hand we should not be pushing for it as a matter of doctrinaire philosophy.

In other words, the notion of government ownership of production - distribution exchange \\hich is mouthed so glibly should be looked upon by a Social Democrat almost as uncomfortably as by a Liberal." Almost but not quite.

I'll explain my disagreement, not with the statement but the application to this particular industry, because there's a distinction between saying that the statement is correct and its application to the industry, "to bring about certain object! ves, initiate certain programs in order to protect people against the exploitation in the market place." Now surely we have realized that much of the legislation that we introduce in this House is to prevent exploitation of our peq>le in the market place. That's why we introduced the Consumer Protection Act, and that was legislation. We did not say, Mr.

Chairman, that we are going to take over all the finance companies in this province; we did not say that we are going to take all those who are in the commercial lending field and we did not say that we were going to take them over because there was exploitation. Mr. Chairman, \\hat we did is we enacted legislation which in fact controlled abuses and protected our people-- and the First Minister agrees; that's what we did. MR. SCHREYER: Well, that's the hope. MR.

SPIVAK: Yes, that's the hope, and I say to the First Minister why could we not have done this with the insurance industry? -- (Interjection) -- Well, I hope- I'm waiting for your answer. I think I know it already. Well, you made a 2 1/2 hour speech and I'm sure that you can make an hour's speech- you're quite capable of it. "Against exploitation by the zealous minority who over the decades have been able to indulge in a bit of successful exploitation of their fellow human beings. " Now is there a suc. cessful exploitation of their fellow human beings?

Are we sugges ing that if one makes profit, that that is exploitation? Or what are we talking about? Is profit in itself exploitation? And if profit in itself is exploitation, then surely the government better be interested in all those in dustries in this province \\ho make profits, because they're exploiting in those terms, Mr. Chairman. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could rise on a point of privilege and you can rule whether it is a point of privilege or not.

If the honourable member is suggesting that in the course of that very long interview I left the impression that I was opposed to profit, then

L_ 4406 August 10, 1970 (MR. SCHREYER cODt'd) . . . . . that's certainly a misconstruction of what I said, because later on in that same interview I talked about the notion of reasonable return on investment. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact, the First Minister talked about the just price, and that in philosophical terms I understand, and I understand what he says, and I really do not believe that was a question on a point of privllege. If he disagrees with my inter pretation of what he says, he's certainly perfectly entitled to enter the debate. MR.

CHAIRMAN: . . . felt that again that these questions of privilege are in most cases not actual questions of privilege and that, even lf a member is misinterpreted, it is not a ques tion of privilege for someone else to interject at that moment. He may later in the debate re explain his position, but, as I would quote from the earlier Rule Book of '51, "A dispute arising between two members as to allegations of fact does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege." MR. SPIVAK: Well, Mr.

Chairman, first we inltiate programs to protect people against exploitation in the market place and we've done this through legislation and through regulation. "Against exploitation by the zealous minority who over the decades have been able to indulge in a bit of successful exploitation of their fellow human beings. " And I do not believe - and I want the First Minister to understand that- I do not believe that he meant that profit was exploita tion, but then on the other hand, Mr.

Chairman, then I say: where has there been proven in this Legislature that the insurance company is exploited? -- (Interjection) -- 34 percent. All right. 34 percent under the Wootton Commission. Now I want the Member for Crescentwood or the First Minister or the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources or the Finance Minlster to stand up in this House and tell us exactly what the profit picture is for Manitoba, because while Mr. Justice Wootton may have found the statistics in terms of ... MR. GO NICK: . . . prepared to answer a question? -- (Interjection) -- No.

He asked would the Member stand up to answer the question and I'm prepared to do that. MR. CHAIRMAN: ... River Heights lfhe yields the floor, he-does so. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, I'm not yielding the floor but if the Member for Crescent wood can indicate to me, in the debate so far, the specific statistics which would indicate the profit picture in Manitoba of this exploitation that is alleged, then I'm prepared to sit down to hear that information, and only yield on that basis. Now I'm assuming that's what he intended to do. If he's intending to speak, then this is fine; he can follow me afterwards. Mr.

Chairman, I'm suggesting . . . MR. BILTON: Mr. Chairman, is it clearly understood by the Chair as to what the • • ? MR. CHAIRMAN: I would leave it up to the judgment of other members, but lf some other member wishes to enter into the debate I'm certainly not going to stop him. I assume that the member is yielding the floor but cannot do so with any conditions. He takes his chances. MR. SPIVAK: Mr.

Chairman, in that case I will not yield the floor but I Look forward to the time v.hen the Member from Crescentwood will stand up and indicate the information we have in this House that indicates the percentage of profit of the companies in Manitoba and their degree of exploitation in the market place, because Mr. Chairman, if there is no degree of exploitation, and I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there is no evidence - there is evidence of profit, and I agree with the First Minister, there is nothing wrong with profit, but there is no evidence of exploitation.

There are, and without question, there are a number of situations which indicate that the industry in its relationship with people has had difficulty. Part of this is related to the v.hole legal procedure involved in the ... system, but Mr. Chairman, we don't have to wipe out the industry to achieve that. There is absolutely no reason to do that, and this then comes to the very basis of the issue of monopoly or not. And I would like to quote again from the First Minister.

"To make it a little more precise, this willingness to use the instrumentality of government is used with moderation in the sense that v.here there is a successful private enterprise that is serving the public interest, there should not be any wish to bring the matter under public ownership." Well, one has to assess the last two months, two and a half months, and determine v.hether there has been moderation used on the part of the government with respect to what's taken place. Mr. Speaker, not only have we seen a fantastic change ... MR. SCHREYER: Will the honourable member permit a question? MR.

SPIVAK: Yes, I will at the end. Not only have we seen a fantastic change in the basic positions of a !DlDlber of the members who seem at different times to be able to walk a tightrope and appear to be many things that they did not appear to be before, but we also

August 10, 1970 (MR.

SPIVAK cont 1d) ••••..• have an unbelievable situation that, as we approach the final decision on the blll, the government is furnishing more and more and more lDfor mation to try and give an indication of a different position than they basically had before, and this I suggest to you is the indication of the fact that they dld not approach the issue, the fundamental issue of taklng over the industry, with moderation but they took it on the 4407 basis that there was a public appeal that would be accepted, and that they could ram it through, and having rammed it through they would have accomplished their end, and the question that arises: well, what is their end? ~ __ __ Now, there are several possibilities and one can only speculate on them.

The possibil ities exist, and I have indicated before that for some it was a matter of mixing up the system, but there is another possiblllty that has to be assessed and that is the placing almost immedi ately into the hands of the government $30 million. Now, Mr. Chairman, $30 million is a large sum. of money. Even though it will not have to he paid out for a period of time, one could make the judgment that there will be a rollover of approximately $12 million to $15 mlllion- twleve to fifteen million dollars that will be in the hands of the treasury, and that could be used to great advantage. And Mr.

Speaker, maybe there's an argument for that but if there's an argument for that it does not fit into the basic propositions that the First-Minister expressed at the time he gave the interview to the Tribune last year of July 5th. Well, Mr. Chairman, there has been no evidence to suggest that a government monopoly wlll save any more to the public than can be saved if the government would undertake the regu lations, the control of the selling price-- I will say this again, Mr.

Chairman, that given the power, and if we had the power, and we took and controlled the selling price, we introduced a no-fault system, we in turn took the investment income of the insurance companies and put it as part of the total claim, a loss claim ratio to be paid, that on the basis of that, Mr. Chairman, we would save $6. 00 per person average in this province without any question, and there is no question on that, Mr. Chairman, because it's very obvious.

The area of the concern, the adversary system, the lawyer cost would be eliminated, the selling price can be regulated and controlled, in Vlhich case we control that profit margin. Now, I have indicated that the facts on the profit margin have not been indicated but a regulatory body can control the profit margin. We do this with milk. We control the price that the producer gets, we control the price that the broker gets, and we control the price that is paid by the consumer. We do that with the gas company. The gas company cannot go out and charge any price for gas. It has to prove its case.

It has to prove its case before the regu latory body and then that body makes the determination. Taxi cab fares, rail freight rates. My God, we know . . . MR. SCHREYER: Are you advocating that? MR. SPIVAK: I am advocating a regulatory body that will control the selling price of the insurance industry in this province, and I must tell you . . . MR. SCHREYER: All right. That's all I wanted to hear. MR. SPIVAK: I'm glad that's all you wanted to hear. I have only said this for the last two months; I don't know where you've been. This is not the first time that I have said this. MR. LAURENT L. DESJARDINS (St.

Boniface): That's right. MR. SPIVAK: That's right. But! must tell the Honourable Member for St. Boniface, when I first said this the government indicated a 20 percent savings, then they indicated a 15 to 20 percent saving; now we indicate a 10 to 12 percent at least. There is a big difference, a tremendous difference, because if we apply what the Premier has said, we must deal with moderation, "where there is successful private enterprise that is serving the public interest, there should not be any wish to bring this under public ownership." Now Mr.

Chairman, those words were a year ago, or approximately a year ago, and I suggest that eliminating the issue of compensation, which will have to be dealt with, coming to the basic proposition, it's not a question of a hang-up on public ownership or private ownership. The truth of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, the government has not presented a case at all for takeover of the industry, not only -- Mr. Chairman, I must say. HON. AL MACKLING, Q. C. (Attorney-General)(St. James): Shout a little louder. You've still got a weak case. Shout again. MR. SPIVAK: I'm not shouting because I have a weak case. I must say, Mr.

Chairman, that I again suggest to the Honourable Attorney-General and to the First Minister, there is no case that has been presented so far for government takeover. It's easy to use the catchword

4408 .Augut 10. 19'10 (MR. SPIVAK CODt'd) • that the government had to take over because it's a utility and we must compare this to utilities. because we have taken over public utilities, but again, I would like to refer, If I may, to the testimony that was presented by :Mr. Ken Singleton, because ... :MR. CHAIRMAN: . . . Interrupt the member and say that much of the debate that we are now hearing from both sides of the House is highly repetitious.

I don't wish to make a judgment on a particular member but I would like to say that I think all members of the House have listened to this debate for a considerable period of time and I would ask all members to cooperate and attempt to keep their remarks relevant and pertinent to the sections of the bill, because otherwise we will simply have the v.bole debate on each clause of the bill, and I think that's an Intolerable situation; so I would ask all members, and now specifically the Member for River Heights, to attempt to deal with clause (

z) alone and to leave out some of the other questions which are related to the entire issue of Bill 56. :MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Member for St. Bonlfacp and the Honour able Member for Churchill have stated their position, and it's my proposition that there is nothing In the positions that they have expressed that In any way justify the passing of a

section which would introduce a government monopoly. Now they may very well-- and my remarks are addressed not to them but to the House, but I hope that they will hear it as well, but I am sug gesting, Mr. Chairman, that this is the first occasion that I have had after they have made their presentation, to deal specifically with the question of government monopoly, and my pro position is a simple one. There is nothing that has been presented to this House which justifies or Indicates the necessity of a monopoly plan.

Now- (Interjections) -- Well, you know, the First Minister can say it's not true, and he then can make a presentation and we'll hear the same presentation that he has presented before, but I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is not so. Now unfortunately I can't find the specific reference to Mr. Singleton, but I think I can paraphrase it, a:rrllf there is any objection to my conclusions, and certainly someone will object to it, I'll try and fi:rrl the specific. When Mr.

Singleton was asked; "Do you believe that there will be a difference in the rates to be offered by a government plan?" he said no, he thought it would be the same rate. When he was asked then v.by, why -- well he indicated that he thought there would not be very much of a difference. :MR. GONICK: He did not. :MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. MR. SPIVAK: Well Mr. Chairman, this is my understanding as I have Indicated. MR. GONICK: Well, you're wrong. :MR. SPIVAK: As I indicated to the Member for Crescentwood, he can quote

chapter and verse and I'll quote

chapter and verse back at him. When he was asked, "Then why do we undertake a government monopoly?" he said, "So that the profit can go to the people." And then v.ben we asked, "Well, v.by then auto insurance? Why not bread?" he said, "Well, people have a choice - they can eat bread or they don't have to eat bread." :MR. ENNS: Some choice. :MR. SPIVAK: Then, Mr. Chairman, we then asked him and he said it's a question that where the government says there shall be compulsion, then the government has an obligation to fulfil that requirement.

So the next question that was asked, ''If there's compulsion that a person has to be bonded, does that mean that the government should enter Into the bonding service?" And that question went unanswered. The next question that was asked was the ques tion of why automobile insurance, and he said, "Because everyone In our style of life requires an automobile and it's a necessity. 11 Now Mr. Chairman, I want the honourable members opposite to know that in my opinion that they are going to disagree with me on this.

The logic that they have presented In arriving at a conclusion that government monopoly is necessary, is equal to the logic or the presenta tion of Mr. Singleton, which I do not believe can stand the proper test, because it is an Illog Ical, emotional, doctrinaire position, based on nothing- and that's a fact. Mr. Chairman, It's Interesting tonote- and I say this because Mr.

Singleton in his ·presentation also talked about corporate i~~rming and their hang-ups- and they have hang-ups and we know that, and there is nothing wrong with them having hang-ups or a position- but he based his presentation on the whole problem of corporate farming, and I suggest, Mr. Chair man, that the argument for a government monopoly does not exist. And the Honourable

August 10, 1970 4409 (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) ..... Member for St. Boniface and the Honourable Member for Churchlll have obviously made up their minds, and they seem to think that the First Minister In some way is going to come up with a great answer that may solve the issue of compensation, and while they are not here, let the records show, Mr. Chairman, that insofar- I'm sorry, the Honourable Member for St.

Boniface is here, one is here- let the records show that the issue of compensation, which is one that has to be discussed and fought on its merits, because I think that no matter what we may agree or disagree on on terms of the ideology that the gov ernment Intends to Incorporate by passing this bill, I think that we have a right to participate, to see to it that those people \\ho are displaced are in fact taken care of by government if they are entitled to it, and obviously from the presentations that were made there has to be a very flexible arrangement because the variations In presentations indicate the difficulties of trying to apply a rule-of<-thumb basis to terms of any klnd of adjustment as a result of the dislocation - it's obvious In this respect.

And while we may argue on that, that should not take away from the basic fundamental fact that there is nothing that's been presented for an alleged saving, a hoped-for saving of 10 or 11 percent, but not guaranteed in the bill because it can't be guaran teed In the blll, but a hoped-for saving of 10 or 11 percent would justify the government enter Ing into and taking over an Industry. "We lnltiate programs to protect people against exploitation in the market place. " Profit is not exploitation. There is no proof of exploitation other than profit that I know of.

Secondly, "against exploitation by the zealous minority who over the decades have been able to indulge In a bit of successful exploitation of their fellow human beings." There are abuses, and the insur ance company must be regulated, there is no question, and the adversary system must be changed, there is no question; and the selling price must be controlled or regulated, there is no question; and their investment income should be part of the total package. Of that there is no question.

But, "to make it a little more precise," to use the Premier's words ''this willing ness to use the instrumentality of government is used with moderation In the sense that where there is a successful private enterprise that is serving the public interest, there should not be any wish to bring that under public ownership. " And Mr.

Chairman, If the Premier would have applied his words to this situation, and if he really at the time this was introduced - and I have a great feeling that they did not understand it at the time that it was Introduced but rushed head long Into this -they could have . . . -- (Interjection)-- Yes. Well, I must say that If you suggested you understood it, then My God, why 35 amendments, 35 amendments to a 65-clause blll. . . ? MR. SCHREYER: May I ask the honourable member a question? MR. SPIVAK: At the end, and I'm almost flnlshed. MR. SCHREYER: At the end? All right. MR.

SPIVAK: We have another four or five amendments, that makes maybe a total of 40 amendments to about a 65-clause bill. Some of them are sub-amendments admittedly; some of them are only corrections; some of them are pretty basic. We have a new compensa tion program that was obviously not considered before, and Mr.

Chairman, we have no infor mation of what the government really Intends other than this blanket cheque that they want - this blank cheque that they want In terms of the regulations, and I suggest that if the govern ment had known now that by way of compensation it would reduce the amount of saving to a 10 or 11 percent, that they could have offered at least 10 or 11 percent, at least 10 or 11 percent, that means at least 10, 11, 12, but we are talking maybe minimums of 10, possibly--possibly 10 percent, possibly more. MR. ENNS: If the compensation is right it's five. MR. SPIVAK: Well Mr.

Chairman, let me suggest that if in fact the government had known that, they could have come to the people of Manitoba and they could have come to the Industry and they could have come to the agents and they could have Indicated that they were quite capable of saving the people the 10 or 11 or 12 percent by introducing all the things that I've suggested, and this would have been better, it would have accomplished the main thesis of \\hat he expressed in July 5th of 1969. So Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the fact that the Premier is to announce when we deal with the amendments on

Section 29, some great new revelation which is obviously going to change some people's minds and may make some of us extremely happy with the fact that we are now going to liquidate an Industry and take it over, notwithstanding all of that, Mr. Chair man, at this point in time there is nothing that has been presented so far that justifies a government monopoly position.

i L 4410 Aupst 1,.0, 19'70 MR. CBAIRKAN: The Honourable Mlnl8ter of Mtmlclpal Affairs. MR. SCHREYER: I am wondering if I could ask tbe previous speaker ODB question. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable First Mlnl8ter. MR. SCHREYER: The Honourable Member for River Heights indicated that he would answer some questions. Well, too many accumulated, Mr. Chairman, for me to be able to uk them now in a way that would be acceptable to the Chair so I'll just limit myself to one question.

Would he argue that if a particular industry is showing a modest profit, that it therefore necessarily is operating in a way that must be in the public interest, or would he admit that in certain circumstances an industry, even though it may be showing a modest return on investment might be so structured because of changing times that It's because of inherent internal arrangements that make it operate in a way that it cannot maximize a savings to the public and therefore cannot be in the maximum public interest? · MR. SPIVAK: Mr.

Chairman, I'm aware that industries operate at different profit levels, they have different factors; I'm aware that there are always peripheral items with respect to any industrial activity which may, in fact, cause profit in subsidiaries or in allied industries that may be under the control of the same group of people. I'm also aware of the fact that in our situation competWon is one of the most effective ways in which you enhance the opportunity to be able to malntaln a position that the public will in fact receive the maxi mum benefit.

But I am also aware, as I've indicated, that there are specific areas in which government has become involved to ensure that the selling price is controlled and the profit margin is controlled, and the best, of course, example we have is taxicabs. ·Taxicabs cannot charge in this province what they like. Taxicabs are regulated.

There are only so many licences that are allowed and in fact a rate increase has to be requested and has to be approved by the regulatory body \\ho will in fact maintain and see to it that the prices that are being charged are reasonable and the profit margin is related directly to the investment situation.

So I .accept that there are situations as the Premier indicated; but I also accept that there is a role that's an accepted role of government that has been introduced by Liberal and Conserv ative admlnlstratlons throughout this country, federally and provincially, which regulate the industries, which control their profit margin, and if we find a situation in which it would appear to be in the public interest to do something like this, then we should do it. Not take it over. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mlnlster of Industry and Commerce has a question? MR. EVANS: Yes. A question.

The Honourable Member for River Heights described the necessity for regulation and he referred to the control of profits and the control of selling prices, and I'd like to ask him this question: If government does as you suggest, if you en force all these regulations, regulations controlling selling prices, regulations controlling profits as you suggest, how can you then possibly call that particular industry or describe it as ''free" enterprise?

Surely you're not talking about- the issue therefore is not \\hether free enterprise should reign or not; surely you're talking about controlled enterprise; you're not talking about competitive enterprise. You might be talking about private enterprise but you're not talking about "free" enterprise because you're eliminating free. Would you not agree with that? MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, this is extremely interesting you know, because- (Inter jection)- No, whoever said it was free enterprise? Whoever said in our society that gov ernment doesn't control? I never have.

Let me tell the Honourable Mlnlster of Industry and Commerce - he said I have. He said, I have. If I have, and I know that one member of the New Democratic Party, or at least a supporter of the New Democratic Party, went into the library and tried to find all the speeches that I've made to determine whether in fact I ever made a statement on free enter prise and I think he was a little bit surprised to find that he couldn't find it. I may say to the Honourable Mlnlster of Industry and Commerce that I have not made that statement, but I have accepted the fact that there is a control by government.

I wonder if the Honourable Mlnlster of Industry and Commerce is aware, and he should be, of how the gas utilities are controlled and of the fact that the gas utility in order to set a price for delivery to a certain area must prove its cost and has a profit margin that's fixed on it; and Mr. Speaker, depending on consumption, depending on other factors, can have that price changed and varied and even modified to a point \\here it may be less than what it was agreed to before. -- (Interjection) - Why not own it? Well, that's very interesting, Mr. Chairman, because if we really go back

August 10, 1970 4411 (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) • . . .. to the original thesis of the First Minister, not what he said as a social democrat, but when he was in the House, he's one who said we should own it, and he's one who believes that the gas company should be owned. And if I'm incorrect on that I'll sit down, but I think I read. . . MR. CHERNIACK: Sit down anyway. MR. SPIVAK: No, I won't sit down, not yet, because I want the First Minister to indicate that I'm wrong; I don't think I am.

I think the First Minister in his days in Opposition articu lated pretty eloquently the proposition that the gas companies should be a public utility. MR. SCHREYER: . . . accept a question? Does he realize that in those days \\hen I was making speeches about public ownership of utilities, including natural gas distribution, that I was 22 years old, and maybe that has some bearing on it. Anyway I was making the point \\hich I don't think the honourable member would disagree with, and that is that utilities which are in their nature natural monopoly should be publicly owned. Does he disagree with that? MR.

SPIVAK: Well, that's very interesting, because I've already quoted the Wootton Commission and I have to read it again because the First Minister obviously didn't read it or didn't hear it.· The Wootton Commission suggested that the industry is not a natural monopoly. - (Interjection) - The First Minister asked if I should give him the page number. Page 729, middle of the paragraph and I quote: ''Effective competition is in fact attainable in the automo- bile insurance and that industry is not a natural monopoly." Are you satisfied? MR. SCHREYER: No. MR.

CHERNIACK: Did the honourl!hle member say that he was in favour of nationalizing a gas utility? MR. SPIVAK: I am used to the antics of the Honourable Mlnlster of Finance who would like now to change a little bit of the tenor of what's happened and maybe push it onto something else. I said, Mr. Chairman, that the First Mlnlster, \\hen he was in Opposition indicated that in his belief the gas utillty should be owned by the state. Now he's had one year. It's not the gas utility that's being nationalized, it's the private auto insurance industry and I must say, Mr.

Chairman. . . but of course the very significant thing that's happened, the very slgnJfl- . cant thing that's happened, and I think there's a consistency, there's a consistency with his position on Page 4, that where exploitation does not occur there has to be moderation in connec tion with nationalization of the industry and there's not the exploitation because it's controlled, it's regulated; and surely if we apply the same logic and regulate the insurance industry then with moderation we can apply the words of the Mlnlster and not have to nationalize it. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I earlier recognized the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Does the Member for Crescentwood have a question? May I also point out to all members that they do not have to ask questions at this point but may enter the debate. The Honourable Member for Crescentwood. MR. GONICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The member expresses great concern over excessive profits and I wonder if he would tell the House whether he regards the 15 percent return on equity that he earns at International Inn as being excessive. MR. SPIVAK: Mr.

Chairman, that's an extremely interesting argument on the part of the Member for Crescentwood. First of all, it would be very interesting for me to know how he knows any information in terms of a private corporation. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that's always been bothering members on this side is the nature of the profits the Canadian Dimension makes. And as a matter of fact, as a practising ... MR. GONICK: Mr. Chairman, if he'll re-veal his profits, I'll reveal mine. MR. SPIVAK: Well, Mr.

Chairman, it would be interesting- I may be inclined to re-veal percentages and I wonder \\hether he'll be inclined to reveal his percentages. Mr. Chairman, it's very interesting. I consider the Member for Crescentwood a very successful private entre preneur. He probably is the most successful private entrepreneur on the other side, and I wonder how he would feel if the government in their wisdom because they did not like publica tions similar to Canadian Dimension Ml.o expressed views similar . . .

Not only would the government say You don't have to buy it, the government would say, We don't want it, because we know what's best and we'll take over and we'll nationalize that. I wonder what his reaction would be to that, and I wonder how he would feel if he was put in a position of a minority having to lose something that he had developed and built up and \\hich was providing an income for him and was giving him the opportunity for self-expression; I wonder really whether at that polDt he

4412 August 10, 19'10 (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) . . . . . wouldn't have the same feelJDg of anger and frustration and disgust at a society Milch was prepared to move in such a direction, to take something away from him that he had worked for. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mlnlster of Municipal Affairs. -- (Interjection) - yield the floor or yield to a question? The Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre. MR. BUD BOYCE (Winnipeg Centre): Well, we don't need a big gun like that to refute the arguments of the Member for River Heights, that's for sure.

But I have listened with great interest to the debate but I'd like to add a contribution. When I was over in Athens I had a chance to talk to the Oracle at Delphi and the Delphi told me ,Bud, you better get your butt home because- (Interjection) --the Member for River Heights is getting everybody all confused again; the master of distortion. But this is the first opportunity I've had to enter the debate and I would just like to express my thanks to the Mem ber for La Verendrye and to assure him that there was no question in my mind about the break ing of pairs.

But I would like to just mention, too, that with all due respect to the Member for St. Boniface, I speak for the people in Winnipeg Centre by a substantial majority in the last election, and I don't need any assistance from my honourable friend whom I've known for some 30 years. One of the things I had an opportunity, with the indulgence of this Legislature to do in past months was to become involved with some terrific people from all over the world- and I'm not going to open this note right now. It seems I'm either talklng about beer troughs or hosenshclitz but you know • . . I wlll keep it short.

He's kicked me out of the House three times trying to keep me down and not entering the debate because it is serious. May I, before I continue, just say one of the things that struck me after coming back, and I was out of it for a period of five weeks and as I mentioned this to my colleagues-- well the Member for River Heights he's afraid of me, I don't know why. Because he can't debate, he doesn't know the meaning of the word. But anyway to the point- I must compliment members- I know, I've been reading some of these transcripts here of the hearings and boy it was a lulu.

I'm glad in a way that I wasn't here because I have got rather a short fuse, and people are to be commended, that they are sitting here and they're talking at all at this point in the game.

But just let me point out one of the things that was driven home to me by the Vice President of the Motorola Corporation who by no far stretch of the imagination is a Socialist, and he was talking about communication, people communicating and the need for better means of communication, and he was talking about noise; the selection of information necessary for decision; and really this is one of the reasons why I have been beating the drum for a Human Resource Council for the Legislature, not for the government, but for members of the Legis lature, so they can assimilate information, any kind of information, because you can take any set of statistics and do with them what you want- like the Member for River Heights keeps insisting, no evidence has been presented before this body.

Well, there's been ample evidence of all kinds presented to this body, and as the Premier pointed out, it becomes a matter of judgment. As the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources pointed out, it becomes a matter of judgment. When they say adequate information to arrive at a decision, what is involved?

No matter how much chaff you throw up, no matter how much noise you make, no matter how much inter ference that's presented in this debate- I think it was summed up succinctly by the First Min ister when he said the other day- and may I just to refresh people's memory, so perhaps we can get this back in its proper perspective and vote on the darn thing. I'm sorry? -- (Inter je.ctlon) -- Maybe I should wave at the galleries like the Member from Lakeside. If you want to say something, stand up. MR. ENNS: Were you inviting me? MR. BOYCE.: Beg pardon? MR. ENNS: Were you invltlng me? MR.

BOYCE: No, you look better sitting down, especially when you turn around. But the Premier said, I think a rational analysis- and people \\oho are reading this, and I've been talking to people in the constituency and they're giving me back this information, that they think it is a rational analysis. ''I thl.nk a rationz.l analysis can best be made by dividing the issue of automobile insurance into three main topics" - and this he proceeded to do. But here again people keep throwing chaff in, chaff in. What 1.s the best possible way to handle automobile insurance so the public receives the

August 10, 1970 4413 (MR. BOYCE cont'd.) . . . . . fairest combination of rates and coverage? That is the first question; and it's strictly in keeping with the speech that the Member for River Heights read. What is the fairest rates and coverage as far as the populace is concerned, as far as the people are concerned? No. 2. What is the most desirable way of making that insurance available to the public, keeping in mind existing practices and the various contentions as to the desirability of personal service? The third.

How can the government minimize any dislocation that can be caused in changing from an old system to a new one? Now, before this bill left caucus - maybe some people are under the impression that there's one member of this House who was the only advo cate of some compensation for people v.ho were dislocated. I'm sorry, but Wordsworth brought this forward a long time ago as a matter of the old CCF policy. This has been a policy of the CCF and the New Democratic Party for a long time. May I just recount a personal incident. This is v.hy the Member from Rl ver Heights· calls me a dlslllusloned capitalist.

At one particular time I had three restaurants in the City of Winnipeg. Yeah, I did. If you want to see profit and loss statements I can show you a lulu. But you know I'll tell you v.here one of the Greasy Spoons was; it was on the corner of Wllllam and Arlington, it was called The Five Corners. Why, because v.hen I bought the building the guy before me called it Five Corners, I could never figure it out. But in 1959 it was a good business; in 1960 I had a chance to sell it and make money, but no I extrapolated and I figured I'd do better, so I didn't sell the darn thing.

Welllf I had had any sense - this is when they brought in zoning and I would have gone down to the zoning office and seen that the transit com panies were moving out to St. James, they pulled off Arlington Street, out from underneath the subway, pulled out. As a result my business started to go down and down and down. So it got to the point, Metro came along and they put up No Parking signs. Well I bucked that because that was the. straw that broke the camel's back. On that particular location I lost $15, 000.

So when you're talking abour relocation and adjustment - when I say I lost $15,000, that's what I lost- they paid 100 cents on the dollar, except for two idiots who couldn't walt, they sued me and settled for twenty. And it took my wife and I five years to adjust to that situation.

So when we're talking about compensation to people, I know exactly what they're talking about, I've been through it; and I'm not trying to make myself a hero or anything else; but for somebody to stand up here and tell you that they're the conscience of the people of Manitoba and they represent the people of Manitoba, well I just want people to know, and I want my constituents to know that I took them at their word.

When they said that they were going to put me in office I ran on the platform of public automobile insurance, and with all due respect to the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, they asked me several ques tions and I said I don't know v.hat I will do, because I'm really not conversed in that particular area, but I tell you, I'll do my damnest to find out and I'll vote in your interests, not in my own. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 1. The Honourable Member for Souris-Killarney. MR. McKELLAR: Mr. Chairman, I'djustliketosaya few words here before we vote on this very important subject matter. We have already had one vote on a similar motion here today. I would like to say a few words before we proceed. We have heard a lot today about how much the government are going to save the people of Manitoba; saving- that's the great No. 1 project of the government for 1970- Centennial year.

Some of the questions that I asked during second reading of this bill have never been answered and I would hope that some where along the line, before the bill gets third reading the government will answer these questions. Under the present system now insurance companies are told that they have to pay sales tax on all physical damage claims, that includes labour, and it was mentioned in the public utllltles committee in the constituency of Churchlll or Thompson, I forget which one it was, labour costs are now presently $12. 00 an hour in the body shops.

I know the men only get half of it, that's what they get, and the shop gets half; but sales tax is applied to labour costs as well as to the physical damage parts themselves. Another very important subject matter of which I am really concerned about 1s medical and hospitalization costs. The insurance companies presently have to pay these costs to the medical corporation for people 'MI.o are injured in automobile accidents. I'm wondering 1too, lf the government is going to continue this policy or are they going to do like they do in

4414 Augujt 10, 19'10 (MR. 'McDLLAB OGat'd) • . . Saskatchewan and let the corporation pay for all medical and hospitalization costs that are paid for claims in the automobile accidents themselves.· This is • complete different pollcy presently in Saskatchewan to what it is in 'Manitoba right today.

Now \\e have heard a lot today from the Honourable Member for Crescentwood how he lectured us on how efficient the government was going to be and the savings entailed. ' Now I have before me a number of financial statements of companies that have done business in Canada, British companies, American companies and Manitoba companies, of which their experience has been anywhere from 65 percent up to 100 percent or greater on claims that were paid to individuals, leaving a lot of them in a desperate position.

The First 'Minister mentioned in his statement that he is going to guarantee these people a saving if his government takes over this great industry that's presently conducted, some of which is by Manitoba local based companies. Now the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre was greatly concerned tonight about his position and before \\e vote I would just like to bring to the attention of the government members again the position of the Wawanesa people.

They are concerned, they're still co~r cerned, I talked to them tonight; and they would like to show their concern through myself, to each one of you here tonight before you vote on this

section of the bill, because I think this is the last chance we get to vote on this

section before we vote on the total bill itself going back into third reading. As I mentio~d in my speech, I think, last week, this company is not one of those that you talk about; it's a company run by policyholders; it's a company whose policyholders elect their Directorate. They in tnrn hold their annual meetings, they're open to the public every year.

I cannot see for the life of me, once again, why you as members of the government are willing to throw out this great company in the Province of Manitoba, throw it to the wind; and this is what you're doing when you vote for the nationalization of this great industry in the Province of Manitoba. Now 'Mr. Chairman, we have heard about everything today, and I think that each one of us here if we have a heart, will look at these people that are being affected, and I mean look at them. It's all right to pass a bill and say to the people six months later, we're going to do something for you next June.

These people are not that type of people; they want to know today, and I mean today, before we pass this bill, how they're going to be affected, because they have to make plans. You can't expect these people -- (Interjection) -- I can't even hear you. I don't know what you're saying. But you can't expect these people who have families and responslbillties to these famllles to be left in the lurch on June 30th. They have responsi billty to their policyholders till June 30th; on the 1st of July, where are they going?

How do they know how they're going to sell package policies, because it might be impossible, because therewouldbeveryfewcompaniesinthebusinessherein Manitoba after the 30th of June. I would hope, sincerely hope, that members of the government along with the two independent mem bers here in our House, would give this serious consideration before they decide their final vote on Committee of the Whole and also on third reading. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. . HON. HOWARD R.

PAWLEY (Minister of Municipal Affairs)(Selkirk): There are just two very short points that I feel should be made in answer to my honourable friend from Sour!&- Killarney. First, in connection with the sales tax, he had indicated that he had asked this question in second reading, hadn't received the answer. There would be absolutely no change here. It would require a change in the Revenue Tax Act. The Crown corporation would be required to pay sales tax llke any other insurance company.

He also raised the question of subrogation and certainly there is no intention and nothing in the bill that spells out any change in respect to subrogation in the Province of Manitoba; so in respect to those two specific questions I think that tftey can be very fairly answered here and now.

He's asked a question in respect to employees of Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company that might be laid off due to the change, and this, too, was answered in the Premier's address; dealing with the fact that if anybody was displaced, that worked in Wawanesa for the company, due to the !ntrGduction of this plan they wou.ld cartainly, and if this was the cause, certainly they would have a position with the public corporation in its headquarters in the City of Brandon. MR. McKELLAR: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has answered a number of the questions,

August 10, 1970 4415 (MR. McKELLAR cont'd.) but the one question that I - maybe I didn't make myself clear; But I'm referring to the citizens of Wawanesa who are an incorporated village, who have a large responsibility for debentures and feel that if a goodly part of their assessment is taken away from them, they'd be unable for the remainder to meet their responsibilities. Along with that, they have a brand new school, three-quarters of a million or more new school; they have a new Senior Citizens Home, so all these are part and parcel of the total community.

And I also after talking to a man that owns a restaurant, Saturday Night in Wawanesa, he explained that his total investment in that restaurant, $50,000, is going to be left to the wind because he would have no more business. These are some of the problems that the people, the citizens of Wawanesa are concerned with, and yet they have never received an answer rega-rding - they have visited you, Mr.

Minister, they have visited you, they put up a proposition to you, and I know you replied to them that you couldn't deal with them at that time till the bill was passed; but these people are greatly concerned right now as to their future. MR. CHAmMAN:

Section 1 (z) --The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, I d like to participate in the debate at this point on this item. I want to raise two or three points that I think have been important, that have arisen primarily out of the Public Utilities sessions and should be brought up at this time during this stage of the debate. The major point is the point about a cost-benefit study since a great deal of the argument revolves around the economics of a government plan versus a private operated plan.

In the statement made by the Minister of Mines and Resources this morning the Minister made a considerable case about a statement made in Saskatchewan about a $5 million savings to the people of Saskatchewan as a result of the government plan, and made the analogy that this would likewise be a $5 million - implied that it would be a 5 million dollar saving for the people of Manitoba as well. Mr.

Chairman, one of the very bothersome things about the whole debate has been the entire lack of inadequate cost-benefit study that could be put before, not oriy the members of the Legislature, but before the public at large who themselves are continually asking questions of the members, and other people I presume as well, to find out what is in the government automobile insurance plan. Well first of all we haven't really had an adequate cost-benefit study.

The Pawley Com mission report that was presented said that this had not been done and they could not present a recommendation based on cost-benefit in their report. And since that time the government has not seen fit either to bring in a cost-benefit study except to look at the loss ratios in the different provinces. Mr. Chairman, the evidence that was given by the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources this morning indicated the loss ratio in Saskatchewan alone would bring about a benefit of $5 million.

I'm presuming that he based that on the 33 1/2 million dollar sales of insurance in Saskatchewan which are the government plan plus the supplememtary plan sold by private insurers and by the government. And in addition to that if you add up the other charges that are made by the licensing authority in Saskatchewan, you have in addition to that in round figures charges for convictions which go to the Licensing Branch; you have a surcharge on young drivers and you have a drivers' license premium over and above the regular driver's license that is adde·d in as well.

You have insurance payments to the Hospital Commission that go in Manitoba, which amount to some $300,000 in Manitoba, therefore it would be proportion ately higher in Saskatchewan, probably 350,000, according to the population. And in addition to that you've got this factor that's hard to tie down but which was evident in the Public Utilities Committee hearings, of about 3 1/2 percent of premiums that go to the cost of carrying credit, which are unpaid bills, and the interest on carrying charges which are not chargeable under the Insurance Act but are in fact carried by the various agents. Mr.

Chairman, if you add those all up, the conviction surcharges in Saskatchewan come to about 2. 2 million; the surcharge on young drivers comes to 200, 000; the drivers' license premiums come to a million four; and you can add roughly $350,000 in for the hospital costs which are paid by the Hospital Commission in Saskatchewan and not by the insurance commis sion; and without adding in any cost of credit -which I'm assuming 3 1/2 percent is fairly accurate - carried by the agents -without adding that in that adds . . . MR. PAWLEY: Would the member permit a question? MR.

CRAIK: Well, if you'd wait till I'm finished my

summary here, I'd be very happy to give it. If you add that up, it works out to about $4.4 million, that's without the cost of carrying

4416 1\ugust 10, 1970 (MR. CRAIK cont'd.) .•... credit which is carried by the various insurance agents about Manitoba. This is pretty close to the $5 million, as I see it, that was made by the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources. -- (Interjection) --Well, if I'm wrong I stand corrected. But Mr. Chairman, what I'm doing, what I'm asking ... MR. GREEN: •.. and I read his figure and I gave the calculation on which it was based. Mr. Boldt is the Minister in Saskatchewan. MR. CRAIK: Yes, I'm prepared to accept that the statement was made by Mr. Boldt, I'm also prepared to .. . MR. GREEN: .. . MR.

CRAIK: No, I'm not saying he's a liar. I'm just saying you're quoting figures that are not in context, because you cannot . . . MR. GREEN: ... MR. CRAIK: Conviction surcharges in Manitoba go into premiums on the rating system which insurance companies have. -- (Interjection) -- Mr. Boldt presumably did not take it into consideration and I don't think the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources took it into consideration. I think he took the loss ratio as indicated in statistics which does not include those factors.

It includes the premiums paid for automobile insurance, not the premiums going to the licensing authority itself. So, Mr. Chairman, the point l' m trying to make is that the o'lly evidence we have of a cost-benefit nature which works out the average cost of an automobile policy in Saskatchewan and the average cost of a policy in Manitoba, on the basis of including those, indicates that the costs are roughly the same. They're not even the $6.00 difference that was conceded by the member for River Heights. They're almost exactly the same.

Now, if you added to that additionally the fact that in Saskatchewan 30 percent of your population is farm population and in Manitoba 17 percent is farm population, the statistics are on the favourable side as far as the cost of insurance is concerned in Manitoba, because it's a well known fact that the insurance costs or losses, the claims in rural Manitoba are much less than they are in the urban area. Now, Mr. Chairman, again let me reiterate, at no time during this whole argument have we had an adequate cost-benefit study.

We have had quoted loss ratios out of the insur ance book, but we have not had a detailed cost-benefit study presented to us to prove that the average cost of automobile insurance in Manitoba is going to be less.

As a matter of fact, if they follow the same course as Saskatchewan where you have conviction surcharges that may go up to, whatever they are, $150.00 or more -- and incidentally the information I'm quoting was information that was given at the Public Utilities Committee --if you add in these cost factors you have a jumble of costs for insurance that are probably going to amount up to the same sort of variety that are now existent in Manitoba.

But in a nutshell, the essence of the story that comes out of the cost-benefit study, and· the only one of any substance that this Legislature or members have received, indicates that the cost per average vehicle in Manitoba now are roughly the same as Saskatchewan and pro bably one or two dollars less in Manitoba than they are in Saskatchewan; and the counter evi dence that we get is only the loss ratio that the government quotes from the insurance statistics and some obscure statement made by a person in Saskatchewan whose statement is not qualified, does not indicate what it includes, whether it includes the surcharges, the hospital costs and the driver's license premiums that are charged.

So without this how can we compare it? But again, the best evidence we have is that there is no. cost saving by going to public insurance in Manitoba, and still the government expects us to buy this bland statement, substantiated in adequately, that the cost saving in Manitoba should be at least 10 or 11 percent and might be 15, and so on. Now also the argument that the government cannot present statistics because they're working on 1971 is no argument at all. They could have been presented equally as well to the people of Manitoba on the basis of 1970 rates.

There is nothing that says that you have to work on 1971 rates at this time. In order to sell the product, sell the plan to the people of Manitoba, it could easily have been done -- let's. say if it were done for 1970, it probably could easily be done for 1971 when that time came, buL again, we still haven't got it. So what we have is a plan presented by the government which does not present the details either as to cost-benefit nor details spelled out to the automobile owners in Manitoba. Now in addition to that, Mr. Chairman, there is another point I want to make and that is

August 10, 1970 4417 (MR. CRAIK cont'd.) . as to whether or not a government board can operate this plan more efficiently than the private sector can. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the honourable member dealing with the general question or is he dealing with the question of the board, which is another

section of the bill? MR. CRAIK: I'm coming down to the compulsory aspect of it, Mr. Chairman. I think that there probably is a large segment of the population of Manitoba who will buy the fact that compulsory insurance is desirable, and I think the vast majority want it to be compulsory. I think a great large segment of the population are unsatisfied with the judgment fund, if we can put it that way, but I think the large segment believe that public liability insurance is a must.

I think that a large segment would probably buy the fact even that ifpartofthiswer~part and parcel of the license, that it would be an acceptable fact; but I think that a very much larger proportion of the population does not feel that the government has any business telling them that theyhavetobuy compulsory collision insurance; Tte cases and varieties of drivers are just too great to put everybody into the same package.

I've heard over and over again the argument that the person that can afford to drive· two cars can afford to pay the same rate of insurance on his second car and has to carry collision and make up for the person who has only one car. Well. let me point out to those that put forth this argument that there are a great many people who drive a second car by necessity. There. are a great many people who drive old cars, cars that are 10 years old, 15 years old, who carry only public liability and have it only as a matter of necessity, and probably only:.drive it a thousand or two thousand miles a year.

But under the government plan, from what we can gain, that person that has that old clunker, that wants to use it to go to the grocery store or to go to the field or to go someplace else that's not on business, but it's probably grocery shop ping, is going to have to pay the same insurance, from what we can gather, as the person who is driving his Rolls Royce for business purposes. Now is that equity? But still this comes under a compulsory government plan. And who are you protecting? You're presumabley pro tecting the person against himself. Well, is it not his business if he wants to insure his clun ker?

The government says no, it's our business if you want to insure your car for yourself. Well maybe he wants to write his car off; his car's only worth $200.00. This is part and par cel of the plan that was presented to us. This is essentially the part that gets into the area of individual freedom, and the govern ment has not even taken the trouble to try and differentiate between what is the individual's freedom to protect himself and where he loses that freedom to protect somebody else.

There has been no attempt to differentiate between these two areas and there's a pretty distinct dif ference and I would hope that before this debate is finished that these are clearly resolved and these areas are in fact spelled out in the bill that is before us, so that if in fact we are going to be dragged in unwillingly into an insurance scheme which the majority of Manitobans, I'm convinced, do not want - and again I'm sure if it was put to a referendum they would turn it down - if we're going to be dragged into it unwillingly, then I suggest that at least we give pretty strong consideration to cutting back so that we're not infringing on the right of an individual to protect his own interests but legislating to protect the rights of others that he is endangering.

Mr. Chairman, in the House of Commons there was a statement once made that said there is a tendency, human nature being what it is, for boards or administrative bodies to start making free with other people's money. We can see how that has happened with the Canadian Wheat Board. Mr. Chairman, that statement was made in the House of Commons by the then member for Selkirk who is now the First Minister of Manitoba.

Now, I think that veryusefulbit of information should be brought back to haunt the First Minister as he looks. at setting up another administrative body to do the job for people in the Province of Manitoba which will have powers that are as great, probably, as the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board; but I would suggest to him that if this is a dangerous tendency of human nature, that perhaps the forces of the profit and loss statement may in fact be the force that keeps the private indus try competitive with the public industry despite the fact that they're having to pay added admini strative costs that the government does not foresee in its plan.

I think the cost benefit study that I've quoted and which was given in Public Utilities Committee, is probably accurate in that these costs as indicated have been overlooked in stating the true costs of insurance, when you add in all the factors which amount to about, between four and five million dollars in Saskat chewan that are not included. I suggest that that combined with the fact that public bodies by the admission of the First Minister at an earlier stage of his career tend to make free with

4418 ·(MR. CRAIK cont'd.) •••.• other people's money, that this be taken and given.furtber con-· sideration.

I'm sure the pressures and heats of this legislative session have probably allowed this particular thought to slip the First Minister's mind and with this reminder he might go back and read the federal Hansard, Page 5273 of 1969 and he can dig up th1s quote which he made when he was talking about the Manitoba Freshwater Fish Marketing Board; and I'm sure that since he's •.• --(Interjections) -- I think I should read it, this is in the debate with respect to the Manitoba Freshwater Fish Marketing Board- and just so I put it in complete context, the First Minister said at that time: "I have also one further argument to advance in support of the contention that there is some fishermen among the membership of the Board of Directors." Now I'm not sure that we have a fisherman on the Board of Directors yet.

A MEMBER: No. MR. CRAIK: Do we have a fisherman on the Board of Directors? A MEMBER: I think so. MR. CRAIK: The fishermen don't seem to think so. There is a tendency, human nature being what it is, for boards or administrative bodies to start making free with other people •s money. We can see how that has happened with the Canadian Wheat Board. -- (Interjection) - Well, the Canadian Wheat Board and Manitoba insurance office, I'm sure, can develop into the same sort of scoundrel that the Canadian Wheat Board developed into in the eyes of the First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Would the member permit a question? MR.

CRAIK: Certainly. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: My question is not intended to deny that statement that the honourable member quoted from Hansard, but rather to ask him whether he would not agree that talking about human nature, the tendency of human nature, that it could apply to those not only on boards or commission, but could also apply to those who are, for example, on the executive of any corporation? I'm talking about the tendency of human nature and it doesn't matter much whether it's taxpayers' dollars or consumers' dollars, the phenomena is the same. MR.

CRAIK: I had a great deal of respect for the statement which you made. I happen to agree with the statement you made in the House of Commons, but I feel that ... ("Interjec tion) -- We liked it the way it was, it suited perfectly. I think it suits monolithic structures. I don't think that it's true in the smaller structures where your board of directors is in fact in some degree of competition one with the other; and also with your smaller structures or your board of directors, such as your co-ops and your mutuals, do have a certain degree of com munication, direct communication with policyholders.

Once you get to the monolithic structure that you're going to have with the massive single government insurance office, you're getting away from the principle, and the dollar savings as indicated, aren't there, and the people don't want, haven't demonstrated an interest really of having this. In fact I'm sure in my own people I represent -I know that my survey is adequate for purposes of public opinion - they don't want it; they're two, three to one against. Now Professor Hicks says it's 10 for, 10 against and 80 percent are pragmatic. I don't really believe that's true.

I believe that there's a large pragmatic body about the issue, but I believe that the number that are against it supersede those that are for it by several times; · and if you put it to a referendum, which could easily be done, if you send it out with the license plates next Janua:cy, February, you would soon find out whether the people who have to pay for this, which is the motoring public, are in fact in favour of having a plan. Do they want PL and PD, a minimum amount covered by everybody that gets a license? Do they want collision? Do they want no-fault? You can give them the alternatives.

The people know what they have, they know what they're getting. Give them a chance to answer. Don't give them something they don't want. They don't know now. I can tell you my neighbor who drives a 158 Ford, drives it 1, 000 miles a year, drives it to the grocery store only because he's a mile from the grocery store and his wife has to have it. He didn't know he had to pay collision insurance, which he hasn't carried for many years, because there's no need for it, but he's going to have to pay for it if the full intent of the bill goes through such as indicated by the Mintster of Municipal Affairs.

Now why should he carry it if he doesn •t want it and doesn't need it? It doesn't do anybody any good but himself but he's already decided that he doesn't need it, still he's going to have to have it. And the farmer's in the same boat. The farmer who has his farm truck or maybe a car that he drives only to town, drives only a few thousand miles a year is in the same boat. He doesn't want to carry

...-. AuguBt 10, 1~70 4419 (MR. CRAIK cont'd.) ..... collision. A person that drives for business is entirely different. And the other question is, whether in fact the fellow that is using his car for this J>llrPO&e should be paying the same rate of insurance for his collision as the high risk younger age group that is paying a high premium now.

I think that inevitably you're going to end up with the varied structure of premium rates that you now have in the industry and you're not going to bring the equity that you tend to try and mesmerize everybody into by talking about flat rating and equity for all, because it is not in fact that. Now the final point, Mr. Chairman, if I can make it, is with regard to the compensation plan that we're talking about.

We've had a number of speeches in the last couple of days from the government side regarding the compensation plan and there's always very careful avoidance of the analogy that is the logical one, which is South Indian Lake. It was pointed to by the Member for Churchill this afternoon that Manitoba Hydro went for several years, did not pro vide or look out for the people and this had to be done by the government.

Now it's a fact that that compensation plan was presented and figured out before any decision was going to be made by the government regardL'lg South Indian Lake; and it was clear, and it was spelled out, and it worked out to a million dollars for sixty families. A million dollars for roughly sixty fami lies, which is an awful lot of money. Does that work out to $15, 000 a. family? $15,000 a family or more. And here we have an industry which is being put out of business and the government is refusing to do anything more than to hint at an advisory board, take it under consideration and so on.

Well is there a reason on earth why the compensation cannot be spelled out now? You know right now that if you had to buy out the industry in Manitoba what the limits are as far as your costs are concerned. If you had to buy out the industry at the formula that is used In the industry it's two times the annual growth; two times the annual growth works out to roughly $8 million. If you use the same sort of plan that is used in expropriation which usually pays a little better than that, you're probably talking about an outside figure of around $10 million. Now Mr.

Chairman, why is the government not coming out and saying, it's purely a matter of the dollars. The Premier's original proposal was something less than a mUlion dollars. It was entirely Inadequate. Now he's talking about an advisory board. But the facts are known, the costs are known. Why doesn't the government say now? Is an advisory board actually going to do that much or are they not? I contend that the government knows now what they're going to do as far as compensation is concerned; and 1f they do know, why don't they say so.

They know that if they buy the industry out at the going rate that it's going to cost them upwards to $10 mllllon- or some other negotiated figure, just so we don't try and set a figure at this point- we're talking clearly from outside evidence. The gro\\ih premium, the doubling of it, what would normally be paid for the business, and v.bat _ would be paid 1f a person were putting through a high way and expropriating the business that they went by or went through, as the case may be.

Now you can use all the analogies you like, but the most direct one is the analogy of South Indian Lake; and if you're going to work out a compensation program, Mr. Chairman, if you work out anything less than the program, or less considerate than was worked ont for the residents of South Indian Lake, you don't deserve the support of the 'members of this Legislature that has been indicated to you at this time. . . • •. Continued on next page

4420 August 10, 1970 MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member. for Lakeside. MR. E NNS: Mr. Speaker, when I left the ranch this morning . - (Interjection) -- No, this morning, I told my wife I was going to tell the government why they shouldn't get into a monopoly government position, and we •ve not arrived at that point, Mr. Chairman, where we are dealing with Clause (

z) of the bill, whcih sets out the universal compulsory insurance scheme that's before us. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take a bit of time and describe to you the events of the last month and the real reason why it took a month. MR. CHAIRMAN: Again I would point out to the honourable member, as I have to others, and will to others, that he should be comparing the merits or demerits of a universal compul sory automobile insurance plan, I suppose to the present scheme, and should not perhaps give us a historical recounting or range too broadly in his presentation. I would ask him to attempt to stick to the point. MR.

ENNS: Well Mr. Chairman, you know how I follow your bidding and that my com ments will be fresh and new and to the point that we're dealing with, the particular clause of the bill. I recognize that there has been some repetition from time to time on various matters, but - you see I want to point out to those two members that are being preoccupied, and for once I wish the Member from River Heights would sit down and let me speak to the honourable mem ber that I'm trying to address, the Member from Churchill, through others. I want to say to you, Mr.

Chairman, and I didn't mean to frighten you by suggesting that I was going to describe the events of the last month, the 70 hours or some in Public utilities. And what really consumed all that time? It was the question of compensation, and what brought about the whole question of compensation was the monopoly position that the government was indicating it was going to assume in this particular industry. So my remarks are going to be right to the point, Mr. Chairman, because we're dealing with a

section that sets out the monop oly

section in definition, and I want to indicate to them how we could have all been enjoying per haps even a few weeks, while maybe not in Greece, but certainly somewhere on vacation or maybe at home on our farms or other businesses, had the government seen fit, had the govern ment seen fit - you know, we've come over the hurdle, we now realize that this government is . MR. BOYCE: I heard you, Harry. I beard you. MR.

ENNS: ... determined to introduce a government-run auto insurance scheme, and you could have expected at the Utilities Committee, the severe reservations expressed by those already in industry; but what did we hear, Mr.

Chairman, what did we hear, from virtually every independent agent that come before us, from virtually every industry spokesman that came before us -- let's remember, some of these agents were - you know, they were fairly modest individuals-- when one asked.the question, as asked so many times, would they have any objections, or would they be prepared to compete with the government if that competition were allowed. They were also asked, would they demand, would they ask for any compensation, any compensation, if this monopoly feature of the bill were not introduced. And always, Mr. Chairman, always Mr.

Chairman, or invariably always - I think there were one or two excep tions -but invariably the reply was, they would be prepared to compete with the government; and if the government plan was as sound and as superior as it was in its attraction to the mo toring public of Manitoba, well that's part of the way of life that the private entrepreneur has long ago learned to appreciate, and if his services can't compete with those of somebody else, and in this case the government of Manitoba- tough apples, he's out of business.

And there would be no claim against the public treasurey, no claim against the public purse for compensa tion or other such matters. And, Mr. Chairman, we would not have had, we would not have had those 70 - 80 hours of debate at the hearings, but we would have had representation. We would not have had those soul searching self-confessions that we heard here in this Chamber a little while ago with respect to the position that some individual members felt on the matter of compensation. Mr. Chairman ... MR. SCHREYER: ... permit a question? MR. ENNS: At the end, Mr. First Minister. Mr.

Chairman, I still wonder, and I'm sure it weighs heavily on the Member for Churchill who I recall standing before the group of Wawanesa here at a local curling club not so long ago, stating very firmly that he stood by the people of South Indian Lake and he would certainly stand by the people of Wawanesa. Now how he's going to live with that particular pledge is of course a matter between himself and his conscience, and I'm sure he's thought about it.

August 10, 1970 4421 (MR. ENNS cont'd.) ..... But 1 say again, Mr. Chairman, all that, and we would not have- you know, we would not have put the Premier of this province to that extra task of working out that 2 1/2 hour speech the other day - indeed, Mr. Chairman, delaying the House by half an hour to have the finishing touches to the speech thereof. We would not have, Mr. Chairman, have had to adjourn the House early last weekend, so we could wheel and deal all weekend. After all, Mr.

Chairman, those of us members who have been subjected to six weeks, seven weeks of speed-up in this Chamber; who have sat since 2:00 o'clock, 3:00 o'clock in this Chamber -why, because to speed up the efforts of the House, to get the business of the House done --then all of a sudden we find ourselves adjourning in mid afternoons; we find ourselves starting the House at 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon. Why? Why, Mr. Chairman? It all evolves down to this clause that we're dealing with, because of the insistence of the government, the insistence of the govern ment - no, Mr.

Chairman, the insecurity of the government, because they do not, they cannot, they cannot afford the chance of putting out their plan in open competition with the free enter prise system, with the independent small agents or with the companies and face the competition. So to remove that yardstick, to remove that yardstick, Mr. Chairman, that's why Clause (z) - in fact, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that Clause (

z) really should become the symbol of this battle, we should maybe call for a new set of signs, the "Stop Bill 56" stickers, we've seen them around for a little while, maybe we could have a "Z for Zorro" sign or something like that, that Z marks the spot where the government is not prepared to accept honest competition - from who? From the Mr. Bill Lumsdens of this world, from the Mr. Harbuns of this world. These aren't eastern capitalistic potentates, these are Manitobans, Mr. Chairman- Manitobans that have worked a long time to build up their industries. Or even worse, Mr.

Chairman, let's talk about the companies, let's talk about the com panies - and again, Mr. Chairman, are we dealing with what the Member from Crescentwood would like to have us shake in our boots so often about the wicked imperialistic American em pire expanding its tentacles into the heartland of this great country of ours. No, Mr. Chair man, we're dealing with mutual companies like the Portage la Prairie Mutual - the Portage la Prairie Mutual, the Wawanesa- somebody, Mr. Chairman, needs it on that side. How did these companies come to be born, Mr. Chairman, in this province'.?

Who started the Porll!.ge Mutual. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, and I think the story has to be told because a generation of Manitobans is growing up honestly believing, honestly believing some of the tripe that's com ing to them. Companies like the Portage Mutual were born by farmers who took time to wash some of the dirt away from their collars as they came off their fields and who said we could do some thing for ourselves in this province, we could insure our own vehicles in this province and that's how these companies were born. That's how the co-op companies were born.

That's how the Wawanesa Company was born. And these are the vicious pinnacles of capitalism that they somehow think - you know, eighteenth century capitalism which is long gone and disap peared; thank God it has, Mr. Chairman - long gone and disappeared. But this, Mr. Chair man, is what this government is afraid to compete with. This Mr. Chairman, is why we have spent such a tremendously long time in this Legislature debating, why we've spent so manv countless hours in committee debating; And why, Mr.

Chairman, we've had to subject two honourable men who have every right to express their position, their manner in approaching this bill, in this Chamber; but again, Mr. Chairman, again Mr. Chairman, all this would not have been necessary, I'm sure, had the question of putting people out of work, had this question of compensation, had the question of monopoly, had the question of monopoly not arisen. Mr. Chairman, that's not all. Let's- you know the Honourable the Minister, the House Leader, the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources he was in a prophetic mood this morning, he talked about 50 years hence . . .

A MEMBER: 70. MR. ENNS: Or 70, or what he thought. Well, I don't want to tallk that far ahead, I want to talk about June 30, 1971 ahead; the day, or whenever it is, February 28th, whenever the scheme as now envisaged by this government is going to go into operation. Now let's have a look at it, Mr. Chairman. You're going to have umpteen numbers of government licensing bureaus selling license plates and insurance. You're going to have . . -- (Interjection) --No, no. And then you're going to have the 600 agents running around selling also license plates and insurance.

Then you're also going to have, I assume, somebody else selling government supplement insurance. And then on top of that of course, you've been so magnanimous, you've

4422 August 10, 1970 (MR. ENNS ccm.t'd.) ...•. said to the agents and to the insurance world at large, you can still sell whatever you want to sell, on top of that of course. Well now, Mr. Chairman, really - I know that from time to time governments have the way with them to take the opposition members for complete dunces.

I know that they may want to hoodwink those two hcm.ourable gentlemen that are sitting in that part of the Chamber, but really nobody in their right mind could expect any government to live with that kind of a situation for any length, period of time --(Interjection) --that you're going to have 600 agents running around peddling licenses plates and auto insurance and that you're going to have a bunch of government licensing bureaus selling the same thing. It's just going to be such a smozzle, Mr. Chairman, such a smozzle Mr.

Chairman, you're going to have - the first session this plan gets into operation, somebody, some wise acre there's going to get up and read a report prepared by some of these fancy expert, you know, systems experts from the east or some where, and say that for reasons this and this, you know, productivity study, something like that, this is all a bunch of hogwash,~ it sounded good, we had to make the deal maybe to win a vote but it doesn't work, and we would have to support it in this Chamber. We would have to support it, Mr. Chairman, in this Chamber, because Mr.

Chairman, I have some, I have some appreciation of what can be done physically and what can't be done physically and I want to tell the First Minister right now that to suggest that you're going to have 600 people, agents, running around this province selling license plates; and you're going to have in addition to that the municipal offices, the government licensing bureaus, plus goodness knows who else, also sel ling.licenses plates. Your computer, Mr.

Premier, is going to go kerpooey- your computer's going to burn up; he's not going to know what he's going to do, because computers in this day and age they work very nicely, systematically, you know, we know - I get my license renewal in the mail, it comes one place, one direction, but if that computer has to think now, gee Enns' agent is J. H. Ridgeway at Grosse Isle, no he retired two years ago and he switched it over to John Smith at Warren, so we're going to divert this to this- well of course it's not going to work, Mr. Chairman - and has no intention of making it work.

I believe the government and the First Minister when he says that they will make an honest attempt to, by making available to those agents who wish to take advantage of the government offer, that they will in some way - it's yet to be seen how -compensate partially for the loss of business that they have by being able to sell plates and insurance for whatever the government decrees they will wish to give them. MR. BILTON: And balloons. MR. ENNS: Well, maybe balloons and pencils on the side, Mr. Chairman. But I appeal to you, Mr.

Chairman, that you, Sir, as a man of reason, as a man who has shown some sense of direction with respect to the sittings here today and otherwise, that you, Sir, really cannot buy that proposition either, and that obviously if you're having trouble buying it1 how are the agents supposed to buy it? Well now, Mr. Chairman, again I want to come back to the clause that I'm discussing. All this, all this is not necessary. All this is not necessary if Clause (

z) were not in the bill, if Clause (

z) were not in the bill. Mr. Chairman, earlier on this morning individual members indicated to them or took the opportunity to indicate to you, Sir, and to the Chamber, how they approached matters of impor tance, how they voted on certain issues, and they took their time to explain how their particular conscience worked on these particular matters. Let me take a few moments of your time, Mr. Chairman, and indicate to you how mine - I've already indicated - as a rule I ask my wife, but on other matters I also ask my constituents, and I can echo Mr.

Chairman, something to you that I m sure everybody in this Chamber can, and you yourself must have heard, that the. . . --(Interjection) --No, not from his wife, that's right- he's not married. --(Interjection) - Well from my wife, no he's. . . Mr. Chairman, what I'm trying to say and I'm being heckled here from my own side I must admit - what I'm trying to say, Mr.

Chairman, is that all of us - if I've heard it once, I've heard it a hundred times -and if I've heard it, I'm sure most of you have heard it- why, why this whole exercise -why does- I've heard it from supporters of the government -why does that fine, reasonable, moderate Mr. Schreyer our First Minister, jeopardize the fate of his government on this particular matter. Why isn't he prepared to ac cept competition in this particular field? Mr.

Chairman, I am sure that if you were to take a referendum - and we have spoken of referendums on this particular subject matter - the ref.etendum would show two very interest ing things. I would suggest to you that a referendum asking whether the government be allowed

August 10, 1970 44~3 (MR.

ENNS cont'd.) •.... or go into the field in a competitive, on a competitive basis, namely taking their chances with that industry that now exists, I would suepect that in my con stituency and in most other constituencies you would have an overwhelming approval, you would have an overwhelming approval of the plan; not necessarily because they like it, but most Mani tobans, most people are prepared to accept the premise that a government has the right to pur sue a program that they choose to, a program that has been on their platform for some time, and as they now have the power, they now are in the position to implement it.

Mr. Chairman, I speak to my constituents and this is the reaction that I get throughout the constituency, from people who have no desire to have government automobile insurance, but who are quite prepared to accept the fact that if the government wants to get into the busi ness, there it is; go to it. But Mr. Chairman, the rub comes when they tell everybody else that we have to snuff you out in order for us to get in, and of course, in the process of doing that, our yardstick is lost, two years, three years, fouc- years hence. We have no way of comparing whether or not that plan is perforl!ling as it should.

And this is what my constituents are telling me, and certainly they've asked me to register my objections as strongly as I can and I'm doing it at this time, not necessarily against the proposed government automobile in surance scheme, but against the compulsory feature that's envisaged here under Clause (

z) of the Act -the monopolistic -pardon me, one should be careful about the two terms, "compulsory" yes, "monopolistic" no. Well, Mr. Chairman, I've tried to indicate to you that there has been some suggestion made from time to time --mind you, it's difficult to know who is taking up what some members might think undue time in this committee, or undue time in the whole session, or undue time at the Public Utilities Committee. A little while ago it appeared, for some reason unbeknownst to us at that time, that the government was surely filibustering this bill.

It was hard to believe why they were filibustering this bill, but speaker after speaker on the gova-nment side rose to speak, usually using the full 40 minutes plus, and now of course there seems to be a sudden desire that we have this matter quickly dealt with, and of course the events earlier this evening kind of clarified the picture for those of us on this side of the House and it would now appear that the weekend was fruitful, that the adjournment that was called on Friday did bear fruit; and that we now have a situation that the government would like to see this bill moved forward in an expeditious manner.

But, Mr. Chairman, we have a right at this particular time - and Mr. Chairman, it should be noted that the last ten days Her Majesty's Official Opposition has been singularly reticent in its speeches. We have said what we felt we had to say on second reading. We did what we thought we had to do at the committee stage of the bill, and we were prepared, and we have taken that as a position by and large, to sit back and say; now, let the matter come to a head and come to a vote.

However, to simply accept that and then expect the opposition to sit back and accept the events of the last few days without reiterating old facts, without bring ing in new facts --because the situation has changed; because the situation has changed. When the Honourable Member for Churchill talked to us and talked to this Chamber as he's done to day, and suggests that for some reason or other, for some reason or other he can afford to take an attitude towards Bill 56 which he found so difficult to take with the South Indian Lake situation when compensation was involved - and Mr. Chairman . . . HON.

RUSSELL PAULLEY (Minister of Labour)(Transcona): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if my honourable friend would permit a question? MR. ENNS: Certainly. MR. PAULLEY: Has not the Honourable the Member for Churchill, or any other hon ourable member in this House the right to their own opinion without being chastised by the Member for Lakeside? MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I would never chastise my friend the Honourable Member for Churchill. First of all, he's far too much bigger than I am, and-- or any other member, but I have a right, Mr.

Chairman, to change my arguments, to suggest that my group, my party change their arguments to some extent, indeed bring up fresh and new arguments as a result of the change in position within the House that has been the occasion because of several speeches made in the last few days, and we have ... --(Interjection) --No, no, we have - we have, Mr.

Chairman, the obligation to point out to those members, we have the obligation to point out to those members certain inconsistencies in their approach, certain evaluations that they're making that we don't think are correct, and certain other judgments that we feel we must now express that heretofore we were prepared to let lie.

4424 August 10, 1970 (MR. ENNS (cont'd.) Now, Mr. Chairman, The Member for Churchill, who of course as the member repre senting the communities of South Indian Lake and Granville Lake should know, Mr. Chairman, should know the contents and the intent of Bill15 of the last session, already referred to by my colleague the Member of Riel, he should know, Mr. Chairman, that well before any act was being contemplated-- indeed, Mr.

Chairman, that was the whole exercise of South Indian Lake, t.hat was the whole exercise of Bill 15, that prior to the granting of the license - and this is all wev-re talking about - prior to the granting of the license - t.hat's like prior to the passing of Bill 56 - prior to the granting of the license for Manitoba Hydro, we insisted, and I brought in a bill, Bill 15, which spelled out categorically the compensation that was to be meted out, the compensation, t.he whole area of assistance and help that was to be dealt to the communities and to t.he people affected with respect to the Manitoba Hydro development project at Southern In

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-2-170
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 2nd hansardpdf 170.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ad43e3ba6e9d136455f6e982c7b48e6cd771061f

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