Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 119 (29th Legislature, 2nd Session)

29-2-119

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable Ben Hanuschak Vol. XV 11 No. 119 10:00 a.m., Friday, June 19th, 1970. Second Session, 29th Legislature. Printed by R. S. Evans - Queen's Printer for Province of �fanitoba

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 10:00 o'clock, Friday, June 19, 1970 Opening Prayer by Mr Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Reports by Standing and Spee ial Committees. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS 2999 MR . SPEAKER: At this point I .should like to direct the attention of Honourable Members to the gallery where we have with us 120 Grade 6 students of the Strathmillan School. They are under the direction of Mr. Mann, Mrs. Pachette, Mrs. St. Jean and Mrs. Minaker. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek.

And 31 Grades 7 and 8 students of the Rapid City School under the direction of Mr. Fedak. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Leader of the Official Opposition. On behalf of the honourable members of the Legislative Assembly, I welcome you here this morning. MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for St. Boniface, which I have taken under advisement. Yesterday, the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre raised a point of order.

In his words, and I quote: "I would suggest that the Report of the Committee is out of order." I must inform the honourable member that at this stage whatever comment or criticism an honourable member may have about the content of the report, is hardly a point of order. The Chair's main concern is whether the motion to receive the report is in order and if an honourable mem ber feels that there are defects in the report, there are other ways of dealing with them. I found the motion to be in order yesterday and accordingly presented it to the House.

The question not having been put, I reconsidered my position and after having done so, I can find no defect nor irregularity in the motion to receive the report, nor do I find it to be in violation of any rule. Hence I rule the motion to receive the Report in order. Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre. MR . BUD BOYCE (Winnipeg Centre): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Member for Portage la Prairie, that debate be adjourned. MR . SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: Notices of Motion; Introduction of Bills.

Orders of the Day. The Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR . GORDON E. JOHNSTON (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the First Minister isn't in his seat, I would address this question to the Deputy Premier and I'm not sure who that is. Is it the intention of this government to keep all signed agree ments and commitments that have been made with other jurisdictions by the previous government? HON. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Minister of Labour)(Transcona): Oh, Mr. Speaker, I would say that that is an improper question. It's a matter of policy of the government.

If agreements have been entered into between the previous administration, and indeed this one too, with other jurisdictions, we are honour bound to keep them until such time as they are changed and that would be a matter of policy and negotiation with the other signatories to the agreement. MR . G. JOHNSTON: Then I would ask my honourable friend if he would read the agree ment between the Province of Manitoba and Canada with respect to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. MR. PAULLEY: I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that agreement has been read many a time. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR . J.

WALLY McKENZIE (Roblin): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the acting First Minister. Is John Lennon coming to Manitoba this summer? HON. SAUL CHERNIACK, Q.C. (Minister of Finance)(St. John's): Mr. Speaker, I haven't been informed by him whether or not he's coming. MR . BUD SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Is Harold Wilson coming? MR . CHERNIACK: Harold Wilson? I understand that Arnold Beaton is expected.

3000 June 19, 1970 MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Tourism and Recreation. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS (Cont'd.) HON. PETER BURTNIAK (Minis�r of Tourism & Recreation)(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day I'd like to draw your attention to a couple of guests we have in your gallery, Sir . As you know, today is a memorable day in the Province of Manitoba and the City of Winnipeg because we're introducing Triple A Baseball to Winnipeg and in Manitoba.

The team that operated in the City of Buffalo, New York, found themselves in a bit of a financial situation that they couldn't operate any more and as a result they have moved into Winnipeg. But in Buffalo there was a young man by the name of Christopher John Parker who was a beloved fan of the Buffalo Bisons and he had his life savings of something like $15 .11 that he contributed to the Buffalo Bison Baseball Club in order to make them stay in Buffalo.

However, that was just a little bit short of what they required and I understand that his money was returned and he has arrived in Winnipeg along with his mother to witness the first game of the Triple A ball here in Winnipeg tonight and will be cheering for his former Buffalo team which is now known as the ''Winnipeg Whips". Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House, Mrs. Parker and her son, Christopher John. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR . SIDNEY SPIVAK, Q.C. (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting First Minister.

I wonder whether he can inform the House whether the government is intending to take the Conservative victory in the United Kingdom under advisement? MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Transportation. STATEMENT HON. JOSEPH P. BOROWSKI (Minister of Transportation)(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, may I have permission of the House to make a short statement? This is an announcement that should have been made perhaps two years ago. I think it is of some significance to Manitoba and I'll read the brief as I have it written. It will be handed to the press shortly.

It gives me great pleasure to announce that the Government of Manitoba has of this date designated Highway No. 4, commencing at a point westerly of Porta�e la Prairie and continuing through Neepawa, Minnedosa and Russell to the western border of Manitoba where it will con nect with Saskatchewan Highway No. 14, as the Yellowhead Route.

I'm honoured to be associ ated with my colleagues, the Honourable Wesley Black of British Columbia, the Honourable Gordon Taylor of Alberta, the Honourable Davey Boldt of Saskatchewan, in unanimously endors ing the need for very rapid increases in recent years of trade relations with the Pacific rim countries.

The Yellowhead Route, which is the shortest route to the Port of Prince Rupert from Winnipeg at the same time provides a direct route to Vancouver, and because of its lower ele vation through the Rocky Mountains and the absence of steep grades, coupled with the long term average of snowfall which is only 50 percent of the other major route, will provide a modern transportation corridor across western Canada of great value to its citizens.

Because it passes through the central plains of the four provinces it will more adequately serve the tremendous expanding economy of both the areas in the development of our northerly resources which will play an ever increasing importance in the economy of we stern Canada.

The responsibility of serving the people of Canada with adequate transportation facilities does not completely rest with the provincial governments and the impending importance the Yellowhead will play in the national economy demands that the Federal Government immediately designate it as a part of the Trans-Canada Highway system with financial participation on the same basis as other national highways, particularly the Trans-Canada Highway which had a federal participation to the extent of I believe, $22 million.

Ottawa cannot and must not shirk its duty to create employment and help the people of western Canada provide a better standard of living for themselves. I would like to commend the dedicated efforts of the President, Mr. Bryan Ellis and the directors of the Yellowhead Highway Association and their Executive, Director Reg Easton, who have brought so forcefully to my attention the importance of the Yellowhead, and the mem bers of the Trans-Canada Highways System Association, who some 25 years ago banded together under the chairmanship of the late ex-mayor of Edmonton, Harry D. Ainlay and his

June 19, 1970 3001 (MR. BOROWSKI cont'd) . . . . . able assistant, Mr. E. T. Love, to promote the idea of the Trans-Canada Highway. The work which was carried on by such men as William Hawrelak, Doug. Homersham, Charles Grant, "Woody" Woodward, Mickey Mead and Harold Clement of Russell and hundreds of others will, I'm sure, be recognized when about the middle of August, Premier Bennett of British Columbia and his entire Cabinet will officially declare open Yellowhead Highways Nos. 5 and 16 in that province.

I am proud and honoured to join with the other western Canadian governments in officially designating No. 4 Highway in Manitoba as the Yellowhead Highway No. 4 which completes the entire route and will, I am sure, serve as a lasting memorial to the Centennial celebrations of this great province. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that an announcement is being made by all three western gov ernments simultaneously at this time ann;:iuncing this release; and may I also add that the cost of this is borne entirely by the Yellow head people.

The other provinces, the governments have paid for it; we have, through negotiations managed to get the Yellowhead people to pay for all the signing along this highway. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell. MR. HARRY E. GRAHAM (Birtle-Russell): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Highways for this announcement. The people that have been involved and worked so hard for the Yellowhead Route must surely be singing praises today. I know many of the people personally that have worked diligently over the years for this Highway Association. Mr.

Speaker, the free enterprise system that has prevailed in the work of this Association, which is strictly volunteer, municipalities, Chambers of Com merce, individuals who have voluntarily contributed to the work of this Association, have shown the results, as statistics proved last year, where in Alberta they did traffic counts, the use of the Yellow head Highway, once it was promoted, increased in some instances as much as 90 percent. I think it's a tremendous boon for the communities that are involved in this highway and especially for the motoring public.

It gives them an opportunity in a Trans- Canada tour to see another segment of our western society. It's more scenic; the people that live along there offer their hospitality to those that wish to visit them. So on behalf of this side of the House, we thank the Minister of Transportation for his announcement at this time. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD (Cont'd.) MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education.

I'm wondering if where a teacher doesn't hold a degree or shows no evidence of completing a teacher's degree or other degrees this year, are they being phased out of the teaching system? Have they received notice that their positions will be declared vacant and advertised? HON. SAUL A. MILLER (Minister of Youth and Education)(Seven Oaks): I'm not quite sure I follow the question. Is it, Are those teachers who have not received certification or who have not received permanent certification?

Well, if they're on Letter of Authority, then they don't have tenure and if a school board can find a teacher with permanent certification then the school board might indeed replace that teacher with someone who has the qualifications and who they feel would do the job better. MR. McKENZIE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is this government policy? MR. MILLER: Well Letter of Authority is simply a temporary means whereby a person can have the right to teach in a classroom and it's issued as a temporary authority, it's a Letter of Authority. MR .

McKENZIE: Have the various school boards in the province been notified of this position, because I'm getting static that's the reverse of . . . MR . MILLER: Well, I may be wrong but to the best of my knowledge this is not new. This is something that has been going on for some time . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to direct to the Minister of Youth and Education.

It's with respect to an announcement by the Winnipeg Teachers Association, that if the Board of Arbitration's solution to the present negotiations is not satisfactory to them, even after the Board of Arbitration reports, that they would consider carrying on the "work-to-rule" next fall in the school system, and the question is whether the Minister would have any proposals to make to . . .

3002 June 19; 1970 MR . SPEAKER: Order please. I believe that's a hypothetical question. The honourable member is referring to something which may or may not happen in the future. MR . CRAIK: Pardon? MR . SPEAKER: The honourable member is referring to something which may or may not happen in the future. Orders of the Day. MR . CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has . . . regulations . . • spell out . MR . SPEAKER: Order please. MR . CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, am I going to be denied again an opportunity to ask a question .•. MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR . JACOB M.

FROESE (Rhineland): I have a question to direct to the Minister of Education further to what the Member for Roblin asked. Does this apply to both the elementary and the high school teachers in this province? MR . MILLER: Well, yes, it applies across the board. Letters of Authority are granted when a board cannot fill a position with a teacher who has proper certification. MR . FRO ESE: A further question, to the same Minister. The Minister mentioned Letters of Authority, but are there not certificates outstanding to teachers that are not perma nent?

Do we not also consider the certificates that are not permanent in this case? MR . MILLER: The Letter of Authority is not permanent in that the teacher has not achieved the necessary qualifications, academic or professional in some cases, which would entitle them to be considered teachers. They're simply acting under authority because there was a vacancy which could not be filled by someone who had the proper qualifications. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR . CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Youth and Educa tion.

Would a school board that wished to set by contract working hours, would they be in contravention of the regulations established by the Department of Education which sets the school hours, working hours from 9:00 to 4:00? MR . MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I don't think they would be in contravention.

I think a school board and a teachers' association entering into an agreement, if they both jointly agree, I don't think there's anything in the regulations which would deny them the right to enter into an agreement to which they were both party and to which they both agreed to join providing both parties were in agreement on the matter. I don't think there's anything in the regulations that would prevent them from doing this. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR . SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry and Commerce.

I wonder whether he can indicate, because I believe the freight rate specialist in the depart ment has now left or will be leaving, who will be in charge and who will be acting as the freight rate specialist for the Department of Industry and Commerce? HON. LEONARD S. EVANS (Minister of Industry and Commerce)(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, this matter is under very close consideration and I'm hopeful that we'll have a replace ment in the very very near future . MR . SPIVAK: A supplementary question.

May I ask the Minister whether there is some one now in charge of this particular aspect of the department at the present time or not? MR . EVANS: Well the director of that particular branch still exists and he's still in charge of that operation as you know, MR . SPIVAK: My question, so there'll be no misunderstanding, I realize the Minister's in charge.

My question is, there is a specialist in freight rates which is an involved field and I'm asking the Minister whether there's anyone within the department who is knowledgeable with respect to freight rates at the present time and who is in a position to advise him and advise the director, and if so I'd like to know who that is. MR . EVANS: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is asking matters of internal admin istration. I can assure him that we'll look after the department the way it's supposed to be looked after. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR . SPIVAK: Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the Honourable Minister does not have to answer the question. The question was a pertinent one, not a matter of internal administration. I'm asking for the individual in charge, now he doesn't have to tell us -- (Interjection) -- well

June 19, 1970 3003 (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) ..... again, so there be no misunderstanding, I have no answer, I'm asking the name of the person in charge. MR. SPEAKER: Has the honourable member a question? Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Roblin. ' MR. McKENZIE: May I direct a question to the Minister of Cultural Affairs, Mr. Speaker? I wonder would the Minister get the information for the House regarding John Lennon whether or not he's coming to Manitoba this summer. HON,. PHILIP PETURSSON (Minister of Cultural Affairs)(Wellington): Mr.

Speaker, John Lennon is an individual who has a mind of his own and makes up his own mind when and where it pleases. We can't force his hand. If he chooses not to send a reply, there's nothing else that we can do. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. SHERMAN: A supplementary Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I could ask in a formal way then and now that he has more time on his hands or will have more time on his hands, will Mr. Harold Wilson possibly be coming this summer? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOUGLAS WATT (Arthur): Mr.

Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I wonder if the acting House Leader could indicate to us this morning what the order of business will be, that is the order that the bills will be presented for consideration. MR • PA UL LEY: It would be, if we ever got past the Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker, my intention as acting House Leader for the moment to call Bill 106 first, and then I would call 108 and 107. That would give us three items to start with and we could follow from there. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to ask a question of the Deputy Premier and ex-House Leader. I note in the Throne Speech there is mention made of a measure to deal with the dental mechanics or so-called denturists. Will that bill be introduced this session? MR. PAULLEY: It's my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that it will be. -- (Interjection) - Oh, I'm informed by the Attorney-General first reading has already been given. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry and Commerce.

I wonder whether he can indicate whether the department has finalized arrangements with one of the railway companies to have one of their experts work in the department for the next two years as a freight rate specialist in the department? A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. -- (Interjection) -- Well, Mr. Speaker, I will then pose another question to the Minister. Does the Minister not think that if one of the. railway -- Mr.

Speaker, I'll pose the question to the Minister of Industry and Commerce. ls there not a conflict in interest if a railway specialist is brought into the department for a period of time to advise the government and private industry with respect to freight rates and freight rate adjustments with the rail roads? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Youth and Education.

Would he consider writing to the school boards of Manitoba advising them that if they wished to establish working hours in their contracts that he will withdraw the hours established by regulation?· MR. MILLER: No, I would not consider this. This is something that's a matter of negotiation between teachers and trustees. The regulations simply prescribe the hours when school will be operated, that is between nine and four or ten to nine, and quarter to four, something like that; beyond that it's a matter of negotiation between teachers and school boards. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR.

McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Development. I'm wondering if the Minister is considering a study of the Le Dain Report which is being tabled today in the House of Commons? HON. RENE E. TOUPIN (Minister of Health and Social Development)(Springfield): Mr. Speaker, I got two copies of the report yesterday. I'm now studying it myself and I'm having people on my staff doing so equally. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, a subsequent question.

I'm wondering would the Minis ter consider an all-party study or committee study of the aspects with - the relaxation of the laws as far as the soft drugs are concerned?

3004 June 19, 1970 MR . TOUPIN: Mr . Speaker, I'd love to do so but I only got two copies of the report, one was in English and the other one in French. I passed the copy in English to my staff and I kept the French one. After I finish reading the French copy, it's available to others and once the other copy is available, you can have it too. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia . MR . STEVE PATRICK (Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Honourable Minister of Labour . The Government of Canada has increased its minimum wage now to $1. 65.

Is it the intention of the Minister to bring it in line with the Federal Government? MR . PAULLEY: I answered that question some time previously and the same answer prevails today. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR . McKENZIE: Mr . Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister with regards to that report. Is maybe the Minister the one that had the report leaked to him ? MR . TOUPIN: I beg your pardon, Mr . Speaker, I didn't hear that. MR . McKENZIE: It's reported in the House of Commons that the ·report was leaked out from - I'm wondering if the Minister got one of those copies. MR .

TOUPIN: Mr . Speaker, I would like to answer that question saying that I only got the report yesterday and I believe that the leak came about two weeks ago. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party . MR . G. JOHNSTON: Mr . Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Youth and Educa tion. Could he inform the House and the people of the province what the income ceiling is on parents of students who are seeking summer employment with the province; in other words so they won't waste their time applying if their parents income is over the ceiling that's on the application form. MR .

MILLER: I would hate to do this from memory, Mr . Speaker, I '11 inform the member . I can't recollect the amount. MR . G. JOHNSTON : A supplementary question, Mr . Speaker . Would it be safe to assume that $18, OOO a year would be the limit, because I notice young people working for the government whose parents made in that neighborhood . MR . MILLER: Mr .

Speaker, I would agree that $18, OOO is probably above the limit, but I would remind the member that it was the policy that where prior commitments are made to students who had worked from previous years or had special qualifications, that where prior commitments are made, it was felt that the commitments should be honoured and that the stu dents should be given the jobs that they had anticipated and had been promised. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR . FROESE: Mr.

Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Mines and Natural Re sources and also House Leader, I had requested from him privately whether he could inform me whether the Altona, Gretna area because of the recent floods would qualify under the flood assist ance program. I wonder if the present House Leader could inform me as to whether assistance will be provided to these people ? MR . PAULLEY: No, I'm sorry Mr . Speaker, I cannot; but I will undertake to draw the matter to the attention of the Honourable the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources that you raised the question again this morning. MR .

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry . MR . SHERMAN: Mr . Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Attorney-General in his capacity as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and ask him whether he has had brought to his attention :recently by his wife or any other housewife, Sir , a substantial increase, a sub stantially sharp rise in the retail price of certain brands of coffee in Winnipeg retail food super markets in the last three months. Has he had any complaints or has he had this matter brought to his attention, Sir? HON . AL.

MACKLING, Q.C. (Attorney-General)( Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs)(St. James): I confess, Mr . Speaker, that.the answer is no. I'm not an excessively great coffee drinker and maybe this is the answer to that. But now that you've mentioned it, I'll be concerned about it. MR . SHERMAN: Mr . Speaker, a supplementary. I would ask the Minister if more than being concerned about it, would he look into the matter, would he have his department look into the matter? MR . MACKLING: I will be very concerned to look into the matter , but as the honourable

June 19, 1970 3005 (MR. MACKIJNG cont'd) . . . . . member knows, price controls of products that move on an international market like coffee in one region may be beyond our wildest expectations. However, I will as I've indicated, look into the matter. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: My question is to the Honourable Attorney-General. I gather he's not too interested in coffee, he may be interested in liquor.

I wonder if the Honourable Attorney General would care to table the revised new prices of the Liquor Co=ission with the House so that we can see what increases have in fact taken place. MR. MACKIJNG: I'll certainly be willing to table any revised pricing structure. I'm not aware of the fact that such is in being, but if it is, I'll be willing to make that information public knowledge, as I assume it is in every liquor store. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR . FROESE: I'd like to address a question to the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.

How soon does he expect the regulations to be in readiness under the new Hail Insurance Program? HON. SAMUEL USKIW (Minister of Agriculture)(Lac du Bonnet): In a matter of - the regulations have been approved, Mr. Speaker. GOVERNMENT BILLS MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, may we now call Bill 106 in the name of the Honourable Minister of Finance . MR. CHERNIACK presented Bill No. 106

an Act to validate certain agreements entered into by the Government of Manitoba and The City of Winnipeg for second reading. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, firstly may I point out, looking at the heading of the bill that this Act appears to be

an Act to "validiate" certain agreements, I trust there can be a correction in the spelling. The Honourable the Leader of the Liberal Party did mention some time ago during the - I think it was during estimates - a reference in the report of the Provincial Auditor for the year ended March 31, 1969 on Page 5 which I would like to read into the record as follows: "An agreement with the City of Winnipeg dated February 23, 1967 was signed by the Minister of Public Works for the construction of the pedestrian tunnel under Main Street to connect the Manitoba Centennial Centre with the City's parking garage.

The City of Winnipeg constructed the tunn el in 1967 at a cost of $316, 756 .4 2. In accordance with the agreement the government of the Province of Manitoba is required to pay for approximately one-half of the cost of the tunnel. There appears to be no legislative authority for this contractual obligation, no payments have been made to the City of Winnipeg in this connection and no liability related to the agree ment has been recorded in the books of the province as of March 31, 1969 ." Mr.

Speaker, I learned as a result of my investigation resulting from the report from the auditor that these agreements were entered into but that in the original planning, I'm informed, the intention was to have the agreement made between the Centennial Corporation and the City of Winnipeg, but that indeed they were made between the province and the City and signed on behalf of the province by the then Minister of Public Works. The purpose of this bill of course is to validate those agreements to recognize and acknowledge the contract entered into on behalf of the province with the city.

That's the total explanation, otherwise the bill and the agreements speak for themselves. Might I also ask honourable members in considering this whether they believe that this bill should stay in the House and ·go to Co=ittee of the Whole or whether it goes out of the House into a Committee outside of the House. The original thought of the Clerk's department was that this would go to Municipal Affairs Co=ittee. I have no feeling about it any way but my own thought was that had this item been included in estimates they would have been dealt with in Committee of the Whole.

I don't suppose it's very contentious but I'm quite willing to go in either direction as is indicated by members of the House. I'm not sure of the procedural method by which we could do it but I imagine that by agreement in the House we could send it into Committee of the Whole for review

section by section. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, without exhausting my right to speak, I'd like to ask a question of the Minister, in connection with the latter question that he put of having the bill

3006 June 19 , 1970 (MR. FROESE cont'd) . . . • . dealt with in Committee of the Whole here in the House only. Has the City of Winnipeg indicated that they would like to make representation to the committee when it is being dealt with? If not then I'm certainly agreeable to have it dealt with in Commit tee of the Whole. MR. CHERNIACK: Well, Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question, there's been no discus sion with the City of Winnipeg at all.

As far as we're concerned, we found a contract signed between the city and the province, the Provincial Auditor pointed out that there wasn't proper procedural legislative authority and we 're providing that. I have no indication from the City that it's aware or interested in what is being done here, although knowing the City's Law Department, I would think they're probably aware of it, but frankly there's been no discussions that I'm knowledgeable about. MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition. MR. WALTER WEm (Leader of the Opposition)(Minnedosa): Mr.

Speaker, probably I might just say a word or two here because I recall the discussions at the time quite well in terms of the provincial contribution, and certainly if there's a technicality under which it isn't proper and appropriate then I think that taking corrective measures is the right thing to do. I support the Minister of Finance in taking the corrective measures; I'm accepting his word for the fact that they're needed and that's all there is to it. In terms of representation, I would doubt if there is any.

I think the only representation that there would be is that the government meet what was considered at the time to be a hard and fast contract and if through some mechanics it was done wrong, then I don't think there should be any change in the terms of what was intended at that stage of the game. I think the only time you would hear from the city would be if there was any intention to abandon the terms of what was being brought about at that period of time. In terms of the committee, Mr. Speaker, it's immaterial to me whether it is Committee of the Whole or one of the other committees of the House.

I think Committee of the Whole would be satisfactory because I really don't think, Mr. Speaker, that it's any more than a correction of a technical situation that developed unknown probably to anybody. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR . FROESE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I haven't studied the Bill that is before us. I accept the Minister's explanation on the Bill and I'm quite agreeable to have it discussed in Committee of the Whole . MR . LEONARD A. BARKMAN (La Verendrye): Mr. Speaker, we have no objection; whatever committee the Minister or anyone else chooses is quite all right with us. MR .

SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR . CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, might I then indicate that I believe the House has accepted the decision that the Bill should go straight to Committee of the Whole and on that basis and hearing no objections, that it will be directed to Committee of the Whole. MR . SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS (Cont'd.) MR. SPEAKER: At this point I would like to introduce our guests in the gallery who have recently arrived. Forty-one Grade 7 to 8 students of Plumas Elementary School under the direction of Mr.

Tyerman and Mrs. McDonald. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Gladstone. One hundred and twenty-five Grades 3 to 6 students of the Goodwill Elementary School in Grunthal. These students are under the direction of Mr. Schoen, Mrs. Driedger, Mrs. Myer, Mrs. St. Vincent and Miss Bueckert. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Emerson. On behalf of the honour able members of the Legislative Assembly, I welcome you here this morning. GOVERNMENT BILLS (Cont'd.) MR . PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I had indicated to the Honourable Member for Arthur a few moments ago that the order of Bills would be after 106, 108 and 107. I wonder whether I could be released from that and be allowed to call Bill 121, The Human Rights Bill standing in the name of the First Minister. MR . WEIR: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the introduction of government bills for the first time we 're quite happy to have any order that there might be . Our concern in knowing a little ahead of time is on the Bills that are standing in our name and things like that so that we can

June 19 , 1970 3007 (MR. WEffi cont'd. ) . try and have the right people in the House at the right time, and properly prepared. MR. PAULLEY: Then I understand, Mr. Speaker, my friend has no objection to the First Minister introducing his Bill for second reading? MR. GILDAS MOLGAT (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, we have no objection either but we would appreciate if we could know as far ahead in advance whether the House Leader can give us now the sequence of Bills beyond that so that if we are ready to speak on them today, we could proceed probably. MR. PAULLEY: I think I'd go then back, Mr.

Speaker, to 108 and 107, to the Minister of Finance. HON. ED. SCHREYER (Premier)(Rossmere) presented Bill No. 121, The Human Rights Act for second reading. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, Bill 121, The Human Rights Act, if passa:i, could become a landmark in the work of this Legislative Assembly. Without becoming too grandilo quent about it, I nevertheless believe that to be a fact.

I think it is necessary to say at the outset that in the society of our province that we are fortunate in that we do not have anywhere near as great and pervasive a problem with respect to equality of treatment for the law in respect to practices discriminatory against individuals in our society� Nevertheless, it is important for the state to continue to make efforts to guard against discriminatory practices.

I think since time immemorial there have been feelings and attitudes of, if not hostility, certainly of prejudice and discrimination on the part of one group of individuals relative to others; discrimination based on differences in creed, in colour and so on. In most of the western world in the twentieth century there has been noticeable progress made by states and by society in guarding against this and in working to the reduction of opportunities for those who would seek to discriminate against their fellow man.

I think every member of the Assembly would agree or would want to agree that it is difficult to enact laws of the kind that are contrary to custom and convention in a society. There is not much hope for legislation or law that is directly contrary to custom and conven tion.

But even if there were a situation where a law bearing on human rights that were antici pated and that a Parliament or an Assembly wished to pass to guard against discrimination, even if it were possible that this would run counter to custom and convention at any given time, nevertheless there would be an onus on lawmakers to attempt to proceed with such legislation in the hope that it might serve an educational function. That is really one of the intents of Bill 121 . It is as much a matter of education as it is a matter of law, an enforcement of law.

I should point out to honourable members that the specific provisions of Bill 121 are to reassert the present provisions of The Fair Employment Practices Act and The Fair Accom modation Practices Act and in addition to that there is provision to prohibit discrimination in making certain kinds of contracts available to the public generally. There is one aspect of Bill 121 that is not contained at the present time in either The Fair Employment Practices Act or The Fair Accommodation Practices Act, and that has to do with the question of discrimination relative to sex.

Both the Acts I have just referred to make no reference to the problem of discrimination on the basis of sex,

whereas this Bill that is before us now expressly prohibits discrimination on that basis in a number of areas including advertising, employment, membership in trade unions and employment practices generally. Under The Fair Accommodation Practices Act, which was one of the two important Acts we have had on the books I would say for the past decade approximately, under that Act the arrangement was such that a Commission had to be appointed separately each time a complaint with respect to discrimination was received by the Minister of the Crown. Bill 121 sets up a permanent body to inquire into such complaints.

Under The Fair Accommodation Practices Act the decision or order of the Minister with respect to complaints of discrimination or alleged discrimination, the decision of the Minister was final; and in the provision of this Bill now before us there is provision for an appeal from the Minister's decision. Mr. Speaker, those are the highlights of the provisions of Bill 12 1. If I might recapitu late, it is a case of restating the provisions of The Fair Employment Practices Act and The

3008 June 19, 1970 (MR. SCHREYER cont'd) ...•. Fair Accommodation Practices Act, and in addition making certain new provisions to guard against discrimination in our society and in our economy that have not been contained in the two Acts I've just referred to. And furthermore, Mr. Speaker, there is provision for the establishment of a Human Rights Commission, the exact composition of which is left to the Lieute nant-Governor-in-Council.

There is some precedent to go by with respect to the naming of this Human Rights Commission and in determining its composition; the precedent being that which has been followed in the Province of Ontario for a number of years. I'm not suggesting that the provisions of Bill 121 are similar in every respect to the legislation in force in Ontario. In my conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that while Bill 121 may not appear to be as bold or stark or avant garde in its intent, nevertheless it is or could certainly become a very important legislative document in the years ahead.

And lest I be misunderstood, I want to repeat that this Bill is being proceeded with not because there is any problem with respect to discriminatory practices on the part of people living in our province -- in fact I would say there is much less of this problem here than is manifest in other jurisdictions even in North America -- nevertheless it is right, it is good, it is right that the state make a continuing effort, through law, to guard against any possibility of discrimination being practised by those who live within its boundaries; and while the legislation itself may not have to be applied or enforced that often, one hopes not, nevertheless its mere existence on the statutes can have a beneficial effect in the educational value that it has in itself.

Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Wolseley. MR. LEONARD H. CLAYDON (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the First Minister would permit a question? I have to explain this situation so you tell me if this applies. In the case of an apartment owner - and I'm referring now to

section 3 -- who has an apartment and he allows a coloured . . . MR . SPEAKER: Order please. I'm wondering whether it would not be more appropriate to deal with this in committee rather than now, if the honourable member has questions with respect to specific sections; not unless it's of a nature that in the absence of an answer it would make it difficult to debate the principle of the Bill; but if it's just a matter of explaining a pro vision of the Bill I would suggest to the honourable member that he reserve those questions until such time as the Bill is in committee. The Honourable Member for Wolseley. MR .

CLA YDON: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, we 're dealing with the principle of the Bill and there's a question which I have concerning this principle and this is the reason why I ask the question at this time. MR . PAULLEY: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member rephrased his point to a general question rather than a s pecific one - you 're perfectly right, Sir, that direct refer ences to any

section of a Bill is not permissible on second reading, but if his question is rephrased as to a general principle contained in this Bill then I would suggest that you might accept the question. MR . CLAYDON: Then in that case Mr. Speaker, I would say this. If a person who owns a building accepts into that building a certain individual and because of his entry into that build ing other people give notice to the owner of the building that they're vacating, what is the situa tion in this regard? Where does the owner of the building stand when you say that he can't discriminate ? MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, certainly that is the case, under the provisions of this Act, that no person who is in the function of a landlord can refuse to rent accommodation for reason only of race, creed, religion, colour, nationality, ancestry and the like. Of course the landlord can refuse to rent accommodation or to continue to rent it if rent isn't being paid. That applies to anyone. On the other hand, this Act would specifically prohibit anyone from denying accommodation if a person is able to pay for it, because of the applicant's particular belief or colour or nationality, etc.

Not to have that provision is to really weaken the entire hope and intent of the legislation. Of course the honourable member is aware, I'm sure, of the efforts made in the United States Congress in 1964 when legislation more far-reaching than this was being considered by Congress. It was the wish of the American legislative body to bring in legislation guarding and striking out against discrimination, and some legislators raised the question of a hypothetical or Mrs.

Murphy who may own a rooming house and who under the provisions of the Act being considered there would have been prohibited from denying rental accommodation to persons only because of their belief or creed or race or colour, etc., and some people attacked that provision

June 19, 1970 3009 (MR. SCHREYER cont'd) . as being an impingement or infringement on a person's right of property. On the other hand, other Congressmen argued that not to have that provision was to make nonsense of much of the intent of the legislation which was to strike out against discriminatory practices in society. Now I can recognize that the honourable member has a concern and there is some validity to it.

On the other hand there is great ctmcern that not having this provision would make it much more difficult to strike out against discrimination, which I say in conclusion, is a disease that should be struck out against •. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the First Minister one question, in an area that I find rather provocative and ask him whether he sees the bill as challenging the constitution of occupational associations such as the Winnipeg Press Club. I think it's an interesting point.

I wonder whether it could be argued that there is discrimination against the female sex in the Winnipeg Press Club. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if I should express a personal opinion on that but let me say first that the same concern that is held about this Act impinging on a person's right of property, the landlord's right to determine who shall or shall not be rented quarters is the same kind of concern that was expressed at the time of the passing of The Fair Employment Practices Act.

At that time there were some who ·put forward the point of view that an employer should have the right to determine what applicant should be hired in his premises and that he should have the right to decide, including factors which are expressly prohibited here from being factors, and I think that there is a very close parallel between the arguments that were put forward at the time of the passing of The Fair Employment Practices Act and now that are being put forward relative to the right of landlords or the prohibition on landlords to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, etc.

Now to answer the Honourable Member for Fort Garry more specifically, I'm not sure, I confess, I'm not sure whether this Act would in any way bear on the subject as to whether or not an institution such as the Press Club could continue to deny membership to female members of the Press. I don't think it does and perhaps it should. My personal view is that if the Press Club insists on being that much of a mossback institution that it continues to bar women, well let them live with that. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the First Minister would permit another ques tion. Why is the word "discrimination" not defined under the

definitions of the Act. It would appear to me that we should have a definition as to what constitutes discrimination. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is definition implied, for example in

Section 2, and in

Section 3 again and in

Section 4 and

Section 5 and 6; again and again there is specification as to what is to be regarded as a discriminatory practice. If the honourable member looks at these sections, he will see that the way the bill has been drafted instead of having reference to race, creed, religion, col or, etc., in the definition section, right at the very beginning there is a restating of those factors which would be regarded as discriminatory practices under the terms of this Act.

Now if the honourable member means that we should be giving definition as to what constitutes race, what constitutes creed, religion, we took the view that each of these terms was self-evident to the reader. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR. PA TRICK: I will move adjournment unless somebody else wants to speak. I'd like to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for La Verendrye that debate be adjourned. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 108. MR. CHERNIACK presented Bill No. 108,

an Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act for second reading. MR. CHERNIACK: This would naturally go to the Committee of the Whole House, it being a tax measure. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, previously, commercial fishermen were entitled to use tax exempt purple gasoline in bombardiers and tractors when used solely for the transpor tation of fish over the frozen surface of a lake or stream and that was the limitation. These

3010 June 19 , 1970 (MR. CHERNIACK cont'd) . . . • . amendments remove the use of tax exempt purple gaso line for such purposes and provide for a refund of tax paid on gasoline used in such equipment, plus snowmobiles by commercial fishermen . The se amendments do not limit the use to the frozen surface of the lake or stream but rather to the transportation of fish by a commercial fisherman. The amendments also provide for a refund of tax paid on gasoline used in snowmobiles while engaged in trapping and operated by licenced trappers holding a registered trapline permit.

Provision has also been made to formally permit the use of purple gasoline in vehicles awned by the Province of Manitoba and operated by the Highways Department or the Department of Transportation. I might say Mr . Spea ker, that this therefore covers - I have a map here- but I would indicate it covers all of the areas which are authorized for trappers and fishermen, trappers' licence s rather, and will give relief in that way . The question may be asked as to why it's not purple gasoline and done by refund.

I would indicate that I studied this question rather carefully with my department, and it has been indicated to me that there is much greater measure of control by refund rather than the use of purple gasoline because of the fact that so much of this is used in isolated areas that it's just not feasible to be able to control the special exemption offered except by way of refund. The refund will be payable upon application with supporting material as indicated in the bill. MR . SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR . BARKMAN: Mr .

Speaker, I think there's no doubt in anyone's mind after the reso lutions that originated some time ago and the unanimous decisions on these resolutions that were brought to this House last fall and also this winter, I think there's no doubt that all of us can support this bill and I think there actually are improvements o�er the other bill. The one concern that I have and I'm sure many members of this House have, and I thought for awhile that perhaps I was reading part of

Section 31 incorrectly when it says "the sale of coloured gas to governments" and I was hoping that this would be referring not to only the Province of Manitoba but also to municipal governments and what have you, and the big question here is I think if this is allowed to governments , which certainly I have no objection to, what about the municipalities, the school boards, the hospitals? I think if exemptions are made for the gov ernments, certainly the municipalities and other groups should be considered in this respect. MR . SPEAKER : Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose . MR .

MOLGAT: Mr . Speaker, I support completely the contention of my colleague, the Honourable Member for La Verendrye insofar as the exemption to municipalities, school boards and hospitals. It appears to me that this is something that government should be con sidering at this time , if the exemption applies to the provincial government. These other bodies are largely dependent on the provincial government, not for all their revenue, certainly the hospitals are almost completely, the school boards in large part and should be considered.

There are a couple of other points in the Act that I'd like the Minister to consider as well. Undoubtedly the present wording removing the restriction simply over the surface of frozen lake or stream is a vast improvement. The previous legislation was I think almost impossible to enforce , and the individuals could hardly make use of the provisions because they simply could not operate strictly on lakes and streams, so the government is now moving to a refund system instead. This I think is proper. I wonder though, if the Minister wouldn't consider ext.ending the type of vehicles which would be included.

The present Act limits it, as I understand it, to tractors, snowmobiles or bombardiers. Now it is a fact that a good number of the fishermen use trucks for this purpose, and very frequently depending on the weather conditions at the time, a truck is a much more efficient method of transport even on the lakes themselves.

I wonder if the Minister would not consider , in view of the fact that we 're on a refund basis, of considering the use of trucks by fishermen and others authorized, trappers in this area, as long as it is clearly understood that it is used strictly during the fishing season and strictly for the use of the operators themselve s transporting their own product and no other supplies. I think the Minister would find that in a number of areas of the province this would be a more just approach than limiting it strictly to the vehicles that he now has included.

I wonder as well, whether the Mini ster has given any consideration to possible appeal to the

section limiting the date beyond which an application can be made. I recognize that he

June 19, 1970 (MR . MOLGAT cont'd) . has given a fair length of time - the application must be 3011 made by September of the year following purchase but there may be exceptional cases where through illness or circum stances beyond the control of the individual where some sort of an appeal provision might be included in the Act. MR. SPEAKER : Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Riel . MR. CRAIK: Mr . Speaker , I move, seconded by the Member for Arthur , that debate be adjourned. MR . SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 107. The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK presented Bill No . 107,

an Act to amend the Motive Fuel Tax Act for second reading. MR. CHERNIACK : This bill too would stay in Committee of the Whole. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr . Speaker, I asked that the bills be called in this reverse order, 108, 107 because 107 is to some small extent complementary to 108 and I trust, Mr . Speaker , you will permit me to make some comment about 108 and the questions asked by the Honour able Member for Ste. Rose because it's relevant, that is in connection with the dates for refund .

I would explain that The Motive Fuel Tax Act now provides for refunds with a penalty built in on the basis of late application month by month and the refund is reduced percentagewise, month by month, until it becomes zero because of late delay.

It seemed to us in reviewing this provision that it was used as an inducement and a penalty for the fact that some people were late in getting it in and we realized in isolated areas there may be people who had difficulty in doing it but that kind of penalty, a built-in penalty, was one that I didn't think was right and I thought that there should be ample time given for a per son to apply for refund. Certainly if he has money coming to him, he has a real incentive there and that is why we felt that it would be administratively better and more fair if we gave ample time and as the Honourable Member for Ste.

Rose pointed out in connection with the previous bill, the ample time is really the September of the year following and surely, with all that time, there can't really be an occasion where there would be a justifiable excuse for further delays and I'm prepared to consider it but that again is more of an administrative problem and we thought we 'd provided very substantial· time by giving them -- what is it, eight months beyond the exploration of the counter year .

There 's nothing to prevent an application for refund being made during or immediately after the season, so that really there might be a twelve-month lag within which they could make application. It seems to me that this should be adequate. Now .>o that what we 're doing in this bill is to remove that graduated penalty on the refunds and making it the same as in the bill we 've already discussed. Now Mr .

Speaker, I have an opportunity again to deal with the points made by the Mem ber for La Verendrye on the earlier bill and I think I should do so because if the same question would arise about the use of purple motive fuel .

What I find peculiar is that both the members who have spoken are now saying, Well now you're extending a privilege to government of the .Province of Manitoba (both are shaking their heads) but the way I read it, the way I heard it, they were saying - Well that's fine; you are doing this for the Province of Manitoba, now you should extend it to other governments, and although they can shake their heads all they like, I will read Hansard if necessary to justify the fact that I think that they intimated, implied and I inferred that they were saying, Now that you're giving it to the Province of Manitoba , why don't you give it to the others?

Well of course by their violent shaking of their heads, one knows that they realize how nonsensical it is to say to the Province of Manitoba, which collects the tax that you are now relieving yourself of paying the tax to yourself and therefore you're making some sort of concession.

Let me make it clear that_the purpose for the provision of purple tax exempt gas to government vehicles is to make possible that which is now illegal and that is to make possible to sellers of energy, to provide purple gas for government vehicles and the only reason for that is to put an added element of control on the use of gasoline that is designated for government vehicles to make sure that it isn't used in any illegal manner by being used in non-government vehicles, just an additional control which it was deemed was advisable . MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose . MR. MOLGAT: Mr .

Speaker , I thank the Minister for his explanation of the points that have been brought up in the previous bill and I recognize that the two are companion bills. I

3012 June 19, 1970 (MR . MOLGAT cont 'd) ...•. am sure I can speak for my colleague, the Honourable Member for La Verendrye and myself that we were aware that the provincial government has not been paying the fuel tax all along and that this is not a new exemption for the provincial government . Our point is that in view of the fact that the government is now making some changes in the tax, that it should consider extending the privilege that the provincial govern ment has had since the beginning in this regard.

So it is simply a question the government now is prepared to consider some extensi ons under these two bills, of rebates beyond what has been existing so far for non-government bodie s - no change I admit for government bodie s; for non-government bodie s there are some changes. Our submissi on is that the government should at this time consider three other specific areas, municipalities, school boards and hospitals.

We've had lengthy debates already during the course of the session on the subject of local taxation and the need to relieve the local taxpayer from an exorbitant tax load at the moment unrelated to property . Here 's one area where the provincial government adds to that tax load by its specific tax, because when it enforce s the municipalities to pay the tax, as it does now, it is simply forcing the municipal corporation to raise its taxes locally, accordingly to cover the amount of tax that it pays to the government . MR. CHERNIACK: Would the Honourable Member permit a question ?

When he uses the expression "t o raise the taxes" is he implying to increase the taxes or does he just mean raising taxes, in the sense that one has to obtain the money ? MR. MOLGAT: No, I'm saying that the municipal corporation has to have in its budget and therefore in its tax structure, a certain amount to cover this specific tax. Now as the tax increases, the government is going to increase the motive fuel tax, then the tax on the muni cipalities will obviously have to be increased, but every year they have to , levy a certain portion to cover this tax.

The same applies to the hospitals who must include this in their budget; the same applies to the school boards . These are creations of the municipal govern ment, they are the bodie s that presently -- the school boards and the municipalities -- who are responsible for the local taxation. We feel it is too high; the government has indicated that they agree it is too high at the local level . What we are saying here is a specific area where government has accepted the principle, the province should be exempt; we say exempt these other three areas as well . I think it is a fair proposal.

In a number of case s, the municipal corporations in fact are doing work for the provin cial government because you will find in many instances, the very machines, equipment, machinery, owned by municipal corporations to do road work for example , on the municipal roads do work for the provincial government as well on certain of the PR roads and so they find themselves in the position of doing work for the province, being paid for it admittedly, being paid for it, but doing work for the province , doing exactly the same work as the govern ment machines may be doing on a road exactly parallel to this one and having to pay a tax where the province doesn't.

All I' m suggesting is that we put them on the same basis as the province . They are not private corporations, they are public corporations; they should not be forced to pay the tax in this instance . MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell . MR. GRAHAM : Thank you, Mr . Speaker . I have a question or two for the Minister of Finance , and there is one thing that concerns me a little bit on this . No doubt the government will be having vehicles scattered throughout the province and I wonder where these suppl ies of fuel will be coming from that are coloured.

Will they be available at every service station or has the government consi dered the supply of the fuel for these government machines and where the machines will be getting the government coloured fuel ? MR. CHERNIACK: Mr . Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the previous speaker to clarify what he is talking about. I want to be able to answer him, and I understood him to ask where the supply of fuel would be .

Now if he 's talking about the use of purple dye in gasol ine, the answer , it seems to me , would still -- and I'm not replying to him -- I' m trying to get clarifi cation before I lose the opportunity to find out wouldn't the supply be exactly where it is now ? MR. GRAHAM: Mr . Speaker, there are many service stations scattered throughout the province but very few of them, if any, are equipped to supply purple fuel. MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Roblin . MR. McKENZIE : Mr . Speak er, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Swan River that the debate be adjourned. MR.

SPEAKER presented the motion.

June 19, 1970 3013 MR . FROESE: Could I ask a question of the Honourable Minister before we deal with this motion? MR . CH ERNIACK : I'm prepared to answer but I'm quite sure its out of order for me to reply to questions at this stage. MR . SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . PAULLEY: Mr . Speaker, would you kindly call Bill 104 in the name of the Honour able Minister of Youth and Education. MR . SPEAKER: Bill No . 104 . The Honourable Minister of Education. MR . MILLER presented Bill No . 104

an Act to amend The Public Schools Act (1) for second reading. MR . SPEAKER presented the motion. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Youth and Education. MR . MILLER: Mr. Speaker, this is an omnibus type of bill that contains a number of changes and amendments. In general the amendments are of four kinds.

Some amendments are required because of changes in other legislation which has already been presented or is proposed, that The Municipal Act, The Local Elections Act and what we are doing is clarifying sections within The Pu blic Schools Act so that they are in harmony with the other two Acts I just mentioned. The other item is - there has been requests by School Boards to allow them a greater degree of flexibility in delegating certain responsibility to the supervisory or to their admin istrative personnel and their staff.

In general the amendments would allow for more prompt and more efficient dispatch of school board business. One change deals with the joint use of school property by school boards and municipal authorities and heretofore, as you know, it has not been possible for a municipal council to construct and maintain facilities on school board property.

Now this is in response to repeated requests and I think the intention noted during my estimates and by the Minister of Municipal Affairs that we propose to change this to encourage the joint use of facilities by both school boards and councils and this is one of the amendments being proposed. There are certain amendments which are designed to bring the practices into line with present day financial situations.

There are certain restrictions on amounts which can be spent on specific items which just aren't practical or are unrealistic in terms of today's prices and costs and this should be updated, it is felt by the department.

It is also felt that the relationship between the Department and the division with reference to the land, the buildings and buses should be clarified in dealing with the Public School Finance Board for example. _ Finally there are some sections in the bill which were inadvertently omitted from the 1970 revision of the statutes and no matter apparently how well they proof read, these things will happen so they are simply being put back in now. There is no change; they are identical to what was in the previous Act.

They are just simply to put back into the Statutes omissions which occurred during the printing of the revised statutes. That in essence is the major changes in the bill. There is one other I referred to previously dealing with the Lieutenant-Governor-in Co uncil being able to act on the recommendation of the Boundary Commission after he has received the recommendations that the government by Order-in-Co !lilcil can then take the necessary steps to act on the, as I say, recommendations of the Boundary Com mission. These in general are the items covered in the bill .

There is some detail which perhaps could be covered in law amendments, and a greater explanation can be given when I' ll have my staff with me, because some of them are very minor but there might be some questions that wish to be asked. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR . CR AIK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move, seconded by the Member for Arthur that debate be adjourned. MR . SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . PAULLEY: I wonder, Mr .

Speaker, if you would kindly call the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources dealing with the hours of sitting. MR . SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources and the proposed motion of the Honourable Leader of the

3014 June 19 , 1970 (MR . SPEAKER cont'd) ....• Official Opposition in amendment thereto. The Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed with it, if I may on a point of order, could the House Leader indicate what the further order of busine ss is going to be today, because it become s very difficult to deal with the business if we suddenly find out two minutes or in fact not two minutes, cquld we be told what will be the further order . MR.

PAULLEY: I can appreciate the difficulty my honourable friend is having - I'm having almost equal difficulty in trying to proceed this morning . However . . . MR. MOLGAT: ... recess and line up our speakers. MR. PAULLEY: No we won' t recess, Mr. Speaker . I would suggest that after dealing with the Resolution standing in the name of the Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party, we will go to Bill 56 and that may take up a short period of time . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr .

Speaker , there has been some last minute agreements reached and we are agreeable to a form of a spee dup that has been found acceptable to the three groups, so I have nothing further to say to that, but our party would like to proceed with the business of the House as rapidly as pos sible . Many of us have other things we would like to do on some of these summer days, including earning a living and we certainly do not want to hold up the proceedings of the House .

We are agreeable to the form of speedup that has been agreed to by the Minister of Finance and the Leader of the Opposition, but I would suggest that before the spee dup motion vote be held, that the government give the assurance that all the bills are in the House , before the vote is held. MR. SPEAKER: May I remind the guests in the gallery that the taking of photographs is not permitted. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question. MR. FROESE : Mr . Speaker I beg to move , seconded by the Honourable Member for La Verendrye that debate be adjourned. MR. SPEAKER pre sented the motion . MR. PAULLEY : Mr .

Speaker, I know it's not a debatable motion but I want to indicate to the House we would like to have this resolution passed on Monday. MR. SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. PAULLEY : Mr. Speaker , would you now call Bill No . 56 . MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs, Bill No . 56 , and the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Morris in amendment thereto . The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR . WATT : Mr .

Speaker , in rising to speak on this bill for the second time , again I want to indicate to my honourable friends opposite that it is not my intention to speak at length today, but as usual to speak in the same kind manner, wi th the same understanding and the same compassion that I have directed my remarks to the government from time to time and particularly in respect to this bill . The last time I spoke Mr .

Speaker, I spoke specifically on the reasons why the govern ment were bringing in a bill in respect of a monopoly over one particular industry and at that time I think I brought into my remarks, some reference s to one .known as Ivan Petrovitch, Pavlov and his dogs which I do not intend to refer to again today but I want specifically to speak today, Mr . Speaker , on the compulsory aspect of that bill and the monopoly insofar as insurance on personal property is concerned and probably to make some reference to one known as Ae sop and his Goose . But before going on, Mr .

Speaker, insofar as private property is concerned, I want to make some reference to remarks and to comparisons that have been made on that side of the House in reference to medical and hospital insurance plans that were brought into this House and passed while we were the government on that side .

The government has intended to make a compari son between legislation brought in at that time in re spect of these two particular corporations or utilities or whatever you want to call them, and the present proposal to establish a monopoly in the insurance indnstry insofar as automobiles are concerned in this province and I say, Mr . Speaker , that there is no comparison whatsoever .

I refer first to the remarks made on that side of the House in reference to the Medical premium plan that was brought in and I want to point out again here, that at that time the Government of Manitoba had no real stomach for bringing in the monopoly and a corporation

June 19, 1970 3015 (MR.

WATT cont'd ) . . • . . that would establish compulsory medical service and premiums within the Province of Manitoba and I' m sure that my honourable friends, even though they have been trying to draw comparisons are perfectly aware of this, but the fact of the matter was that the policy was thrust on us by the Federal Government, that we were put in an impos sible position because our people were going to be taxed for such service and if we did not take advantage of it, we in fact, would be operating under the plan that was in effect at that time and was acceptable and was being employed by the most of our ci tizens in the Province of Manitoba .

MR . PAULLEY: Will my honourable friend permit a question - was not The Medicare Act also thrust on the people of Ontario and they have not as yet entered into the plan ? MR . WATT: Mr . Speaker, I am not speaking here today for the Province of Ontario . I'm speaking here today for the Province of Manitoba. What happens in Ontario is up to the Ontario government, not the government or the opposition of the Province of Manitoba . HON . SIDNEY GREEN, Q. C. (Mini ster of Mines and Natural Resources) (Inkster) : Mr. Speaker, would the honourable member permit another question ?

When he suggests that Medicare was thrusted on the Province of Manitoba, would he agree that most of the Manitoba representatives of his party in the federal House voted to do this thrusting? MR . WATT : I want to tell my honourable friend again that I am talking today as an Opposition member and for the government of the people of the Province of Manitoba and for the Province of Manitoba and so far as what is concerned or what happened in the Federal Government, I have no

part in it and I do not intend to discuss it with my honourable friend today. I want to go further and speak about the Hospital Insurance Plan, Mr . Speaker, which they have referred to as a compulsory plan. I accept the fact that it is a compulsory plan and it was instituted _!:>y the _f_onservative Government; but what my honourable friends are overlooking is the fact that long-oof oreanysucii- pfanwas brought in, compulsory service insofar as hospitalization was concerned has been in this province for 100 years, but probably in a little bit different form, because Mr .

Speaker, it has been incumbent on the people of the Province of Manitoba to care for those people 'who needed ho13pitalization and who were unable Io�ri11.Y._fur��£li �.!>��l iZj.iioD. _t;�_.2�gh_�Q@Tyadiffer.!!I1L\:'_E!_hicl � , but.J11_J?.ct compulsory. --·rwant to point out, Mr . Speaker, for the years that I sat on municipal councils, to my knowledge, within the area I served, no eerson had ever been refused the service of a hoi:mital, whether._they were able to pay or whether they were _ _!l__!>_t_!!.ble_tQ I>3:Y. I can recall, Mr .

Speaker, at council meetings where we actuaflydid write-off as much and in a small area and small municipality as much as $3, OOO at one shot, and what happened . • . My honourable friend says, What was left? How nice that was, too .

I want to point out to him that he prob ilily is not aware that it became incumbent on that council to levy taxes against the property owners to recover that money in conjunction with the provincial government on a percentage basis, and that in fact was a compulsory system, but chargeable, not through a premium sys tem but to the property owners, and when we brought in such insurance through the premium plan we sim& shifted the tax load from the property owners to the area where I think it should justifiably be-. -,-- -That was--fo the people of the Province of Manitoba, to many who were-earn irlg morem"fact than those who were considered and established as property owners.

I just mention these points, Mr . Speaker, because they have been used repeatedly on that side of the House in charges against the Opposition and the then government of bringing in identical schemes as they propose to bring before us today, and I say Mr . Speaker that there is absolutely no comparison whatsoever. Today we are talking about an industry and I talked about that indu'S""try the last time I spoke and I said, Why that particular industry? It has been said time and time again from this side of the House and there has been no answer forthcoming from that side .

We only assume that this is the first one , that there is not on that side of the House only one apparent fictitious golden goose but there will be more to come -- or a goose with a golden egg. Mr . Speaker, it is not in the nature of a lmman being to knowingly accept any plan or doctrine which forces him to protect himself against his own actions or property .

Most humans e:Kpect to suffer the consequences of their own errors and to be reimbursed when someone else causes damage to their person or property or to have the choice of buying their own protection , and the auto insurance plan which would force the vehicle owner to purchase

3016 June 19, 1970 (MR . WATT cont'd) ...•. insurance coverage on his own property would be doing a grave injustice to that person. A substantial number of Manitoba motorists do not purchase this type of insurance at the present time either for economic reasons, premium-wise or in other case s because they are prepared to withstand their own los ses if they are at fault in any accident or otherwise. Others do not buy the coverage due to the age and value of their vehicle s. It does not make much sense to pay a premium to cover a vehicle which has a cash value of two or three hundred dollars.

Many farmers with older vehicle s are able to make their own repairs and therefore do not buy colli sion insurance , and many farmers, Mr . Speaker, are using - and I use an example - old trucks which are serviceable but which are only used to drive a few miles at harvest time to take off their crops, and this is widespread over the province , Mr . Speaker, where they do not buy collision insurance , but they do put on public liability, PD and P L, in order that they might protect those who might suffer injury because of the actions of their property or the operation of their trucks . I want to say, Mr .

Speaker, that it would be outright theft for a gQ"7�r�e nt to legislate compulsory collision coverage on vehicles whose value is lower t�J:J. th� deductiliie-prov ided siilce 1here 1s no possible chance of the owner collecting for damages even though he TSCom pelled to pay a premium for that coverage . This would force the older car owner to subsidize the owners of later model vehicle s, as has happened today in saskatchewan . I want to ask my honourable friends if we are to be compelled to insure our own property, why stop at automobiles? Why select automobiles?

Why should I not then be forced to put fire insurance on my house ? Does the government feel that it is their responsibility to see that I, as an individual, as a free enterprising individual in this province, should be forced to insure my own house ? I can understand where there are houses with mortgages on them, where the mortgage companies feel, and justifiably so, that in order to protect their mortgage that they should be insured, but I am talking about people who own their property and who have the right to do as they wish with their property.

Why should I be forced to put insurance , collision dam age insurance on my motorboat or on a trailer or on the tractor on my farm or my combine ? Why should I be forced to put insurance on my cow on my farm? Is it anybody's business, and particularly· is it government's business whether I insure a cow out on my farm , or the bull for that matter ? Well, I could take some exception as far as the bull is concerned because there could possibly -- probably we should have PL , probably we should have public liability on ... Well we '11 dispense with that. But I want to say this, Mr .

Speaker , that at the present time in the Province of Manitoba, 60 percent of Manitobans who own private cars insure them for colli sion coverage. More than 50 percent of these purchases are $25 . 00 deductible . The New Democratic plan recommends a compulsory $200 . 00 deductible , and if ever there was a situation where a government wanted to get into a monopoly, where they wanted to make money, it's the establishment of colli sion insurance on cars with a $200 .0 0 deductible where the cream insofar as the premiums are con cerned lies beyond that $200 .0 0 area. We have no answers to these things , Mr .

Speaker . All we are told is that it will come out in regulation. Again I say, as we have said time and again on this side of the House, that we are being expected to sign here in this l!Qu_s��litn� cheque insofar as the government are concerne d. � - - - Mr . Speaker , in this our Centennial year, throughout the Province of Manitoba thousands upon thousands of people in hundreds upon hundreds of communities will be celebrating the lOOth anniver sary of this province, and what do we say to them and why are these celebr ations being held ? The celebrations are be ing held, .Mr .

Speaker, to pause and to reflect on what has hap pened in the Province of Manitoba in the last 100 years.

I will be speaking at dozens of such cel ebrations this year, this summer, commencing on Saturday, June 20th when I will pay tribute to those people who have under the free enterprise system developed our province l.nto a province that is respected not only throughout Canada but United States and indeed throughout the world, and I will be saying that the development of this province has been based on the individual initi ative, on the collective initiative of our individuals throughout the Province of Manitoba who have brought it to a place that is respected throughout the Dominion of Canada, and again, throughout the United States and other parts of the world.

Thousands of people will be coming back to visit us here _in Manitoba and to ask us what has happened to that way of life that is suddenly rejected by a government elected by about 25 percent of our people in the Province of Manitoba and in what direction do we intend to go now ? I say to them that it is a dark day for the Province of

June 19, 1970 3017 (MR. WATT cont'd. ) ..... Manitoba in our lOOth year when I will have to say that the govern ment that we have in the Pr ovince of Manitoba has rejected all of that which the Province of Manitoba for 100 years has stood. I wish, Mr .

Speaker , that I would be around to hear what my honourable friends will be saying to those people that come back to their constituenci e s, to those pioneers that have re tired in other parts of the Dominion of Canada who will be coming back to their constituencies and asking them the que stions that they will be asking me in regards to what a Socialist govern ment will do in the next 100 years to the Province of Manitoba, provided that we are unfortunate to be subjected to such government in the next 100 years. I want to make it clear , Mr .

Speaker, again, as I refer to the compulsory insurance area of the bill , none of which I agree wi th except the compulsion ins ofar as public liability is con cerned, I want to make it clear that it is an injustice , that it will undermine and erode the people of this province if they are forced to be covered by insurance on their own per sonal property which I consider to .be my busine ss and no one el ses. With these few remarks, Mr . Speaker , . I thank you . MR . SPEAKER: Are you ready for the que stion ? The Honourable Member for St. Mat thews. MR . WALLY JOHANNSON (St .

Matthews) : I wonder if the honourable member would per mit a que stion ? Did I hear him correctly - did he say that he was going to use the occasion of Centennial celebrations to make partisan political speeche s? That's what he said, I think we heard correctly . MR . WATT: No, Mr . Speaker, I did not say that I would make political or partisan speeches. I said that I would say to the people in the province that under the pre sent govern ment that I am not aware what direction we may be going in the next 100 years.

But I want to say again that it wi ll be clear to those people that what has been es tablished in the past 100 year s is rejected now under a Socialist government . MR . SPEAKER: Are you ready for the que stion ? The Honourable Member for Brandon West. If I may, before the honourable member proceeds to speak, earlier this morning there was a group of 35 students from Poplar Point School, Grades 3 to 6 who were here under the di rection of Mr . and Mr s. Heppner . This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Lake side .

Unfortunately I did not have the opportunity to then introduce them. The Honourable Member for Brandon West . MR . EDWARD McGILL (Brandon West): Mr . Speaker , in ris ing to support the amend ment of my colleague the Honourable Member for Morris and to use this opportunity to add to the observations of our Leader as he explain s the new approach to car insurance in Manitoba and to perhaps supplement some of the explanations that have been given by other members of our party .

I would like to suggest that the P .C. plan is one which offers some very new and novel feature s and at the same time retains that very important feature , in my view , that of the com petitive industry approach to the provision of car insurance in Manitoba. The plan that is now proposed as an altern ative to a government monopoly in car insurance is one that would provide a freedom of choice as to where you would buy your insurance in Manitoba .

It would also pro vide the feature that we both agree is desi rable , that is the compulsory car insura nce in the areas of public liability and property damage and in the areas of people coverage . It retains, too, the feature of collisio n coverage but it makes this feature , and it should be as I feel and most of us here feel, an optional feature , a feature in which the car owner has the right of choice as to whether or not he wis hes to protect by additional coverage his inve stment in his own vehicle . There is no disagreement, Mr .

Speaker , between our group and the government bench in re spect to the need for compulsory coverage in public liability and in the area of people coverage, that part of the policy which might be described as the D .D .D . part - the death, dis ability and desmemberment bene fit . I think it's most important to retain in any future plan that's adopted in Manitoba the ad vantages, the knowledge and skills that are now possessed by the insurance industry.

To keep employed and to keep the services available of those people who in my view try harder, who are willing to compete for the busine ss that is there and who are wi lling to give the extra service that is so important to the customer , not only in car insurance but in many other kinds of busi ne ss . I' m sorry that we did not hear from more than two of the government bench before my

3018 June 19, 1970 (MR. McGILL cont'd.) . . . . . opportunity came to enter this debate because I think it would have been interesting to have the opinions and the views of others opposite, particularly the Minister of Municipal Affairs whose particular interest the car insurance planning is at the moment in Manitoba .

We heard .from the Honourable the Minister of Finance who rather de parted from his usual approach in debate and I think perhaps he was disturbed by the fact that there was only ten minutes left and he discarded the usual nicetie s of his gentle approach be cause he felt that perhaps the clock did not permit for that kind of a beginnin� . I wmild have liked to have heard him in his regular erudite fashion approaching in his soft manner and getting close enough to his adversary to apply the strike, but we were denied that special privilege and denied the opportunity to enjoy the Minister 's approach.

His final approach was a very direct one and very abrupt one but it seemed to me that it lacked some of the impact of his usual contri bution in debate . The other contribution to the debate from the opposite side was given by the Honourable Member from St . Boniface who rose to continue his soliloquy and to meditate publicly on whether to be or not to be in respect to government car insurance .

He had, while leaving the door open ·in that respect, nevertheless made up his mind not to suffer the slings and arrows which he an ticipated from this side , but it was rather unfortunate that those poeple who he had counted on to throw and fire the arrows were unfortunately not in their places, and so when the storm did not develop , the honourable member attempted to blow up a storm of his own which unfortunately did not come off. However, Mr .

Speaker , the impact of the soliloquy was somewhat dampened by what I would consider to be a casting foul-up on the other side when they, for some reason, had Falstaff playing Hamlet. Mr . Speaker , I wish to direct my remarks particularly and add if I may, and attempt in a very serious manner to explain the feature which I consider the most novel and the most for ward-looking of all of the feature s of the PC plan, or the Weir plan as it is being called in the newspapers.

The feature which I feel is unique and new is the $300 immunity feature and I think it doe s need explanation, because on listening to a radio show on Thursday morning at approximate 9:30, I got the impres sion that the Honourable the Minister of Mine s and Natural Re sources did not quite understand what the $300 immunity clause really was . In the radio ex planations, the Mini ster said, "my understanding now is that there would be no basi c collis ion to the driver who is involved who would pay for all of his" - and I think he said "losse s in his collisi on" there .

"If he doe s buy, he pays for the first $300 .0 0; if he wants to have more col lisi on coverage then he has that in addition." I think at that time the Minister was confused on the difference between a $300 immunity and the deductible feature, and in order to explain thi s, and I hope that I can, I would like to suggest that the policy - and I suppose this is common to all insurance policie s - that we pro pose would be divided into three basic parts .

No. (1) would be the liability feature in which third party coverage of up to $50 , OOO would be compul sory; No . (2) would contain the accider.t benefits which would accrue immediately to people who were involved and were damaged by a car accident; and No. (3) is the physical damage part of the policy . (1) and (2) as we envisage them would be compulsory but No. 3 would be completely optional. In other words, it would not be neces sary for any car owner to take collis ion coverage.

The $300 immunity applies not in the collisi on optional part but in the compulsory liability part, and it is so arranged that it will have the effect of eliminating all of the legal litigation and ad ministrative proce ssing that would go with 85 percent of the accident claims which are now being processed in the industry. In other words, here is an area where up to a $300 damage in a col lision between two vehicle s in Manitoba would be eliminated completely from the le gal action.

In. other words, there would be no need to determine the legal responsibility of either person involved, and so if my honourable friend opposite were driving his car and I collided with him at the inter

section of Osborne and Broadway, and the damage to each car was $300, we would say, nice. to know you and go on our way. There would be no need to take this to a court of law, if you had the compulsory coverage only, as long as the damage would be $300 or less . Now the importance of this feature , Mr .

Speaker, is that because it would include 85 per cent of all the accidents in Manitoba it would greatly reduce the cost of operating a car insurance plan, and I think that it is of the utmost importance to everybody in Manitoba to find a way to streamline insurance, car insurance in Manitoba , to reduce the total cost so that the savings may be transferred to all the drivers in Manitoba whether they have accidents or not . Now we have an immunity of $300 which applie s to everybody . If you feel that your automobile is so

June 19, 1970 3019 (MR. McGILL cont'd.) ...•. valuable, or for reasons of your own that you wish to spend more money on insurance, you will then take collision insurance and you may have $25 deductible, $50 deductible and so on up . You may choose to do this and so cover yourself for any amount except the deductible, but if it appeals to you, that you are prepared to accept your own risk on the $300 of immunity, then you will riot be concerned about this. · Now, Mr .

Speaker, if the man whc owns the $2, OOO car is involved in an accide.nt which results in a complete write-off and he has not taken the optional insurance, it does not mean that he loses the full value of his car necessarily, he still has, for the difference between $300 and the total value of his car, the right of legal action to determine responsibility, and if the other party is responsible then he has the opportunity in law, as we now have in all cases, to recover the value which he has lost above $300 . Now I hope, Mr .

Speaker, I 'm making this clear because I think it is a very difficult point to completely understand. We're talking about a $300 immunity which applies to everybody in Manitoba on a compulsory basis in the liability

section of their policy and will, if adopted, elim inate completely 85 percent of the legal costs involved in all accident Claims in Manitoba. Think of what this can do for the total cost of car insurance in our province.

There will still be the op portunity for the legal people to participate in claims beyond the $300 and also for legal action in respect to those people who buy the optional collision coverage, and subject to their $25 or $50 deduction, have been paid by their insurance company and the insurance company presumably, if they feel they have an opportunity to recover from the other company, will do so through legal courts of law. Now, Mr.

Speaker, this is not a feature that has been presented by any group interested in insurance, other than the group that you see on this side of the House, and is completely new in its approach. It is one that has now been looked at by the industry and they are not by any means anxious at this moment to say that they agree completely, because as you may appreciate, they are faced with a very serious problem in how to rate a new approach of this type. What will they do, if this province now adopts th $300 immunity position, to decide how much reduc tion in rates may be achieved.

They are rating something that has never been tried before. I suggest, Mr . Speaker, that if this PC plan is adopted in its entirety in Manitoba, that this fea ture may make Manitoba again a leader in all the countries and jurisdictions of the world in car insurance, because it doesn't exist, so far as I know, at this moment. Twenty years ago Mani toba was a leader because it was first, I believe, in the field of the Unsatisfied Judgment Fund.

Now the Unsatisfied Judgment Fund is a pretty common thing throughout the world but Manitoba did pioneer the Unsatisfied Judgment Fund and Manitoba, with your h elp, can pioneer a very new and very real advance again in the form of the $300 immunity. The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs the other evening was discussing what had been contemplated in B. C. and what was actually factual in B. C. at the moment, and I suspected there that the confusion which carried on from Tuesday night may still have been in his mind.

He is shaking his head, so he is now clear on the immunity and the deductibles as two different features. But he might be interested to know that at this moment the industry and the govern ment of British Columbia are seriously considering what they prefer to call a $250 waiver - and the terms "waiver" and "immunity" are perhaps synonymous - and they have picked up this feature which I believe is the work of the Honourable Member from Minnedosa and is the Weir feature of this new proposal in government insurance. Let me also, Mr .

Speaker, refer to a front page clipping from the Globe & Mail of Wednes day, May 2 7th. The heading is ''No-F ault Car Insur ance This Session - Lawrence. Financial and Commercial Affairs Minister A.B.R. Lawrence is meeting with the insurance industry to work out the details of a compulsory no-fault car insurance." Let me read that again, Mr . Speaker. "The Financial Minister, A.B.R. Lawrence, is meeting with the insurance industry to work out the details of a compulsory no-fault car insurance. " I think that's a rather novel idea, Mr.

Speaker, and I'm surprised that it didn't occur to the government opposite that they might have had a meeting with the industry to work out the details. Mr . Speaker, proceeding: "Answering Liberal questions in the Legislature yesterday" - this is May 27th - "Mr . Lawrence indicated he hoped to introduce legislation before the end of this session.

He rejected suggestions that no-fault insurance would cut insurance costs in half." Now I wonder if he, as a Progressive Conservative, while he rejected the suggestion that it would cut insurance costs in half, I wonder if he would believe 15 to 20 percent as has been suggested by our group in connection with this new insurance proposal.

3020 June 19, 1970 (MR . McGILL cont' d.) .••.• And again reading: "But the proposals which we will be bringing forward, I hope this se ssion, by way of modification to our insurance policies will certainly, I feel, . act toward cutting down of administrative cos ts . Interviewed outside the House , Mr . Lawrence indicated that he is thinking of setting a compulsory no-fault component for all car insurance policies.

Under this plan, claims up to a specified amount would be set tled without reference to fault, so that a great deal of minor litigation could be avoided." I would take from the reading of this newspaper report, Mr . Speaker , that the Province of On tario is looking towards an immunity clause which they would apply in somewhat the same man ner as is now proposed by the Leader of our Party . · I would like to just briefly relate what appeared to me to be the main advantages of the $300 immunity feature . It's part of the liability

section of the policy . I hope that that is now clear , and that it is no way part of the optional collisi on feature . It is a no-fault feature . There is no nece ssity to determine who is in the wrong in a court of law when the damage to your vehicle is $300 or le ss, and thereby is the great saving involved because , statistically, 85 percent of the accidents are in that category and it will eliminate all that. It applies only to vehicle accidents in Manitoba . In other words, if you are in collision with a lamppost this im munity feature does not apply . That's a fixed object.

If your car is parked on a hill and runs down the hill and into a store front, no immunity. This is a different accident. Remember - vehicle to vehicle only. It's co mpletely new in concept and it walks a delicate and fine line between those who sup port the simple principle that if I'm at fault I want to pay and if somebody else wrongs me, they shoul d pay me . We are not endorsing that completely . On the othe r hand, we are not en dorsing completely the id ea, the notion that any car accident should have a no-fault coverage . We don't think that's right .

We think that in case s where the damages amount to a certain max imum figure, then there should be a determination of �he fault by law as we now do , But this feature, Mr . Speaker , combines the best of two worlds . It is satisfying a compromise between the people who support the tort feature for all damages and those who would go the whole way and sugge st that all acc idents be no-fault.

My colle ague the Honourable Member from Arthur has made the analogy be tween the pro posal of the go vernment side and a monopoly car insurance sugge stion that there should be com pulsory collis ion insurance involved, and he compares it with what could be equally plausible , the insistence that the government ask or demand that we all insure our house for fire insurance .

I think it's just as logical to sugge st that everybody insure the ir own home to protect themselves from a risk which, if they don •t understand exists themselv es, then the government 's going to tell them doe s exist and they should have that coverage . To tell a young man who has bought his first automobile and perhaps invested $300, has trouble scraping up the balance to pay for compulsory car insurance to get on the road, to tell him that he has to pay an additional fee to cover his car for colli sion is perhaps oppressive . I think that he shoul d have the right of per sonal choice .

I think that he shoul d take the insurance for his colli sion if he wishes, and if not, then he will be his own insurer and he will be subject to the possible loss of his vehicle and the $300 that he invested. It might be equally logical to have the government sugge st to me that I should carry life insurance . There 's a risk involved, I acknowledge it, I choose perhaps not to have life insur ance , but the government says I'm sorry, you must take out a life insurance policy for a mini mum of $10, OOO. My point, Mr .

Speaker, is that I feel it is much more logical in our pre senta tion to have a compulsory feature for public liability and for people benefits than it is to extend the compulsory feature to collisi on . I think that we have found what is, in my·view, a major breakthrough by the proposal that we have a $300 immunity, a no-fault feature in our liability coverage . I sugge st that this feature is of concern and has not been accepted at this point by the insurance industry in Manitoba. Their concern is it's new, we have no experience upon which to rate it . What will it cost ?

How much can we red uce the premiums on the basic insurance if we accept this feature ? I sugge st, Mr . Speaker , that this is the industry 's problem. In any innovation there will be problems of this type, but I think that I can cert ainly support the views of my Leader that the savings for the policy holders will be in the neighborhood of 15 to 20 per cent, and if in the judgment of the individuals in their freedom of choice they dec ide that they want the optional part of the policy, there still will be , even with the $50 deduc tible, a marginal saving over the present cost of insurance .

June 19 , 1970 3021 (MR . McGILL cont'd.) ..... Mr . Speaker, I have wandered and have come back at times, I hope, to the principal problem . I must confess that when I first heard of the $300 immunity I didn't understand it; I confused it with my deductibles. I now think I understand it and I now commend it to you, Mr . Speaker, and to the members of this House as a possible and very real breakthrough in cutting insurance costs and giving the people of Manitoba a much cheaper, a much more comprehensive insurance coverage. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for St. George. MR . BILL URUSKI (St.

George): Would the member permit a question? I wasn't quite clear - just on a point of clarification in your talk on your S:300 immunity just to satisfy my thinking - I'll give you a supposed case . If in fact I have extra collision coverage, in other words, $100 deductible or something like that, and I collide into you and you only have the $300 deductible, and let's say you were at fault, what happens in that case - and the cost of the col lision is less than $300 - what happens in that case ? MR. McGILL: Let me just review the question now.

We are both insured under hypo- . thetically the new proposal; we both have a $300 immunity but you have chosen to add the addi tional collision insurance, $100 deductible . You 're covered for all but the $100 because your insurance company provides you with that coverage. You have bought it in addition. MR. URUSKI: Even though if the fault of the accident was your own, was yours in my case , my insurance would just cover it. One other question. Are you in accord with your Leader's comments in respect to the rating system on the insurance fees to be collected under your plan, or proposed plan? MR.

McGILL: I presume, Mr . Speaker, the honourable member is referring to the rating review Board that is to be established . MR . URUSKI: Actually, the insurance agents' fees for selling the insurance. MR . McGILL: Mr . Speaker, I'm not sure that I am getting the reference correctly, but I think he 's referring to a remark made by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition who said that because a part of this package was compulsory that it would be necessary to review the whole area of rates, and for this purpose a review board would be established. I would certainly concur with this. MR .

SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE : Would the honourable member submit to another question? If I understood correctly, he mentioned that 85 percent of the litigation costs could be saved. If I'm not correct he can correct me, but has he got the information as to what the total litigation costs in Mani toba would be comprised of? MR. McGILL: Mr .

Speak er, in reply to the Honourable Member from Rhineland, the 85 percent that I referred to was a statistical figure indicating - and I believe it applies to all of North America - that 85 percent of the car accidents fall within the category of $300 or less in the amount of damage to the cars involved. And then I said that to eliminate 85 percent of the cases and the litigation involved, it would be nece ssary to establish a minimum immunity figure and we have chosen $300 .

While I don't have in dollars and cents the total cost, I would include not only litigation but administrative cost and the processing of such claims in that figure . So you have a lot of industry involvement as well as the actual legal costs and I would add these to gether and suggest that to save those, by eliminating 85 percent of the total number of claims that have to be treated in this way, then we can pass on to the people of Manitoba a substantial saving and it has been estimated, I think conservatively, at betwen 15 and 20 percent . MR. SPEAKER : Are you ready for the question?

The Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. G. JOHNSTON : Mr . Speaker, I'd like to say a few words on the amendment. I couldn't help last night but find myself in disagreement with the Minister of Finance when he said words to the effect that it was regrettable that this House was spending so much time on a bill such as Bi ll 56 when there were so many other more important or as important piece s of legislation, I understood him to say. Well, Mr . Speaker, I find that a strange statement to make when a piece of legislation is brought in that deprives people of a freedom that they have had.

And we 're not talking about whether or not the government should go into business, we 're talking about a monopoly that takes a freedom away from people, and a significant number of people, who do not wish to give up that freedom. So for that reason I consider Bill 56 to be extremely important. When by government legislation you take freedom away from people, you have to have more evidence and more right

3022 June 19, 1970 (MR. G. JOHNSTON cont'd.) .•..• on your side and my friends opposite , in my opinion, have not given us this to date.

I think where a great deal of bitterness has come from is from the supposition on the part of many people in the province that by certain utterances of the First Minister they were led to believe that they were still going to have a freedom of choice , and when it was found by the intro duction of the legislation by the Minister of Municipal Affairs - and I suppose with the hearty co-operation of the House Leader - when it was found that there was no freedom of choice , this was where the hard feeling and the bitterness has developed. I still maintain , Mr .

Speaker , that it is not too late for the First Minister to accept some advice a.nd put back that freedom of choice for the people of this province and still proceed with his ideals, with what he wishes to see for the good of the people . -- (Interjection) -- later. I think that the Tribune editorial of May 21s t fairly well spells out this feeling and I quote: "Months ago Premier Schreyer went on record favouring a public car insurance scheme for Manitoba that would be a combination of the Saskatchewan plan and the Wootton Commission proposals in British Columbia . Es sentially Mr .

Schreyer was advocating freedom of choice for the insurance buyer ." -- (Interjection) -- We ll, that's the fi rst time I've heard anybody repudiate the editorial. They may not like it but no one on that side has said that is not true . -- (Interjection) -- Well, Mr . Speaker, further in the editor ial, and I quote again: "Had the Car Insurance Committee recommended this kind of plan (the plan that would allow choice , I'm talking ) there would have been little opposition even from the private insurers .

Instead, the commission brought in a biased report advocating outright government monopoly in selling basic coverage, and this is the root cause of the present bitter public controversy." Well, Mr . Speaker, one of the Ministers by his own utterance s has said that is so, that they did bring in a biased report. He said that at a public meeting - I believe at Beausejour, was it, the Minister of Agriculture said that? - made no bones about it, they had no intention of bringing in a level judgment of what the problems were and what should be done .

HON : SIDNEY GREEN (Minister of Mines and Natural Re sources) (Inkster) : That's not so . That's not so . MR . G. JOHNSTON: The Minister of Agr iculture said it was a biased report; he made no bones about it. MR. GREEN: Do you say that level judgment is not based on bias ? Do you know anybody except an idiot or a person who is stupid that is not biased? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr . Speaker, I hope the Minister of Finance speaks to the . . . MR. SPEAKER : Order , please . I believe the Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party had the floor. The Honourable House Leader may continue. MR. G.

JOHNSTON: I' m sorry for the Minister of Agr iculture that he has to have one of his brothers defend him . He didn't object to what I said, someone else had to object . MR. USKIW: I was on my feet but I was not recognized. If my honourable friend wishes me to object I shall do so at this point . MR . SPEAKER : Order, please . MR . G. JOHNSTON: Well , I'll record the Minister 's objection, but I go by the newspaper report where he stated on a public platform that the Auto Insurance Commission Report was a biased report . So, Mr .

Speaker , the amendment -- and might I say that the Leader of the Official Opposi tion., I thought , brought in some very good ideas in his last speech . He brought in some very good ideas that have caused some sensible discus sion across the province , I thought, and I com mend him for this, and I would think that the government should have the -- well , the courtesy is it, to examine this, and if they wish to refute it, well go ahead and refute it but not in the manner the Minister of Finance disposed of it the other day.

Now usually it's customary, when an amendment has been introduced such as has been introduced by the Member for Morris, to give a bill a six months' hoist or to be read six months hence , this is a way of erasing the bill and disposing of it because we are not here six months from now supposedly and the intention of the motion is to do away with the bill completely. But, Mr . Speaker , I don't think that solves anything . Everybody in Manitoba are wondering what's happening. They're liable to be confused from the conflicting reports that they read or they hear. So, Mr .

Speaker , I would like to move an amendment to the amendment that may spell out a little more clearly, and I would like to move, seconded by the Member for As siniboia, that the amendment be amended further by adding thereto the following word s: "s o that the

June 19, 1970 3023 (MR . G.

JOHNSTON cont'd.) . government may have the necessary time to reconsider the government monopoly plan presently advocated by the government, and time to give full consideration to allowing a competitive system with freedom of choice for the pe0ple of Manitoba, and furth er, to give the government the nece ssary time to prepare the details of any government plan, whether monopolistic or competitive , thereby giving the House and the people of Manitoba all the necessary information regarding rates, premiums, loans, terms, conditions and all other pertinent factor s befo re , in any case, asking the members of this House to vote on this question." MR.

GREEN: Mr . Speaker, before you accept the amendment, I would submit that the amendment is not in accordance with the rules, and for similar reasons, Mr . Speaker, that you rejected the first amendment that was proposed by the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose .

Al though the language is couched :diff erently, still the amendment repudiates -- the amendment is fir st of all to the six months ' hoist; but secondly, the amendment deals with asking the govern ment to give consideration to another principle, and my understanding; of the previous rejecti on was that a person could only disapprove of the bill on second reading and add to his disapproval a declaration of the reasons for disapproval, not the advancement of a new principle. This amendment that has been moved by the Honourable the House Leader of the Liberal Party goes beyond that type of declaration. MR . G.

JOHNSTON: On the point of order , Mr . Speaker , I would suggest to you, Sir , that the sub-amendment still allows the government to proceed in the manner in which they wish to do but wi th a variation. I' d also suggest to you, Sir, that the House Leader has found a new

interpretation for private members' resolutions in considering the advisability of the government taking a certain action based on a private member's re solution, that I can't see how this sub amendment can diff er that much from the

interpretation placed upon "considering the advisability" as suggested by the House Leader previously in the session. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste . Rose . MR. MOLGAT: Mr . Speaker, if you are about to rule, I would like to make a comment on the point of order . I think, Mr . Speaker , that we are face d with a different situation here . The proposal has been made for a six months' hoist. That is the specific motion, that the billbe not now read but at a time six months hence . All that this does is simply give reasons why the six months' hoist should be operative.

It does not force the government to fol low this course of action, it doesn't say the government shall, but it is explanatory to the operative six months' hoist motion and I believe as such is in order . MR. SCHREYER: Mr . Speaker, since it is 12:30, it would seem appropriate in any case to leave the Chair and that would also be an appropriate way for you to have enough time to take the matter under advisement, so I suggest that we proceed accordingly. MR. WATT: Would the matter still be open for discus sion on Monday, or is the debate closed now on the point of order ? MR. FROESE : Mr .

Speaker, on the point of or der, I think points of order could be raised before the Speaker gives us his ruling on Monday. MR . p A ULLEY: Mr . Speaker, if I may - I know we are infringing on extra hours - may I refer , Sir, to Ci tation 202 , 4th Edition of Beauchesne, Page 169, paragraph 7 which reads as follow s: "An established form of amendment such as the six months' formula used to obtain the rejec tion of a bill is not capable of amendment." MR. SPEAKER : I wish to thank the honourable members for their comments .

I believe that Ci tation 202, subsection (7) is quite clear, that it is not capable of amendment, and it does not go on to indicate that certain types of amendment may be accepted and other types not. It is not capable of amendment in any form and therefore I must rule the proposed amendment of the Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party out of order . It is now 12:30 and I' m leaving the Chair to return at 2:30 this afte rnoon.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-2-119
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 2nd hansardpdf 119.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	cc37921f45fc994f22a86a5ff9f829606c582f9e

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