Manitoba Hansard — 29 March 1972 (Sitting 24, 29th Legislature, 4th Session)

29-4-24

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable Peter Fox Vol. XIX No. 24 2:30p.m., Wednesday, March 29th, 1972. Fourth Session, 29th Legislature. Printed by R. S. Evans-Queen's Printer for Province of Manitoba

Electoral Division Name Political Address Affiliation ARTHUR J. Douglas Watt P.C. Reston, Manitoba ASSINIBOIA Steve Patrick Lib. 10 Red Robin Place, Winnipeg 12 Bl RTLE-RUSSELL Harry E. Graham P.C. Binscarth, Manitoba BRANDON EAST Hon. Leonard S. Evans N.D.P. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 BRANDON WEST Edward McGill P.C. 2228 Princess Ave., Brandon, Man. BURROWS Hon. Ben Hanuschak N.D.P. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 CHARLESWOOD Arthur Moug P.C. 29 Willow Ridge Rd., Winnipeg 20 CHURCHILL Gordon Wilbert Beard lnd. 148 Riverside Drive, Thompson, Man.

CRESCENTWOOD Cy Gonick N.D.P. 1 - 174 Nassau Street, Winnipeg 13 DAUPHIN Hon. Peter Burtniak N.D.P. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 ELMWOOD Hon. Russell J. Doern N.D.P. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 EMERSON Gabriel Girard P.C. 25 Lomond Blvd., St. Boniface 6 FUN FLON Thomas Barrow N.D.P. Cranberry Portage, Manitoba FORT GARRY L. R. (Bud) Sherman P.C. 86 Niagara St., Winnipeg 9 FORT ROUGE Mrs. lnez Trueman P.C. 179 Oxford St., Winnipeg 9 GIMLI John C. Gottfried N.D.P. 44- 3rd Ave., Gimli Man. GLADSTONE James Robert Ferguson P.C. Gladstone, Manitoba INKSTER Hon. Sidney Green, Q.C. N.D.P.

Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 KILDONAN Hon. Peter Fox N.D.P. 244 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 LAC DU BONNET Hon. Sam Uskiw N.D.P. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 LAKESIDE Harry J. Enns P.C. Woodlands, Manitoba LA VERENDRYE Leonard A. Barkman Lib. Box 130, Steinbach, Man. LOGAN William Jenkins N.D.P. 1294 Erin St., Winnipeg 3 MINNEDOSA David Blake P.C. Minnedosa, Manitoba MORRIS Warner H. Jorgenson P.C. Box 185, Morris, Man. OSBORNE lan Turnbull N.D.P. 284 Wildwood Park, Winnipeg 19 PEMBINA George Henderson P.C.

Manitou, Manitoba POINT DOUGLAS Donald Malinowski N.D.P. 361 Burrows Ave., Winnipeg 4 PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE Gordon E. Johnston Lib. Room 248, Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 RADISSON Harry Shafransky N.D.P. 4 Maplehurst Rd., St. Boniface 6 RHINELAND Jacob M. F roese Soc. Cr. Box 40, Winkler, Manitoba RI EL Donald W. Craik P.C. 2 River Lane, Winnipeg 8 RIVER HEIGHTS Sidney Spivak, O.C. P.C. 250 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 ROB UN J. Wally McKenzie P.C. lnglis, Manitoba ROCK LAKE Henry J. Einarson P.C. Glenboro, Manitoba ROSSMERE Hon. Ed. Schreyer N.D.P.

Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 RUPERTSLAND Jean Allard N.D.P. 602- 245 Provencher Ave.,St.Boniface 6 ST. BONIFACE Hon. Laurent L.Desjardins N.D.P. 357 Des Meurons St., St. Boniface 6 ST. GEORGE William Uruski N.D.P. Box 580, Arborg, Manitoba ST. JAMES Hon. A. H. Mackling, Q.C. N.D.P. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 ST. JOHNS Hon. Saul Cherniack, Q.C. N.D.P. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 ST. MATTHEWS Wally Johannson N.D.P. 23- 500 Burnell St., Winnipeg 10 ST. VITAL D. J. Walding N.D.P. 31 Lochinvar Ave., St. Boniface 6 STE. ROSE A.R. (Pete) Adam - N.D.P. Ste. Rose du Lac, Manitoba SELKIRK Hon. Howard Pawley N.D,P.

Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 SEVEN OAKS Hon. Saul A. Miller N.D.P. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 SOURIS-KILLARNEY Earl McKellar P.C. Nesbitt, Manitoba SPRINGFIELD Hon. Rene E. Toupin N.D.P. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 STURGEON CREEK Frank Johnston P.C. 310 Overdale St., Winnipeg 12 SWAN RIVER James H. Bilton P.C. Swan River, Manitoba THE PAS Ron McBryde N.D.P. 228 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 THOMPSON Joseph P. Borowski N.D.P. La Salle, Manitoba TRANSCONA Hon. Russell Paulley N.D.P. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 VIR DEN Morris McGregor P.C. Kenton, Manitoba WELLINGTON Philip M.

Petursson N.D.P. 681 Banning St., Winnipeg 10 WINNIPEG CENTRE J. R. (Bud) Boyce N.D.P. 777 Winnipeg Ave.,Winnipeg 3 WOLSELEY

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o'clock, Wednesday, March 29, 1972 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS 523 MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed, I should like to direct the attention of the honourable members to the gallery where we have 65 students of Grade 7 and 8 standing of the John Henderson School. These students are under the direction of Miss McTavish. This school is located in the constituency of Rossmere, the Honourable First Minister's constituency. We also have four students for Grade 12 standing of the Fisher Branch College. These students are under the direction of Mrs. Lodge.

This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for St. George. On behalf of all the Honourable Members of the Legislative Assembly I welcome you here today. Presenting Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Reports by standing and Special Committees; Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports. The Honourable Minister of Health and Social Development. TABliNG OF REPORTS HON. RENE E. TOUPIN (Minister of Health and Social Development) (Springfield): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report for the Department of Health and Social Develop ment and I'd like to mention equally that a supplementary report on statistics will be tabled in this House very soon. MR. SPEAKER: Any further Ministerial Statements or Reports? Notices of Motion; ·Introduction of Bills; Oral questions. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. WARNER H. JORGENSON (Morris): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called I should like to raise a question of privilege affecting all members of the House.

And my question of privilege, Sir, deals with the -- I believe to be the improper of civil servants in assisting and conducting of election campaigns. Sir, my question of privilege arises from a communication that was addressed from the office in this building, 151 Legis lative Building, under the signature of Alan M. Early who is in the employ of the government under the Civil Service Commission. Mr.

Early's letter goes out to all the New Democrats I presume, re the Wolseley by-election and, Sir, I believe the use of civil servants in conduct ing election campaigns particularly before election campaigns are called, is a misuse of public funds and a misuse of ... MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. The Member is debating the question not stating the matter of privilege which he has raised and I'm willing to listen to a prima facie case of privilege not to a debate on the question. The Honourable First Minister on that point? --(Interjection)-- The Honourable Member for Morris first. • MR.

JORGENSON: I thought I made my question of privilege very clear at the outset and that is in my opinion the kind of communication tha._t emanates from a government office con ducting political campaigns through the use of civil servants is an improper use of taxpayer's money and definitely a question of a privilege that affects all members of this House. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. EDWARD SCHREYER (Premier) (Rossmere): Well, Mr.

Speaker, I don't know if any further comment is needed in the light of your statement but in the event that it would be helpful I offer the following observations on the alleged point of privilege of the Honourable Member of Morris. Point No. 1: the gentleman in question is not a civil servant, has not been appointed under the terms of the civil service act; in fact the person in question is an Executive Assistant to a Minister and it would be exceedingly strange if such a _person would be other than a New Democrat working with a New Democratic Minister. That's point number one.

Point No. 2: There is no use of public monies involved inasmuch as the cost of duplication etc. , is paid for by the Party office. Point No. 3: The person doing this work was doing outside of normal working hours.

524 March 29, 1972 (MR . SCHREYER cont'

d) Point No. 4: ..• MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Honourable First Minister too is debating the question and not debating the matter of privilege. I shall take the matter under advisement at the moment. The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. RUSSELL PA ULLEY (Minister of Labour) (Transcona): Mr.

Speaker, as House Leader and because it is a matter dealing with the conduct of the House and the rights and privileges of all members of the House, may I in all due respect to you, Sir, suggest that the points raised by the Honourable the First Minister were in effect not . . . -- (Interjection)-- I have the floor. I have the floor. I have the floor. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. A person may not rise on a point of order with another point of order. The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR.

PAULLEY: My honourable friend there, sometimes he forgets that there are privileges and all I was suggesting to you, Sir, and I recognize the fact that you did say that you were going to take this matter under advisement, and all I am suggesting that in your con sideration -- and I agree that the consideration that you will give to this matter will be thorough, knowing your capabilities, Sir, as againstt hos�from the Honourable Member from Swan River -- all I'm suggesting, Sir, all I'm suggesting, Sir, is that you take under consideration in your review the valid point raised by my Leader. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Speaker, if I just may, and I agree that you follow the wise course in taking this matter under advisement.

I wonder if you would take under consideration, Sir, while you 're doing this the propriety of executive assistants -- and I quite concede that execu tive assistants very frequently and quite properly are asked to handle matters dealing with the Minister's responsibility or a minister's own constituency but using him during the course of an election campaign other than in the minister's own constituency is quite another matter. --(Interjection)-- MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, if you'll allow me, Sir, to pursue the last point raised by the Member for Morris which simply circumvents the four points that I had made in response, then I would simply point out, Sir, that the Honourable Member for Morris for one -- he him self used the services of a secretary paid for by the government of Canada, public money, in order to send out newsletters to constituents at times other than election campaigns. There is no election campaign in Wolseley at the present time. --(Interjection)-- MR. SPEAKER: Oral questions. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. HARRY J. ENNS (Lake side): Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the First Minister could answer a question for me. In view of the statements made earlier by the organizers of the New Democratic Party that they were some $76, 000 in the red, has the government now found a new means of .. . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The question has no relevance to the procedures of this House. The Honourable Member for A ssiniboia. MR. STEVE PATRICK (Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Honourable First Minister.

What negotiations has the government conducted with the Hurd Group from Calgary with respect to the feasibility of a $5 million pipeline from Alaska to Emerson through the Province of Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker, obviously I'll have to take that question as notice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Mr. Speaker, I noted yesterday that the Honourable Stanley Knowles in the House of Commons directed a very direct question to the government and said: '' When do you intend to call the general election?" MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. I see no relevance to that question at the moment. Would the honourable member care to rephrase it. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a very direct question to the First Minister of this House. Could he tell us when he intends to call the Wolseley by-election? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker, if that is meant to be a direct question, I'll give

March 29, 1972 525 (MR . SCHREYER cont'

d) my hqnourable friend a very direct answer. The by-election will be called within such a period of time as will be less than the average lapse of time that my honourable friends used to allow before they called by-elections. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. HENRY J. EINARSON (Rock Lake): Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to the Minister of Education, public education that is. My question relates to the Town of Cartwright in my constituency.

Because of the situation as it pertains to the transferring of 10 and 11 students to Killarney, did the Minister receive an invitation to attend a meeting at Cartwright from the Citizens Committee and the Board of Trustees of Turtle Mountain Division? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. BEN HANUSCHAK (Minister of Education) (Burrows): From the Citizens' Com mittee, yes, Mr. Speaker, from the Board of Trustees, no. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. EINARSON: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister intend to acknowledge the visit to Cartwright? MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. The intentions of the Minister are not relevant to the pro cedures of this House. The Honourable Member for Lake side. MR. ENNS: I direct a question to the Honourable the First Minister. Can he tell me have any instructions been given in the past year to the civil service not to go first class when they travel? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, the practice insofar as the public service is concerned relative to air travel is really based on the principle of stare decisis. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Charleswood. Order please. MR.

ARTHUR MOUG (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Highways. Has the government given the green light to the City of Winni;peg to carry on expropriation proceedings on the proposed inner beltway? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Transportation. HON. PETER BURTNIAK (Minister of Highways) (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a matter of policy, it'll be decided later. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. JAC OB M. FROESE (Rhineland): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Honourable the Minister of Education.

Is it the intent of the government to pass legislation at this session giving the teachers the right to strike? MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Minister of Education. MR. HANUSCHAK: It's a matter of policy, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Mines and Natural Resources; that's in connection with the pollution problem. Has the government taken any action with respect to pollution problem in Elmwood? HON. LEONARD S. EVANS (Minister of Industry & Commerce) (Brandon East): Mr.

Speaker, to give you an adequate and complete answer I'll take the question as notice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell. MR. HARRY E. GRAHAM (Birtle-Russell): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Highways. Could the Minister indicate whether -- or will the Minister tell us if they have appointed a Chairman of the Highway Traffic and Motor Transport Board? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Transportation. MR. BURTNIAK: Mr.

Speaker, I'm not sure what the honourable member is indicating in the form of his question as to if the government has appointed a Chairman of the Transport Board? Of course. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell. MR. GRAHAM: Could the Minister indicate to the House who has been appointed Chair man of the Board? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Transportation. The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. J. WALLY McKENZIE (Roblin): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the First Minis ter.

I wonder -- would the First Minister indicate to the House when he expects to appoint a Minister of Mines and Natural Resources?

526 March 29, 1972 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR . SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, there is a person of the Cabinet exercising the responsi bilities of the portfolio. MR . SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for La Verendrye . MR . LEONARD A. BARKMAN (La Verendrye) : Mr . Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques tion to the Acting Minister of Environmental Management.

What is this department doing about applications that have been made some months ago for the building of new buildings and as late as last week we 're still told that they should come back, they could not consider the matter till next September 15th. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce . MR . EVANS: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I listened very carefully but the ques tion is very vague. You haven't specified exactly who you're referring to, or what area of the province you 're referring to so I would like if you would, Sir, repeat the --clarify the --Mr.

Speaker, if the honourable member would clarify the question I would be pleased to consider it . MR . BARKMAN: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. I'm not sure to what party these people be long to but they are average Manitoba citizens and I 'm referring to buildings that would have to do with the Clean Environment Act and where the question of environment was involved and they have been told --have applied some months ago --that the matter could not be taken up to at least next September 15th. MR 0 SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR . SCHREYER: Mr .

Speaker, the question that has been posed by the Honourable Mem ber for LaVerendrye unfortunately has some implication in it that the time at which the matter would be taken under consideration might somehow be related to partisan considerations . I wish to answer my honourable friend by suggesting to him that matters pertaining to environ mental protection are dealt with by the Clean Environment Commission and if necessary on appeal by the Municipal Board and that it has really nothing to do with partisan considerations. I fail to see the point of my honourable friend's question. MR .

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR , BARKMAN: A supplementary question. I was trying to answer the question that the Minister made . This is why I mentioned the partisan part. This particular problem has nothing to do with partisan . MR . SPEAKER : Order please. The Honourable Minister of Industry .and Commerce. MR . EV ANS: Mr . Speaker, with all sincerity, if we knew what the honourable member was talking about we'd be pleased to try to answer the question but it was very vague at this point. MR . SPEAKER: Orders of the Day . The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR .

EDWARD McGILL (Brandon West): Mr . Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I'll direct this question to the Honourable the First Minister. It relates to the 1972 showing of the Royal Manitoba Winter Fair which starts in Brandon on Monday . Could the Minister, the First Minister indicate to the House if the decision to suspend the normal sittings on Monday of this Legislature was in any way related to the desire of the government and the Cabinet members and all honourable members to attend the opening ceremonies of the Royal Manitoba Winter Fair in Brandon on Monday?

And if that is so, Sir, I would like to ex tend an invitation on behalf of all . . . MR 0 SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR . SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Legislature is not going to be in session on Monday next does offer an excellent opportunity to all honourable members to attend the Royal Winter Fair, the Manitoba Winter Fair at Brandon and I would join with the Honourable Member for Brandon West in recommending it highly to all this Assembly. MR 0 SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Attorney-General. HON . A. H.MA CKU NG, Q.C. (Attorney-General) (St. Ja:mes) : Mr.

Chairman, the Honourable Member for Morris on a number of occasions has indicated a concern which I rec ognize is quite proper in getting an opinion from my department as to the continuing immunity in respect to the comments or statements made by members of the Legislative Assembly, should there be an introduction of television or radio broadcasting from the Assembly.

I have now received a report which I think confirms that the immunity would continue, but recommending that there in any event be some amendment made to the Legislative Assem bly Act to make it quite clear that there would be no liability, and what I intend to do is make

March 29, 1972 527 MR . SPEAKER: Order please. I would suggest that the press gallery tone down a bit; I am having very much difficulty in following what the Attorney-General is trying to say. I should also like to ask the Attorney-General whether this is an answer to a question or whether it's a statement. If it's a statement, it should have been .. . The Honourable Member for Morris. MR . JORGENSON: .. . assist you, we are quite prepared to give leave to the Attorney General to revert to motions in order to enable him to table this particular report at the proper time. MR .

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR . PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest the proper procedure really would be for the answer to the question raised by the committee on the rules of the House, to receive the report of the Attorney-General first because it was from that committee that the request was made and I say in all due respect to my honourable friend that this would be a more proper pro cedure. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR . MOUG: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Cultural Affairs.

Could he arrange to have a copy of the magazine that's in the possession of the Member for Crescentwood distributed to the House? MR . SPEAKER: Order please. I believe I distributed a copy of Annotation and Comments from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules of the Fourth Edition. I would ask all members to seriously peruse the same, so I shouldn't have to continually be acting as a policeman in here. I do believe all members are capable of understanding what it says in those rules and they should take it to heart and act accordingly. The Honourable Member for Crescentwood. MR .

CY GONICK (Crescentwood): I have a question to the Attorney-General. I wonder if the Attorney-General intends to take action against the Sexist Magazine "Cosmopolitan" show ing pictures of nude men across the center. MR . SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Crescentwood. MR . GONICK: I have a question to the Minister of Health and Social Development. The question is: is the Department of Health and Social Development now negotiating with the den tists with regard to adjusting dental fees for welfare recipients? MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health and Social Development. MR .

TOUPIN: Yes we are, Mr. Speaker. MR . GONICK: A supplementary question, are the dentists requesting increased fees and -- all right, I'll have a further question .. . MR . TOUPIN: Mr. Speaker, I would not want at this stage to jeopardize the negotiation between the government and the Dental Association, and this is a matter of discussion between the Department of Health and Social Development and the Dental Association. MR . GONICK: Would the Minister confirm or deny that the effective increases . .. MR . SPEAKER: Order please. There is no contingency on the Minister to confirm or deny.

The honourable member may rephrase his question. MR. GONICK: The question is: are the dentists asking for a 70 percent increase in their effective fees? MR . TOUPIN: I am not in a position, Mr. Speaker, to answer -- to reply to this question. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR . SPEAKER: Before the House Leader proceeds to instruct, I should like to indicate that due to inadvertence, three Orders for Return were placed on page 4 -- they're standing. They should not have been placed there -- they should be called at the present time.

Two of them in the name of the Honourable Member for Crescentwood and one in the name of the Hon ourable Member for Portage la Prairie, at the bottom of page 4. Proceed with those. The Honourable Member for Crescentwood. The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR . PAULLEY: I wonder, Mr.

Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the members of the Assembly and more particularly you, Sir, His Honour the Administrator of the Province of Manitoba is outside and will enter the Chamber to give Royal Assent to the Interim Supply bill and I am wondering whether it would meet your convenience, Sir, that we do not proceed further until His Honour attends the Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: (Agreed)

528 March 29, 1972 ROYAL ASSENT The Honourable G. E. Tritschler, Administrator of the Government of Manitoba, having entered the House and being seated on the Throne: Mr.

Speaker addressed His Honour in the following words: "We, Her Majesty's dutiful and faithful subjects, the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba in session assembled, approach Your Honour with sentiments of unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty's person and Government and beg for Your Honour the acceptance of this Bill: No . 10 -An Act for Granting to Her Majesty Certain Sums of money for the Public Service of the Province for the Fiscal Year Ending the 31st day of March, 1973.

" To this Bill the Royal Assent was announced by the Clerk in the following words: "The Honourable the Administrator of the Government of Manitoba doth thank Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this Bill in Her Majesty's name." The Administrator was then pleased to retire. MR . SPEAKER: Orders for Return. The Honourable Member for Crescentwood. MR . GONICK: I'm moving, Mr.

Speaker, seconded by the Member for Gimli, that an Order of the House do issue providing information as to the price of an advertisement inserted in the Winnipeg Free Press of March 14th, 1972 by the Manitoba Department of Industry and Commerce entitled "Manitoba, the Place Te Be". MR . SPEAKER presented the motion. MR . SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerc e. MR . EVANS: Mr. Speaker, the government will accept this Order for Return. MR . SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: On the proposed Order for Return.

The Honourable Member for Crescentwood. MR . GONICK : Mr. Speaker, I would like to have this matter stand. MR . SPEAKER : (Agreed) The Honourable the House Leader. MR . PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, now may we go into the adjourned debates on second read ing of government bills, starting with Bill No. 2 standing in the name of the Honourable Mem ber for Rhineland. GOVERNMENT BILLS MR . SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable the Attorney -General; the Honourable Member for Rhineland. l.VIR. FROESE: Mr . Speaker, the Bill No. 2 is a bill to amend the Legislative Libr&ry Act. My remarks will be brief .

The Minister of Finance thinks I'm correct to this stage; I don't know whether --from here on. We are now going to bring the reports of the courts under this Act as I understand it and I don't kno-.v whether the Minister, when he made the introductory remarks gave us a full ac count or complete introduction of the bill. I am concerned about one or two things.

I notice that a few years ago when I tried to check on certain agreements that the Crown made --one in particular with International Nickel to find out just what the agreement contained --I found that this was not in the statutes, that this was one of the sessional papers; and I felt that this was very valuable to have and certainly my concern is that papers of this type that needn't necessarily be reports of the courts but would be closely connected with court proceedings, that we do not lose any of these.

I know that the act provides for microfilming but whether microfilming will do just that for us that we intend to retain, I have yet to see microfilmed reports of any of the government papers. Maybe as members of the House we should probably get an exercise in this and re view some of these papers and statements that have been microfilmed and find out whether they are to our satisfaction. Just what is involved when you go over a record that has been micro filmed; maybe the Minister could tell us when he does reply.

Certainly if these papers or records are properly microfilmed and if there is nothing in the way to go over them, I will have no objection, but if this means that you will have to go to a certain place where you have proper - I don't know, do you require lenses or anything or not? If this is required, Mr. Speaker, then I think I would take exception to destroying some

March 29, 1972 (MR. FROESE cont'd) .. ... of the records. Perhaps the Minister in replying can give us some information in this connection. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. 529 MR. JAMES H. BILTON (Swan River): Mr.

Speaker, I have looked over this bill and en quired into it and it seems to me that from the information I can obtain that it is a matter of disposing of a large accumulation of old records; and so far as I am concerned I notice with a great deal of interest that what is to be dispoed of would possibly go through the hands of the historian but prior to that, Sir, they .would be listed and approved by a proper authority as in dicated in the bill, and in those circumstances our party are prepared to stand behind the bill itself. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney -G eneral. MR.

MACKUN G: In speaking then, Mr. Speaker, I would be closing the debate. The Honourable Member from Rhineland is concerned about whether or not there will be some microfilming of records that might require preservation for historical or public purposes and I assume that that is the case. I am not certain as to the technique under the Libraries Act, the administration as to how that is carried out, but it's my understanding that valuable records for historical and public purposes are screened in a fashion that ensures that such is the case.

When we get into committee I'll be happy to have someone from my colleague, the Minister of Tourism and Recreational and Cultural Affairs whose administration looks after the Provincial Library to answer any questions about how these records will be handled, but it's my understanding that the -- particularly the magistrates' courts have accumulated a mon strous amount of really what is waste material. It has no particular historical or other public value and there hasn't been a technique authorized by statute to dispose of this.

So it's a vital concern that we 're just literally burying ourselves in useless paper and perhaps it has some salvage value and will be re-cycled but other than that, it will free up a lot of otherwise dead storage that is at public expense. With those remarks, I commend the bill to the House. MR . SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: The proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance. The Hon ourable Member for Minnedosa -- (Interjection) -- (Agreed) On the proposed motion of the Hcnourable Member . . . MR. P A ULLEY: Mr .

Speaker, ifl may, I note the absence of the Honourable Member for Minnedosa and I 'm wondering whether or not there may be agreement on this very vital and important bill -- that if the Honourable Member for Minnedosa is not prepared to speak of whether or not permission would be granted to any other member of the Assembly who so de - sires. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR . L.R. (Bud) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Well, Mr.

Speaker, in response to the sugges tion of the House Leader I can assure the House that for our part there would be agreement that participation in debate on that bill could go ahead. I would simply remind the House Leader, Sir, that we are in the process through the generosity of the Minister of Finance of being taken step by step through the bill in question. That process has not been completed as yet. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the House Leader. MR. P A ULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, if I may be granted the privilege in respect of the remarks made by the Honourable Member from Fort Garry dealing with the courtesy of the Minister of Finance, I concur with what he has said but I believe that it is a custom in this House notwith standing the detailed appraisal of bills that when we consider the same on second reading it is dealing with the principle of the bill and not the detailed analysis of the same.

So I say, Sir, in all due respect to my honourable friend that if any other honourable member wants to speak on the matter of the principle, not the detail, of the bill he should so be -- or her -- be allowed so to do. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. SHERMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, we agreed to that request on the part of the House Leader. MR . SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance. The Honourable Member for Brandon West. The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, if I may; as I looked around the Chamber it looked to me as though there was a possibility of another honourable member desiring to make a contribution in respect to Bill No. 5. I wonder, Sir, whether we could ascertain that conclusively or

530 March 29, 1972 (�•IR. PAULLEY cont'd) .. . otherwise at this time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, to the House Leader--no we are not prepared, we're not ready to go. l.VIR. PAU LLEY: The Honourable Member for Rhineland, he was half out of his seat. Okay then, Mr. Speaker, then I would respectfully suggest that you call Bill No. 6, another vital bill. MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance. The Hon ourable Member for Brandon West. l.VIR. McGILL: Mr. Speaker, under the same circumstances , may I have this matter stand. l.VIR.

PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I make the same suggestion, Sir, that if any other honour able member of the House desires to speak on this very vital and important bill that they be granted permission so to do. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR . SHERMAN: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I extend this same agreement. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. l.VIR. ENNS: On a point of order, on a point of order --are we led to believe that it is only by the gracious invitation of the Honourable House Leader opposite that any member can feel free to make a statement or speech in this Chamber. MR.

SPEAKER: That's not a point of order. The Honourable House Leader. lVIR. PAU LLEY: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to my honourable friends 1\IR. SPEAKER: I rule that as not a point of order. There's no debate on it. The Hon - ourable House Leader on the next order of business. l.VIR. PAU LLEY: ... honourable friend, the Minister of Finance. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance . HON . SAULCHERl\TIACKQ. C. (Minister of Finance) (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable l\Iinister of Labour that Mr .

Speaker now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee of SUpply with the Honourable Member for Logan in the Chair. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY l.VIR. CHAIRMAN : (a) ... The Honourable Member for Assiniboia . MR. PATRICK: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take this opportunity to make my comments on the estimates of Consumer and Corporate and Internal Services at this time.

I have on pre vious occasions taken some considerable time on speaking on Consumer Affairs and I intend to do the same now. I think there is no other area of consumer protection, and where there's no more evidence than amongst the poor where consumer legislation is required. Mr. Chairman, may I also say that I know that experience proves that ethical business is behind the establishment of consumer protection legislation and I believe no one suffers from widespread dishonesty in the marketplace than the ethical businessman, than the good entre preneur himself.

So I say the business community, I 'm sure, welcomes proper consumer legislation . Any comments in respect to the studies of consumer protection legislation in Manitoba and the operation of the Consumer Bureau must proceed first by recognizing the leadership provided by the province in advancing their interest of its citizen consumers to the extent that it is the enemy of every jurisdiction in Canada, across North America. This is one area, Mr. Chairman, where Manitoba has decided to lead instead of following some other provinces or other jurisdictions .

I think that this has been done only in the last three years. I think that the Minister as well could be complimented that he did not wait to bring in other legislation to im prove the free marketplace to the benefit and advantage of consumers and businessmen as well. While giving some credit --or a great deal of credit to the government and the Minister I wish to give some credit to the former administration as well when this was under consideration for some time and I believe that almost every member in this House has made a tremendous con tribution in respect to this legislation.

March 29 , 1972 5311 (MR. PATRICK cont'd) .. ... While the Bureau operates under enlightened and far -reaching provincial consumer pro tection legislation, the underlying philosophies of which are non -partisan, this has not deterred the Minister or the Legislative Assembly from bringing forward innovations, improvements, where additional needs have surfaced. Regulation of activities of collection agents out-lawing of unsolicited credit cards, control of referral selling, an extension of direct liability for sales claims made, in my opinion are both welcome and commendable .

I 'm looking forward with interest to the operation of the Hearing Aid Act passed at the last session and the operations of the regulatory board under which it is to commence, I be lieve, next month. This is an area of special concern to consumers that has gone virtually un checked for many years. Every responsible consumers' group in the country has called for protective measures and Manitoba is one of the few that has responded.

While adoption of the Hearing Aid legislation is welcome I would like to draw to the atten tion of the House a drawback in the bill -- that is that act that provides special protection to minors who purchase aids and in my opinion gives very little attention to senior citizens who are often in need of a hearing aid and where experience has shown us that they are by far more often the ones that are perhaps bilked by unscrupulous dealers than anyone else . Mr.

Chairman, having said all.of these things which are to the credit of the government of this House and the members, in Consumer Affairs there still remains an important assess ment as to adequacy. I would like to ask are these programs doing everything they might to advance the consumer interest . Are the rights and remedies real?

Are there still not impor tant areas that call for further action by this government whether through legislation, through persuading irresponsible, indifferent businessmen to change their approach or through inform ing consumers of their rights and providing the vehicle to enjoy their rights. Mr. Chairman, the phrase "let the buyer beware" is no longer an appropriate principle to apply in consumer transactions if we are to restore true equality in the buyer -seller, borrower-lender, and landlord -tenant equation. How close are we in Manitoba to providing the reverse of this proposition?

Let the seller take care . Let the provider of goods or ser vices or accommodation or financing stand behind his side of the transaction. These are con siderations that have both social as well as personal applications for each of us here as a con sumer, not just a buyer or user or a producer or seller. Each of us is a part of the fabric of Canadian society and should be committed to quality, justice, respect, understanding and a constantly improved and rewarding life for all of our fellow citizens.

There are certain fundamental expectations that each consumer as a citizen has come to regard as a basic, the privilege of functioning in a society and reaping its economic benefits carries with .it. The obligation to show genuine concern for all others in that society and parti cularly towards those with whom one deals for commercial advantage. Today consumers ex pect to be given reasonable access to goods and services and not to be victimized as part of a captive market. They're entitled to obtain accurate facts about those goods in order to make informed decisions.

They expect the purchases to be at fair value and they will not be taken advantage of unfairly . No consumer should be unfairly pressured or unlawfully disadvantaged when buying goods and services nor should those goods or services expose the user to un expected hazards and to give it all reality and meaning, each consumer should receive prompt and full redress for any product or service that does not perform as explicitly warranted. Now, Mr . Chairman, are these aspirations being achieved for consumers in Manitoba.

Unfortunately while the legislation and the attitude of the government reflects in like and think ing there's still a great deal to be done and still a great deal left to be desired and there are a number of specific courses of action calling for attention and implementation. There are still, Mr. Chairman, deceptive sales practices. The present Consumer Protection Act dealing with individual consumer purchases and other transactions is still deficient·in outlawing deceptive selling practices notwithstanding the presence of both provincial and federal legislation.

Con sumers are still being victimized by pyramid marketing schemes, . . . . deceptive use of contests, unsolicited mail and the like. The legislation should include an omnibus clause pro hibiting the use of deceptive methods with respect to the merchandising of goods and services. It should specify methods currently in use that are regardedas objectionable and therefore un acceptable with power to add to the list by Order-in -Council .

And besides providing for punish ment in the forms of fines and.other penalties for abuses, it should also allow victims to obtain personal redress by recession of contracts, damages or the like. In addition, there should be

532 March 29, 1972 (MR. P A TRICK cont 'd) . • . . . a power in the Consumer Bureau to enjoin the prohibitive prac tices by a cease and desist order coupled with the right of appeal from such an order to a11 inde pendent tribunal such as the courts. The Bureau should also have the authority to make resti tution order where a cease and desist order has been made or affirm on appeal and to bring action before the regular courts on behalf of all consumers who have been injured by a decep tive or unconscionable practice. Mr. Chairman, I have said many of these things before on Consumer estimates.

We still have today misleading advertising practices. There has been a tendency on the part of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and his predecessor, in office to avoid discussing the problem of misleading advertising by saying it is a federal matter.

While it is true that this is a very serious problem in an area of Consumer Affairs which has been attacked primarily by the Federal Government, I feel that through prosecutions under Sections 33 (c) - False Price and 33 (d) - False Representations, of the Federal Combines Investigation Act and while they are mounting a more definitive attack under the proposed Competition Act, this is still very much of a provincial matter. Mr. Speaker, up to now the efforts have been by the way of criminal prosecutions which if sustained have led to fines and some adverse publicity for the offenders.

But this has brought no effective redress to consumers who have been the victims of advertising deception especially since prosecutions follow long after the effect. Manitoba should be capable of regu lating false advertising within the province and it must begin to shoulder the responsibility of enacting and reinforcing legislation in this area. There is a provincial precedent in that credit advertising that did not disclose all of the material facts 1s at the present time regulated under the existing Consumer Protection Act.

Within the last year the courts have shown with regard to misleading advertising directed at consumers the standard is a credulous consumer as opposed to the former reasonable man. This too should become the standard of provincial regulation because of the realities of mass production, mass marketing, as opposed ... Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned I think that the Minister has to take some action in the matter of false advertising and should make it his responsibility.

I believe that consumers derive the greatest part of their information about product or service from the advertising used to promote and sell it and have come to rely on that advertising. Where advertising has been found to be deceptive or misleading the legislation should impose an obligation on the offending advertiser to r:un corrective ads of equal quality and exposure clearing up the deception about the product s. These are, Mr. Chairman, are bold and initiatives critically called for by this province.

The type of thinking that says simple, well advertising is in the federal domain, represents in my opinion a cop out by the Minister. We do not share the views of some who have expressed concern over the dangers of an undue overlapping of Federal and Provincial programs. The present danger lies much more in the absence of effective regulation that is excessive and Mr. Speaker, or Mr. Chairman, the Minister has to take some action in respect to false advertising and not to slough it off and say it's not our responsibility in the province of Manitoba.

I have talked on warranties before and I feel very little has been done. We continue to hear the lack of practical effectiveness of warranties in Manitoba despite the legislation -- as realistic redress is not available -- this is especially true when the seller is marketing a pre packaged item or appliance manufactured a thousand miles away from the borders of Manitoba. One of the most unfair aspects of these provisions is that because the contract is between buyer and seller and not buyer and manufacturer.

It is the seller who is then obliged to stand behind a manufacturer's product when he has almost as little to do with it as they buyer, while the seller must retain some responsibility in that he is prepared to profit from the sale of the item. He is entitled to backup protection that his manufacturer must stand behind, either as a matter of sensible business dealings or with sanction of legislation if necessary. It is not realistic to expect a buyer, the consumer to have to chase the manufacturer or to be caught by the small print in the manufacturer's very carefully and technically worded small print warning.

The whole area of manufacturers' warranties, the provision of adequately trained and equipped service centers within the province and the ready effect of supply of replacement parts and equipment is one which calls for a full scale study and recommended regulations and changes within the business pattern and behaviour. Mr. Chairman, I can recollect I myself had on occasion calls from different parts of Manitoba for a repair to a :machine, to a combine, and it cost anywhere in the neighbourhood of

March 29, 1972 533 (MR. PATRICK cont'd) . . ... $18 to $20, 000. This machine was no more than one yen old. In the time that you couldn't waste any hours or any days because when the weather was p•:r missible you had to harvest a crop --a new machine, there was no way you could get a part for it for almost 3-4 days and I think that it's incumbent on some of the manufacturers to stock parts so that this does not happen.

Notwithstanding the" clear intent and careful wording of the statutory conditions and warran ties written to the Consumer Protection Act, there still remains clear-cut evidence that the providers of goods and services even in Manitoba continue to ignore or be indifferent to the underlying spirit of these provisions.

Even today, one of the appliance suppliers in the province of Manitoba, which is merchandising service policies that bears the sentence "The company shall not be reliable for any negligence on its part whatsoever or for its failure to provide any or all services or parts contracted for hereunder whatsoever"; and, Mr. Chairman, this i.s buried in the terms and conditions of the reverse side of the subscriber's policy certificate, so what have the many thousands of subscribers bought for their annual price or premium.

I believe that they are at a disadvantage, so what happens, we must rely on the good graces of the firm that we are prepared to trust. Why is it that in 1972 substantial reputable business concerns still insist on perpetrating the imbalance and inequality of positions between themselves and consumers. Why do they insist on maintaining the edge or the advantage over their consumers? And again I'd say it's only the very few, not even one percent perhaps, a small percentage that destroy the reputation of many.

I think that if legislation has to be updated and improved this is what has to be done and the Minister has to take action in that area. Our concern is that the government having written well sounding and well meaning legislation is prepared to coast and not make the legis lation responsive, the real world and in the real market place. I would like to say a few things about consumer education. There is not really very much point in writing legislation and creating rights and entitlements if the average citizen, the con sumer is not aware that these rights exist, or how to use them intelligently.

While we recognize that the Consumer Bureau has been active in educating Manitobans on their new rights as con sumers, they are operating under the severest constraints in personnel. The whole area of consumer education is I believe one which calls for a structured balanced program, using all of the educational vehicles available to the government. This is not only I believe for the course of studies in our public schools and universities but also for adult educational facilities and the fullest utilization of techniques available to the media of mass communication.

I believe the government can take a page from the book of mass merchandisers who have proven their ability to reach almost every segment of society when they want to market a 1Jroduct, while this department's product is a consumers' rights and its aims should be a more aware, intelligent and informed consumer who will not only know his rights but be ready to enforce them and be able to make intelligent choices. I believe that there should be effective redress, all of the rights being written into legis lation, even if known to the consumer lack meaning without ability to enforce them.

Current court process militate against the practicalities of pursuing a claim of relatively a small amount. We will be watching with interest the effects of the arbitration procedures through the office of the County Court Clerk established during the past year. We wonder if it will effectively resolve disputes in consumer transactions when the parties are still not on equal level in terms of effectively expressing themselves about the matter they complained of.

They find much more attractive, particularly for consumer disputes involving less than say $1,000, the mechanism which will come into effect under the New Hearing Aid Act. Under this Act for hearing aid complaints, after an initial investigation by the Director of the Consumer Bureau, if he should refer a complaint to the Hearing Aid Board, the Board may, after investigation dismiss the complaint, reprimand the person against whom the complaint was made, suspend his certification or cancel his certification.

The most significant provision is that if delivery of a hearing aid was made, within the preceding three months and the Board determines that the aid is inadequate, or for any reason fails to perform with the expectations of the buyer on the promise, the Board may require the hearing aid dealer to make such adjustment as the Board considers fair and equitable. This clearly suggests effective consumer redress where there has been abuse. Some similar procedure could be readily and exceptionally available in all areas of Consumer Protection. Mr.

Chairman, there should be some more vigorous intercession on behalf of the con sumer by the Consumers Bureau. Frequently we hear reports that while the Bureau has

534 . . March 29, 1972 (MR. PATRICK cont'd) .. . ·: . investig ated a consumer complaint, has a considerable sympa thy with the consumer, when. it can't resolve these differences through its good offices it has to recomme�d �o the consumer that he engage a lawyer to litigate his case. This is one of the greatest deficiencies in the present legislation. The Bureau should be empowered to intercede on behalf of the aggrieved consumer and I think representative actions, test cases to the courts could be made at the Bureau's expense. It is all too often uneconomic ... consumer to press his rights in the court.

In addition, the Bureau or an'y group affected should be entitled to bring an action before the regular .courts on behalf of all persons who have been injured by a deceptive or uncon_scionable sales pracitce, be it merchandising, service or sales practice or advertising or anything. . Not only will these measures make the rights and remedies written into law· effective and the redress realistic, but also they will serve as effective deterrents to those business con cerns who keep operating in difference and practical impugnity. Mr. _ Chairman, what about the government services as well?

I think in addition to ac quiring goods and services in the market place all citizens are becoming more and more con sumer of government services of all varieties and kinds. We all know that there is nothing sacred about the manner in which government services are provided, particuarly when they occupy more and more areas previously serviced by the private sector. We expect and hope that the Consumers Bureau will intercede just as vigorously for aggrieved consumers of public services as much as it does with respect to those provided by the private sector.

In this re spect the Bureau must become a kind of a Consumer Ombudsman without in any way detracting from the important activities of the office held at the present time by the Ombudsman. ·Mr. Chairman, I would like to see a consumer advocate. More and more often the skills of adequacy are being called for by the Consumers Bureau either directly or through the office of a consumer advocate. It should be the function of the bureau to advocate a consumer interest within the high circles of government and the public activity.

Who speaks for the consumer when industry and labour legislation is introduced in this House? Who advocates the consumer interest before producer oriented marketing boards and price increases, quall.ty controls or performance standards which are under discussion? How long will the government continue to allow consumers to be the patsies in labour management negotiations where critical consumer services are curtailed ·or withdrawn?

I think there must be somebody on the government side to speak for the consumers. - We would have hoped that by now the government would have taken positive steps to im prove the consumer climate by utilization of consumer business government advisory councils and committees who would engage in meaningfu l dialogue aimed at restoring confidence and integrity in the market place.

Responsible business leadership has a most valuable contribution to make and by jointly participating with representatives of consumer interests under the good offices of the government, I feel that all secto rs in the market place will be given the oppor tunity to participate in constructive consumerism, but to date the government has been seriously remiss in doing anything in this area. Mr. Speaker, if you compare the budget of the Consumers Bureau as to the one dealing with the Securities Commission or the Public Utilities and the Securities Commission is certain ly much higher.

One would have thought that the consuming public requires at least as much protection as the investors in this province. Surely there are more consumers in the province than there are investors. The government is in the business of advancing the consumer interest and all sides of the House have shown their commitment to it. Governments should operate under the constraints of realisticall y developed economy but it is false economy that short-changes the citizens and their fundamental rights.

Consumer imbalance in the political market place is just as unacceptable as consumer imbalance in the commercial market place. The challenges of profit and position in the market plaee should always exist for business. This is as it should be and the government should encourag e this. The new standards of business citizenship called for by the measures advocated in the interest of consumers only reinforce this for surely the real business of our province and our society is people and all people are consumers. Mr.

Chairman, I have as I mentioned awhile ago I have dealt with this matter at some length on every occasion that I had an opportunity before this House. I have asked the Minister some three years ago about registration of lien notes and conditional sales and the Minister tells us that legislation will be introduced -- when -- in the future or soon. I would like to say at this time that we do have probably the most advanced and forward looking consumer legislation

March 29 , 1972 535 (MR . PATRICK cont'd) .. .. . not only in Canada but probably in North America, and I know that great credit should be not only given to the government but to all members of this House and also to the former administration which did a considerable amount of work on the Consumer Protection, the drafting of the Consumer Protection legislation. These are some of my re marks and perhaps I will be making others when we go through item by item through the esti mates. MR. CHAIRMAN : The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. A. H. MACKLING, Q. C. (Attorney-General) (St. James): Mr .

Chairman, I would like to make brief comment in respect to the remarks of the Honourable Member from Assiniboia, and would like to make a comment first of all in respect to the legislation which he recognizes is a tribute to the efforts of many in this Legislature.

I think that he would have been even more fair if he had indicated and singled out my honourable colleague, the Minister of Finance for particular appreciation for his efforts while as a member of this Legislature, he consistently brought forward the needs of the consumer with singular effect, to the .extent that finally, the previous administration did engage counsel and did set up a committee which spent eonsiderable time in research and investigation and had prepared a draft bill and a bill in a final printed form but which was one of those bills which died with the dissolution of the House in 1969.

We did as a government, immediately after our election, place a high priority on the re-introduction of that legislation which had considerable work yet to be done in respect to some particular items, and we are happy that we persevered even though there was extensive debate by many of the interested parties right across Canada in connection with the import of that legislation. I think it's safe to say that the legislation which we have here in Manitoba is not only to our pride but is looked upon with envy by some other jurisdictions across Canada.

To go back to the beginning of his remarks -- in respect to the Hearing Aid legislation, I can only underline the fact that this legislation was passed at the last session and a Board has been appointed which is a representative board. The board has met, reviewed regulations and regulations have recently been promulgated to bring into being an effective technique for the licensing and administration of Hearing Aid sales pursuant to the provisions of that act. There can be no question but this legislation will work to the benefit of the consumers of hearing aid appliances in Manitoba.

There can be no question but there was in some instances cases of very serious abuse. That is not to say that all hearing aid dealers fell into the same category, but as the Honourable Members pointed out in certain fields of activity it takes but a few unscrupulous and avaricious people to damn an entire industry; but the legitimate and re sponsible dealers in Manitoba who are by and large the overwhelming majority of dealers in the province, have recognized the words of this legislation and have cooperated in the establish ment of the board and in their participation of it.

I am happy to say that those arrangements are in turn A-OK . Now the Honourable Member then was concerned about the over all adequacy of our con sumer legislation and I think his concerns are very legitimate. Consumer legislation is not a field where for example, with Land Titles or Administration of Courts or other areas of government concern, you pass

an Act one year and you can fully expect that that Act with its relevant provisions will be meaningful, and will be untouched for years to come. We live in an area of changing need, and if there's anything that is significant, or has overriding signifi cance in our society, is the pace, or the velocity of change in our society. The products that are coming on the market; the techniques for merchandising change from month to month, let alone year to year. We have a much greater awareness in our society of the type of products that come before us and that are offered to the general public.

And we in this society are indebted to the work of some of the very significant actions that have been taken by some individulas on the North American continent, and I particularly want to acknowledge the effort of a young man in the United States of American whose name is Ralph Nader, who has in some instances, at least initially, single-handedly challenged the corporate giants of industry in North America and brought grudging concessions to the market place, for the need for much safer products for our society.

And we in this House, and we in this society, are indebted to people who have sacrificed in order to make corporate industry much more responsible . I want to reiterate that our legislation of necessity wi ll be subject to review and recon sideration, expansion and modification, year to year. And such will be the case again this year. I intend hopefully .later on in the Session to be bringing forward some albeit minor but nevertheless necessary changes in the Consumer Protection Act and other Acts for which I'm

536 (MR. MACKLING cont'

d) and Internal ,Services. March 29, 1972 • re�pons'ible as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I want.to assur e honourable members that we are not coasting in respect to consumer legislation , or administration of consumer legislation in Manitoba, and that seemed to be the implication of the remarks of the Honourable Member from Assiniboia.

We are not, we are not leaning back on our oars and beco:[IIing complacent, we are aware of the fact that there are pe.ople who are always concerned to find some w'ay to avoid the implications and the provisions of the legislation and the regulations that have been adopted. ' ' , .

And the �hole area of pyramid selling is a particular case in poirit. ·And l touched on this matter b�t bri�flyi n my introductory -renuirks the other night arid I want to indicate to honour able m�mbers that I will be enlisting the cooperation of the news· media· in bringing to the . attention of the consumers of Manitoba, and we are all consumers, the heed for preventive action respecting their engaging in contracts of various kinds on which pyramid selling has its base.

So we are not iri any way going to allow the return of a state of affairs where the law of caveat emptor existed in all its unfairness to consumers in Manitoba , I think that ihe existing President of the Consumer Council of Canada who was one of the · draftsmen· of the Manitoba legislation, and who eXhibited a real pride in the accomplishment of this administration in bringing forward this legislation s� assiduously despite the fact that it was a so-c alled housekeeping session in the fall of 1969, would agree that our legislation is a hallmark within Canada.

We don't intend that this legislation be purely ornamental. As I in dicated in the House last night, the Consumer 's Bureau has been busy and has handled a great number of claims and I won't at the risk of being repetitious repeat the statistics that I gave to the House last night in review of the operation of the department. The honourable member suggested however that to give greater flexibility, and spoke to the operation of the Consumer's Bureau, we ought to have a·c apacity to amend by Order-in ;..Co uncil regulations so that we can meet various problems without the necessity of any delay.

And as much as I appreciate the argument that has to be made for a capacity to react, and react quickly to changes in marketing, nevertheless, as one who believes in the power of this Legislature, I could not condone or sanction a delegation of this Legislature on such· a scale to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that in effect the Lieutenant-Governor:.. in-Council was making sUbstantial new law .

There is a difficult area there where the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can administer the law and as much flexibility must be given in that arE)a, but the kind of sweeping power that would be neces sary to meet all the exigencies of the market place cannot be found in that technique and that is why year in and year out I expect that I, or my succ essors in office, will be coming to this Legislature with reque.sts to make amendments , or further statutory·provisiohs to meet the demands in this field as it changes from year to year. The honourable member was concerned about the whole area of advertising.

It is not our intention, or the intention of this government, or the agencies to cop-out at any confron tation with any area of the market place, or any industry. But one of the things I think that honourable members of the Opposition would be the first to damn would be any attempt by this government, or this administration, to interfere to such an extent with private enterprise in our society, that there would be any substantial interruption of their right to market; then they would be standing up condemning us for being long-haired doctrinaire socialists. But you know, Mr.

Chairman, even, doctrinaire socialists like the Honourable Ron Basford, the Honourable Robert Andres are now associated, at least publicly, with the need for much more substantial regulation in respect to the conduct in the market place -'--(Interjection)-- no after I finish I' ll be glad to, Sir. --( Interjection)-- Pardon me? It's a' good -a ll right if it's a good question. MR . CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if the Honourable Minister could answer as to whether or not he would classify Mr . Basford as a: long-haired socialist ? MR . CHAIRMAN: The Honourable the Attorney-General. MR. MACKLING: Mr .

Chairman, that is an excellent question the only part ·Of the Honour able Mr. Basford 's anatomy that is .e xposed, I would have to say in the negative, but I couldn't be altogether sure . The Federal Goverilll}.ent has made it quite clear that they recognize the need for much more effective measures to deal with the problems that confront consumers in the market place , and we haye gone on record ·as being entirely in sympathy with the principles and objectives of much more effective control in respect to the conduCt of organizations who through combines,

March 29 , 1972 537 (MR . MACK IJN.G cont'd) .. ... arrangements, de facto trust arrangements , and so on, are enabled to effectively control and emasculate the so-called principles that govern private enter - prise of supply and demand,_ . There are occasions, Mr.

Chairman, where arrangements for marketing which are en' tered into between companies that either co-ordinate activities, or have an arrangement for sharing in the production costs, and construction of various products, there are a�rangements such as these where. particularly it is necessary to enable manufacturers to compete, . particu larly in other markets overseas, that these arrangements can be fr�nkly acknowledged, frankly recognized and permitted.

But it's a completely .different thing when manufacturers, and wholesalers, and retailers dominate the domestic market to the extent that. all effective compe tition is eliminated. And I fervently hope, Mr . Chairman, that the removal of the Hon�urable Mr. Basford from his position as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in o'tiawa will not mean any basic retreat of the .Federal.Government in this field. And I pointed that out, or indicated my concern, that there be no retreat of the Federal Government in this field when I had an opportunity to meet the Honourable Ron Basford some days ago.

And I indicated then our conern that. this government wouldn't utilize any negative parochial attitude on the part of our jurisdiction in the field of consumer and corporate affairs to frustrate any necessary remedial action that the Federal Government is prepared to advance. And I look forward, Mr. Chairman, to seeing a re -introduction of the Competition Act under what ever form, and I hope the amendments will not emasculate the basic principles that were first enunciated at the time the bill was introduced by the former federal minister .

I want to assure the Honourable Member from Assiniboia that we won't cop out of any fight with private enterprise, or public enterprise, or cooperative enterprise, in any field of consumer affairs. There is however, a necessary concern that the steps that we take are of reasonable application to all concerned.

I know that when we introduced the provisions of the Human Rights Act, respecting the need for reform in respect to the advertising for personnel in the columns of the media, that there was some concern , as a matter of fact there was some abuse heaped upon the Human Rights Commission .and so�e persons in government for --not by the honourable member , no he shakes his head --for this kind of inanity that appears to have crept into the law.

But I tell you that there has been an acceptance of the fact that there was discriminatory practice and the media have cooperated and they're now, so far as I'm concerned , doing an effective job, and they respect the law and need for it. There have been instances where the Consumer's Bureau has investigated cases where misleading advertising has occurred and we have had cooperation by the individual firms that have been questioned and in most instances there has been immediate rectification.

But I agree it's an area that you have to keep aware of constantly because the advertisement can run and be in effect before attention is brought to us. The honourable .member in one of the cases that he referred to, the only case he referred to in a consumer field, mentioned .the difficulty in respect to repairs covering warranties of equipment and I think this government demonstrated at the last session that it was prepared to tackle this question in a very significant way.

My honourable colleague the Minister of Agri culture, whom I understand is ill today otherwise he would be here, piloted through the Legis lature and through the Committee a very extensive bill making provision for the kind of assurance to farmers of the availability of repair services and parts in an industry that is subject to the vagaries of the equipment breakdown and very serious loss in the event that the . equipment cannot be repaired in a very short time.

I know in the instant case of that legislation there was very considerable concern on the part of the manufacturers, the wholesalers and dealers, and so on, but again it was demonstrated that when the issue is placed, they are pre pared to cooperate, and I 'm giVE(n to understand that the Board which has been set up to adminis ter that Act, that everything appears to be well in hand :ln respect to it. The honourable member was concerned about a much more effective education program.

Well I can only assure honourable �embers that a substantial portion of the program that is involved in the monetary figures that are reflected in the Estimates provide for an improve ment and a strengthening of the educational and outreach program of the department . .

The honourable .member . indicated a concern to ensure that there was an effective remedy in the courts in an efficient and economic way to handle consumer claims , and that is one of .the reasons why at the last session of the House again we moved to make provisions within the County Court Act for a simplified expedient remedy for those persons whose small claims

538 March 29, 1972 (MR . MACKIJNG cont'd) . . . . . otherwise might go unanswered, or unadvocated because of the prohibitory costs of engaging counsel and rather technical and laborious court proceed ings . And as I indicated in the House during the course of the Estimates of the Attorney General's Department, there has been a substantial number of claims that have been processed through that

section of the County Court Act already. The honourable member was concerned about much more advocacy, much more aggressive assertion on the part of the Consumer's Bureau in respect to consumer's needs, and I think, Mr . Ch airman, that what we have demonstrated is that this government is not only prepared to act, and to innovate, and to develop new programs, but to do it in a manner that every prudent, reasonable person in Manitoba would say was not only fair and proper but was deliberate, con sidered, unhurried, and reasonable . Mr .

Chairman , there were many in Manitoba that took a very frightened attitude about the emergence of a New Democratic Party government that would initiate programs in the con sumer field; initiate programs that would provide for some greater measure of relief, and redress some positions of imbalance that existed for many years.

And the concern that was evidenced by a great many people particularly those who had some affiliation with either the Progressive Conservative party or the Liberal party of Manitoba, said, "watch out those radicals will move too far, too fast - they haven't got the mandate", and so on, and we heard it. Oh, how we heard it. It echoed in the Chambers, in the hallways of the Chambers of Co mmerce, and every Manufacturers Association, from one corridor to another in Manitoba . But what have we done what have we done?

We've moved carefully, pragmatically, responsibly in respect to consumer areas and we have been recognized throughout North America as a very responsible a government in respect to the whole area of Consumer Affairs. Now I want to assure honourable members that we are not laying back in respect to the need for continuing concern in the Consumer field and as I'll indicate as questions or comments are made in respect to the various segments of this department's estimates, we have made significant - in making provision for significant increases in programming. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR.

CRAIK: ... here. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR . PATRICK: Mr . Chairman, the Minister never mentioned about a government services . Can the Consumer Bureau look and deal with the government services as well as it does with everybody else ? Because in many areas now the consumers are consumers of govern ment services. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MACKIJNG: Mr . Chairman, as I recall that is not the case .

Surely the government which is representative of the consumers directly through the individuals who are democratically elected, have a direct responsibility to the consumers of this province and that relationship is so direct that the suggestion that the honourable member makes is just illogical. MR . CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. CRAIK: Mr . Chairman, first of all, I think a legitimate question is why we are debating the Minister's Salary again when we just finished debating his salary and we have another $15, 600 contained in this portion -- no, he can answer in due course .

I'll give you due time in which to do it. From that point of view, Mr. Chairman, I suppose that's the only question I have to ask. The rest are comments that I want to make with regards to the estimates here and I must say, Mr. Chairman, I did not really intend -- like so many others in this Chamber and myself included -- at the beginning of this , to enter at this point in time but having listened to the Minister 's remarks and having him present the case of government in that very arrogant air tell how he and Mr.

Basford in their discussions want to make sure that proper legislation goes ahead and that the Competition Act is brought through and invoked on the business people of Canada and Manitoba, so that these great injustices that are being perpetrated, carried out and exercised by business over the unsuspecting public are brought to a halt. Now, Mr .

Chairman, if there is any problem in Canada and in particular in Manitoba that is nonexistent, it is the problem with business on an average exercising itself to the extent that an unsuspecting public is damaged; by far more, there is the danger and the actual practice of government exercising itself and imposing itself through legislation on the people of Manitoba. What is concern to the business people of this province are the great accumulations of legislation,

March 29, 1972 539 (MR . CRAIK cont 'd) . . . . . acts , rules and regulations that they are expected to live by so that some person in an obscure corener can at some time or other pick them up and straighten them out on the matter and this is the very difficult problem. It is not that business itself is at fault here.

The Prime Minister of Canada in a TV broadcast in the last three months in answer to a question about· the growth of government and the massively increasing amount of legislation rules and regulations made the statement that "Why shouldn't government grow?'' He says "the academic community is stronger, the labour unions are stronger, and the busi ness community is stronger, therefore government has to be stronger." So these four segments all have to be stronger. Well, Mr. Chairman, this is the most fatuous statement that could have been made in Canada today.

The business community in Canada is not that strong, It is not growing in strength to the same extent that the other three segments of the community are growing and in particular it's not growing in strength at the rate of government and here is government bring ing in a budget which is increased by $60 million, eleven percent; it was 15 percent last year and they stand up and berate the operations of certain aspects of business and how they are go ing to have to straighten business out. Well, business is not the problem in Manitoba.

It may be the lack of business but busi ness itself, and existing business in Manitoba is not the problem.

What the problem is, is too much government, and these increasing costs and rules and regulations being imposed on them by this government in particular -- which has a particular bent in that direction -- is making the situation much more intolerable than it was for the business community in Manitoba even over the ages that it has struck in the midwestern part of Canada where it needs all the en couragement it can get rather than being berated and discouraged to the extent that this govern ment is doing it .

And the assistance that the -w ell let's take one item -$50, 000 increase in Public Information Service for the government, 25 percent increase in the Public Relation material that are going to be cranked out by this government and still, they sit there -- yes, the sort of thing that where the Attorney-General and the Minister has to feel compelled to waste a page to put his picture on it with his own personal message; another $50, 000 so we can have more ministers' pictures on pamphlets . Mr .

Chairman, 25 percent -- I'll ask you to check with any business in Manitoba any average business in Manitoba, that has increased its PR budget by 25 percent -- any one - still the government feels that it can stand up here, preach, and invoke rules and regulations on government, encourage Mr. Basford in Ottawa to do the same and at the same time, feels that it can impose on the people and the business anything that it very well desires. MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order has been raised. The Honourable First Minister. MR . SCHRE YER: My point of order, Mr.

Chairman, is simply to ask whether in the Chair's opinion a misstatement of fact constitutes a point of order. If it does, Mr. Chairman, then I submit to you that there is a misstatement of fact insofar as the Honourable Member's last two or three statements are concerned when he said that there was an increase in the PR budget of the government.

I submit to you, Sir, that the facts will show that the total amount allocated for advertising for all the departments and agencies of the Crown has in fact been kept to a level no greater than, in certain respects less than was the case when my honourable friend was in office. MR . CHAIRMAN: ... the honourable member to ... MR . CRAIK: Well, Mr . Speaker, I suppose it's questionable whether or not that could not have been answered by the Minister when he replied to my statement.

The budget as far as I can see was two years ago $126, 000, last year $141 ,0 00 and the totals this year come to $162, 700 in salaries so MR . CHAIRMAN : The Honourable First Minister on a point of order. MR . SCHR EYER: The honourable friend if he will check the record, will check Hansard, will see that he was referring to the generality of government PR in advertising spending; and insofar as the generality is concerned I submit to you again, Sir, the facts will show that the total budget for these purposes is less than, certainly no geater than when my honourable friend was in office .

He is now presuming to speak only with reference to this department. That's one thing, but that is not what his previous remarks were couched in terms of. MR . CHAIRMAN : I would advise the honourable member to confine his remarks to the estimates under which we are under discussion. MR . CRAIK: Well, Mr . Chairman, I was referring to -- I was speaking on the Minister's

540 March 29 , 1972 (MR. CRAIK cont'd) ..... Salary on·this department and my remarks -I stated the figures --were referred to this department and the salary figures I stated. are also referred to this department. Well I have assumed in this that this included the operation of the .regular Public Infor mation Service of the Manitoba government. If you wish, if the government would wish to present a complete

summary of their information, that! s fine; we'll. be quite prepared to review it, Mr . Chairman. The point in: question is why a minister can get up and speak in this attitude towards busi ness and at the same time can act as both the -he's in a position through he or his Cabinet to act as both judge and jury. They not only can set the rules for business, they now have the instrument by which they can get into business .

They can set the rules by which other busi nesses operate and have inade significant moves in that direction .in the last few years, despite the fact that the business community itself which generates most of the GNP of the province if you want to look at it in terms of strictly economic terms, have received if anything a large over -dose of discouragement in carrying out their responsibilities. There is no question in Manitoba and we have heard the Minister of Finance for one and others say when we've made the allegation that the business community is discouraged and moving out of Manitoba.

We have heard the retort come back from the other side of the House, "prove it", "prove it". Well, Mr. Chairman, that shows and reflects the same degree of arrogance that the Minister of Consumer Affairs shows when he says that he's going to certainly encourage Mr.

Basford to bring through that Competition Act; make sure that Competition Act's not watered down, bring it through in full force, make sure that the business people certainly don't get away with all the things that he must think they have been getting away with in Manitoba --and I assure him, we're not going to be able to prove it to him or any other member of his government that the business community in Manitoba is in fact discouraged and is in fact moving out of Manitoba. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St. George on a point of order. MR. WILLIAM URUSKI (St. George) : Mr.

Chairman, on a point of order the honourable member speaking there is stating that members on this side are making remarks of "prove it". For his information it's members on his own side of the House that are yelling "prove it". MR . CHAIRMAN: It's not a point of order I'm afraid . The Honourable Member for Riel. MR . CRAIK : Well, we've heard the taunts come back several times, Mr. Chairman, "prove it", prove that the business community is discouraged, prove that people are moving out of Manitoba from business, you know. Well as I say, Mr . Chairman, I tell you right now .. . MR . CHAIRMAN: Order.

The Honourable Member for Riel . MR . CRAIK: We are not going to be able to prove it . We can still state it . It's our belief, it's my belief, it's my conviction that the business community is in a state of discourage ment in Manitoba that has never been paralleled as long as I have ever been here. The gradu ates from the universities coming out of the universities are in a state of discouragement about pro§lpects in Manitoba that has never been paralleled to my knowledge. --(Interjection) --Well, it's my opinion Mr. Chairman, I think I have the right to ... MR .

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable First Minister on a point of order. MR . SCHREYER: Mr. Chairman, it's a case of your determining whether it constitutes a point of order for the honourable gentleman again to engage in misstatements of fact; and it is a matter of simple fact as to whether or not there have been more businesses operating in this province now or at some date in the past; and it is a matter of fact I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that the number of businesses operating in Manitoba is greater today than at any time when my honourable friend was in office . It's a matter of fact. MR .

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Morris . MR . JORGENSON: ..• point of order, it's a difference of opinion in debate and the First Minister can get up when his turn comes to reply to the statements made by the Member for Riel when he wants to. His question of rising up on only points of order --and the Minister knows it --just because he can't wait and sit until his turn to come up in a debate. Why doesn't he wait until he has the· opportunity to debate or he is called? --(Interjection) -- MR. CHAIRMAN:· Order please. Order please. The Honourable First Minister --to the point of order. MR. SCHREYER: Yes, Mr .

Chairman, I pursue the point of order because the Honourable Member for Morris, the Honourable Member for Morris indicated this was a matter of opinion.

March 29 , 1972 541 · (MR. SCHRE YER cant 'd) . . . . . I submit to you, Sir, it is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact and misstatements of fact constitute points of order; and the statement of fact that is involved is the number of businesses . that are operating in Manitoba and the totality of their business operations in dollar terms. That, Sir, is a matter of fact that can be clearly ascertained. It is not a matter of opinion and in that respect the number of businesses operating is larger and the dollar value of their operations is also larger.

That, Sir, is a mtter of fact, not a matter of opinion. MR . CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Lakeside on the same point of order. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, the Honourable Member for Riel speaks in a relatively cool, slow fashion that anybody not understanding what he is saying, really lacks credibility. He said so on several occasions that we could not prove it, that neither would we try to prove it, nor could we ever prove it to your satisfaction. He suggested, Mr. Chairman, that there was a degree of discouragement in a segment of our society.

He suggested that there was a degree of discouragement among our graduates coming out of the universities looking for jobs and surely that, Mr. Chairman, is an opinion which any member has the right to express in this House and which is an opinion that can be refuted by any member opposite when his time comes. MR. CHAIRMAN : Order please. The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek on the same point of order. MR.

FR ANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): The First Minister seems to be a little bit excited about the member speaking his mind or his opinions in the House and if I may, to the point of order to the First Minister on that subject, on the steps of the Le gislature the other day, he stated, ''Don't forget that in a democracy a person ... " Wait a minute, Mr. Speaker, this is .. . MR. CHAIR MAN: Order ! Order !

I think -- taken the point under consideration and I think I will have to rule the Member from Riel out of order unless he can prove the misstate ment of fact that he has stated that there is less -- I think this is the objection that the First Minister raised -- that there is less industry and less gross national product in the Province of Manitoba than there was in the past. The Honourable. Member for Arthur. On the same point of order? MR . J. DOUGLAS WATT (Arthur) : On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I think for years in this legislature that any member of the House on this side or on that side have been allowed to express their opinion. Without putting the figures and facts directly before you, Mr. Chairman, .•• MR . CHAIRMAN: I have ruled against .•. MR . WATT: ..• I can't quite understand why you . • . should now rules a member out of order. MR . CHAIRMAN: I have ruled the member out of order. MR. JORGENSON: I challenge that ruling. MR . CHAIRMAN: The Honourable First Minister. MR . SCHRE YER: Before .. . MR . JORGENSON: Mr. Chairman, that is not debatable. I have challenged your ruling.

There is no debate, and the First Minister should know that. He doesn't seem to know much else but he should know that. MR. SCHRE YER: Has a formal ruling been given? MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged and there is no debate to that. Order please. Order please. There's no point of order till this decision is confirmed. MR. SIDNEY GREEN, Q. C. (Inkster) : Yes, Mr. Chairman, the decision relates to the point of order that is being put which I believe has been misunderstood and I want to see whether it can be clarified.

My understanding is that the First Minister rose to say that if a misstatement of fact is being made that he is permitted to rise on a point of order calling that to the attention of the House. As I understood what the Chairman may have said, which is slightly different, that a person couldn't proceed to state a fact unless he could prove it. That point of order was never raised as I understood it by this side of the House. Therefore we would not want to be involved in dealing with a point of order to the embarrassment of everybody which has not been raised and I would hope that members would go along with that.

My understanding is that the First Minister rose to say that when a person misstates a

542 March 29, 1972 (MR . GREEN cont'd) .. ... fact another member has a point of order in calling to the attention that a fact has been misstated. Whether that is correct or not, you don't appear to be asking the Speaker , as I heard you say to the Member for Riel, that if he is not able to prove a fact, he can't state it. I don't believe, Mr . Chairman, with the greatest of respect, and I would not want to create an embarrassing situation, that that point was ever raised.

I don't think the House needs a ruling on that type of a point and I don't think a ruling was requested on that type of point, and therefore with all respect to the Member for Morris who challenged that, we don't feel that there should be a challenge on a hypothetical ruling, but merely as to whether a person is entitled to rise in his place on a point of order if he thinks a fact is being misstated . MR . CHAffiMAN: The Honourable Member for Morris . MR . JORGENSON: Mr. Chairman, since the Member for Inkster was permitted to speak on this point of order, I want to say that my understanding was very clear.

The Chairman ruled the Member for Riel out of order and asked him to withdraw certain remarks and it was on that basis that I challenged his ruling. I thought that the matter that was before the House was very clear. I believe that the Member for Riel is entitled to state his opinions as he sees them . If members opposite disagree with him, that is fine, they can disagree and when their turn comes they can rise in their place and reply. We are not living in a totalitarian state yet and the First Minister better not get ideas about that here. MR . CHAffiMAN: Order please. The Honourable First Minister. . MR .

SCHREYER: Mr . Speaker, I had wanted to rise earlier to make much the same point as was made by the Member for Inkster but there seemed to be an understanding, shall I say on both sides of the House, that the ruling having been challenged that the matter would now have to proceed to Mr. Speaker.

But since two honourable members have been allowed to speak further to the point at issue , I want to say again, Sir, that what I had risen to in terms of a point of order was not a difference of opinion -- I recognize as well as the Honourable Member for Morris that there can be no point of order raised on a difference of opinion. That's what this legislature is all about.

But what I submitted earlier was a point of order related to certain statements which I submit were statements presuming to be made as statements of fact: numbers of graduate students, numbers of businesses; the growth economic production of this province; these are measurable and they are identifiable as fact or misfact. MR . CHAffiMAN: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR . CRAIK: On the point of order. The poinl that you asked me to retract was a point that was not ever at any stage made by myself. It was made by the First Minister .

I didn't even refute what he said and what you asked me to retract never even entered or went through or came by this way, and for that reason alone your ruling has to be challenged. Either that or you may wish to review the Hansards and withdraw it. MR . SCHREYER: ... perhaps the way to really determine the matter is to peruse Hansard, and if I'm wrong in terms of what I understood the Honourable Member for Riel to have said, I will withdraw, then the matter becomes, in effect, needless to pursue further . MR . CHAffiMAN: Order. I will take the matter under consideration.

The hour being 4:30 and in accordance with our House Rules , the last hour of every day is Private Members' Hour. If I might before we rise just draw to the attention of the Committee that we have spent nine hours and 45 minutes on the Attorney-General's department, five minutes in Interim Supply, an hour and 20 minutes on the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, for a total of 11 hours and 10 minutes. I believe when we adopt our House Rules next week, there is a total of 18 departments which gives us approximately five hours each. I just give you this for your information. Committee Rise.

Call in the Speaker. IN SESSION MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan. MR . WILLIAM JENKINS (Logan): Mr . Speaker, I move seconded by the Honourable Member for Osborne that the report of the Committee be received. MR . SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: This being the Private Members' hour on Wednesday,Orders for Return are the first items' of business . On the proposed Order for Return the Honourable Member for Fort Garry.

March 29 , 197 2 543 ORDERS FOR RE TURN MR . SHERMAN : Mr.

Speaker , my Order for Re turn that has been transferred for de bate emanates from a fatal boxing card in the Winnipeg Arena on the 21st of Fe bruary of this year which in turn led to the resig nation of the former Manitoba Boxing and Wre stling Commis sion and its replacement by a new commission membership, and all of those events in turn leR to a number of questions in the public mind and certainly in my own mind, Sir, as to the manner in which the Minister of Tourism, Recrea tion and Cultural Affairs dealt with the incident in question, A number of questions come up as a consequence of the February 21st boxing card and the Minister 's handling of same and I would like to say at the outset, Mr.

Speaker , that I find myself in a rather difficult position because I, while believing that the Minister has acted un wisely and unjudiciously and unfairly where this particular situation is concerned, I think that he is doing an admirable job in the field of providing support, moral and otherwise, for cul tural groups and organizations in the Province of Manitoba and he is making a contribution to that mosaic that I give him credit for. So I put that caveat on my remarks to begin with, Mr. Speaker.

But we're dealing here with a fight card that led to a situation that has been mis handled by the Minister , in my opinion, and it's on that basis that I make these remarks now, Sir, Sir, a number of basic questions arise immediately in viewing that card and the Minister 's handling of it, The first one, I suppose, is one that has come up in just the last three or four days, and that is the question of how come the government feels disposed to launch an enquiry which may be somewhat expensive into that particular incident, which albeit involved a fatality but which probably affects the lives of only a few people in Manitoba and which in the First Minister 's own words is not likely to have any affect on the peace, order or good government of the prov ince; while an incident in the past three or four days affecting the lives of a great many native Manitobans and their position in society and their leadership in society, does not call for an investigation or an enquiry.

So this is one question, Mr. Speaker -- I see you ris ing to admonish me -- this is one question that arises in respect to the incident to which I refer and it has as I say arisen only in the last three or four days .

A se cond question is the question of the extent to which the decision by the Minister to advise his Commission that he was not in favour of the suspension that was imposed on the principles in that fight card, the extent to which that decision by the Minister was influenced by consideration on his part or on the part of any of his advisers, consideration of the fact that George Chuvalo and his manager , Mr.

Irving Ungerman were in the process at the time of that ill-fated fight card of negotiating a profitable fight contract for Chuvalo with Mohammed Ali, formerly known as Cass ius Clay -- a fight that I believe is to take place in early May in Vancouver and which will carry a purse for Chuvalo of something in the neighborhood of $60, 00 0, 00, In other words, to what extent was the Minister 's action with respect to that sus pension a gigantic cop-out, To what extent was he not going under to pressu re subtle or other wise or influences subtle or otherwise that reminded him that the professi onal boxing industry _ had a big card coming up in May involving Chuvalo and that certainly nobody wanted Chuvalo or Ungerman to be under suspension at this time, otherwise they couldn't negotiate that contract.

A third question that comes up, Mr. Speaker, is the question as to whether or not the Minister has saddled the taxpayers of Manitoba with unnecessa ry expense in acting the way that he did. Has he not -- in other words, Mr. Speaker, relinquished the only club he had for assu ring that the ten surviving principals involved in that card would appear to testify and an swer questions related to that card in order to guarantee their continued professi onal participa tion in the boxing industry.

Has he not relinquished that club by instructing his former com mission to lift the suspens ion that it imposed on those principals and by turning the enquiry over to Judge Benjamin Hewak. I would stress that I have no quarrel with the Commission of Judge Hewak, with the assig nment from the Minister to investigate all aspects of that card and nor does the former Boxing Commission. They have agreed themselves that they would be -- they would welcome a full-scale enquiry by Judge Hewak into that card. But the question remains , Mr.

Speaker , as to the opportunity that the Minister and the judge himself are going to have to bring the principals in that card back to testify, and whether or not the Minister did not relinquish the only thing he had when he left those principals out of a Commission enquiry here, A suspension by the Manitoba Boxing and Wrestling Commission, Mr. Speaker , would

544 March 29 , 1972 (MR. SHERMAN cont'd) ••••• have been observed by every boxing jurisdiction in the world. The Minister when he gets up to reply a few minutes from now-- and perhaps I'm an ticipating his statement, but I would suggest that when he gets up to reply a few minutes from now he's going to say that that suspension by the Manitoba Boxing Commission would not have been honoured by the rest of the world. But I say to you Mr.

Speaker, and through you to the Minister that that suspension would have been honoured by every boxing jurisdiction in the world at least certainly in the western world, and that those men could not have boxed anywhere again until their names were cleared by the Manitoba Boxing Commission. They would have had to stay here and they would have had to do it then instead of putting the taxpayer to the expense of bringing them back now -- that is if, Mr. Speaker, if in fact the taxpayer can. even succeed in bringing them back now.

The Minister will say and he's already suggested that he didn't want to convict these people without a trial until they were proven guilty. Well that's another cop-out, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has been in sport long enough to know and he does know that nobody is talking about convicting them without a trial.

But a fighter was killed, another fighter took a dive, a referee said that two other fighters took dives ; and in any boxing jurisdiction in the world, Sir, and in any horse racing jurisdiction in the world and in fact in the jurisdiction of any sport in the world where there is big money bet on the outcome of contest and as a consequence there is likely to be some association with professional gamblers , it is standard, accepted routine procedure known to every athlete in the sport, accepted by every participant in the sport, that if there's suspicion of questionable or unethical activity in a fight or in a horse race, that the commission in that jurisdiction suspends, holds up the purses and investigates.

And that the principals who participated in that questionable fight or horse race are not free to pursue their trade in boxing rings or on race tracks for the next three to five to seven days until that com mission has completed its investigation and they don't receive their purses from fight or the horse race until the commission has completed its investigation. And the Minister knows that Sir, he's been in sports for 40 years and to suggest that this is conviction before trial or con viction before proof is patently a smokescreen in this case, it's patently a contrived excuse on his part.

Furthermore, if he wants to talk about conviction before trial, I would suggest that he scrutinize his conduct towards his own former Boxing Commission, all three members of which are distinctly unhappy to say the least with some of the. suggestions of. a critical nature that the Minister made on television and in the newspapers -- whether he was quoted correctly or not I cannot say -- but he was certainly quoted at length in the newspapers and he appeared in interviews on television in the week following the ill-fated boxing card in which, Sir, with out stretching the imagination one could say he called into question the conduct of the Boxing Commission.

He questioned its performance and the fulfilment of its duties and the meeting of its responsibilities. At that point in time a cloud was cast over the members of the Boxing Commission -- I refer to the former commission under Chairman, Don Rowand, Assistant Chairman, Ray Dorey, Secretary, Norman Coston and on the basis of that I suggest that when he talks about conviction without trial that perhaps he should scrutinize his own conduct to wards those commission members. Mr.

Speaker, I'm certain that I'll be challenged on this statement by the Minister but it is my information in lengthy consultation with the Boxing Commission that following the February 21st fight card, the Minister did not meet with the Boxing Commission as such. He met with a member of the Boxing Commission, Mr. Norman Coston but he did not meet with the Boxing Commission as such until the Sunday following which was February 27th at which time he met with them in order to suggest that they lift the suspension they had imposed.

I would suggest to you, Sir, that you or anybody else in this Chamber -- and I would have expected it of the Minister with his long experience in sports -- being a ministerial officer and a public servant with a commission in a sports jurisdiction operating under him, I would think would impose on him a ready acceptability of a formula for looking into this kind of question able event, this kind of a questionable fight card and that formula would be it seems to me that the moment that fight card was over that night.

If he took any interest in it he would have known there were decisions that were suspect and there was certainly activity that was suspect and Stewart Gray was taken unconscious from the Arena. The moment that fight card was over he should have been on the phone to that Boxing Commission and said, "Gentlemen, I want you in my office at 9:00 o'clock tomorrow morning". Now, Sir, the Minister did not do that, to my

March 29, 1972 545 (MR. SHERMAN cont'd) ••••. knowledge. He may get up and say that he phoned and tried to get them, But to my knowledge he did not summon the Boxing Commission to his office nor did he go to the Boxing Commission •s office which is the office of the Tourist and Convention Bureau.

He did at a point during the week meet with the se cretary Norman Coston but I have correspondence here that I' m prepared to table which indicates that the secretary made it plain at that time that he was speaking for hims elf and not for the full Boxing Commi ssion and the same applied when the Boxing Commission imposed a suspension on those principals later in the week, It was a decision that was taken by the full Boxing Comm ission, These are -- there are three or four communications , Mr.

Speaker , here between the principals to whom I refer, the members of the Manitob a Boxing and Wres tling Commission and the Honourable Larry Desj ardins, February 28th, February 27th and February 24th, and I will certainly table them, They are letters and memos outlining the point that I have made that whatever meetings were held were not until February 27 -- were not held as meetings between the Minister and the full Boxing Commission. MR . SPEAKER : Order, please, The Honourable Minister of ••• HON . LAUR ENT L, DESJARDINS (Minister of Tou rism, Recrea tion and Cultural Affairs) (St.

Boniface): • • • to ask a question • • • were addressed to anyone else or a memo that somebody wrote to himself, MR . SPEA KER: Order , pleas e. I'd like to indicate to the Minister if he does wish a question he'll have to ask the members to yield and he'll have to be recognized otherwise Hansard will not contain his question. The Honourable Minister. MR . DESJARD INS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question was -- are those documents that have been tabled, letters addressed to me or that I've received or memos that somebody scribbled to himself. MR .

SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Fort Garry, MR, SHERMAN : There are three documents , Mr. Speaker . One is a letter sent to Mr. Desj ardins by the Boxing Commi ssion, one is a letter sent to the Boxing Comm issi on by the Minister, the Honourable Minister, and one is a memo and I-it 's not a scribbled memo , it's a typed memo , and I would have to ask the Clerk to remind me of what it is, but it 's communi cation between the Minister and members of the Commi ssion, Thank you, It's a memo dated February 24th from the Minister to Mr. Norman Coston, the secretary of the Commis sion. Mr.

Speaker , the Minister will also probably try to say when he speaks a minute or two from now that that Manitoba suspension would not have stuck even if he had allowed the Commission to continue in its intention. That , Mr. Speaker , is not true . MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Labour on a point of order, MR . PAUL LEY: I wonder whether or not it 's proper for the Honourable Member for Fort Garry to make such a statement that the Minister may probably do something, or the likes of that.

I think that my honourable friend should be a little more explicit and give a little more courtesy to the Honourable the Minister of Tourism and Recr eation, MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Lakeside, MR . ENNS: Mr. Speaker , on the same point of order and I would ask your indulgence - we've had several examples today again of what we can or what we cannot do on this side.

The Member from Fort Garry several times used the words -- he anticipates what perhaps the Minister may or how he may reply -- that he suggests that if he does reply in this fashion that he has an opinion as to the validity of that reply. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that these are expressi ons , terminology, a method of debate that have stood the test of time for a consider able length of time, MR . SPEAKER: Order , please. On the point of order raised by tre Honourable Minister of Labour, I should like to indicate in regards to debate, a member debating should not impugn other member s.

The Honourable Member for Fort Garry may continue, He has three minutes . MR . SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker , I'm not impugning or imputing -- the Minister will sub stantiate my anticipation because he and I have discussed it outside the Chamber and one of the -- let me put it this way, if it'll sati sfy the House Leader. One of the arguments that the Minister has raised with me when we discussed this subject outside the Chamber is the fact that the Commiss ion suspension could never have stuck, would never have been able to stick, That is not true , Mr. Speaker.

The semi wind up on the card -- no, the wind up on the card was a championship fight between Al Sparks and Stu Gray. That championship fight had to be sanctioned by the Canadian Boxing Federation, In turn it was recognized by the World Boxing

546 March 29, 1972 (MR. SHERMAN cont1d) ••••• Federation. The $100 fee was paid by the commission to guar11ntee that it would be so sanctioned and being so sanctioned and so recognized there is no question that that suspension would have been recognized by the Canadian Boxing Federation and through it the World Boxing Federation. Furthermore, a Toronto newspaper report a few days after the fight in question carried a story reporting that the World Boxing Federation had said it would endorse and it would respect a suspension if one were imposed. Mr.

Speaker, the Minister may feel that there would be undue hardship levied on the principals had they been suspended. Well he knows as well as I do that in the first place fo ur figh ters on that card were knocked out or allegedly knocked out so they couldn •t have fought again for 30 days anyway, that's standard boxing rules in any jurisdiction.

And the others , as far as the others are concerned, they don't fight every week or every month or every day of tre week anyway and boxing commissions normally take anywhere from three to seven days to complete their investigations, so there would have been no hardship imposed on any one's opportunity to earn a living or on anyone's livelihood, no hardship at all. Mr. Speaker, basically my argument is that the Minister had bungled this assignment and this responsibility.

He stumbled into it on bad advice bungled the handling of it and then looked for a scapegoat he needed and he has tried to make them appear guilty of having been derelict in their duties or of having bungled in some way without having met them the morning after or the day after the fight and asked them for the report on what happened, So that the questions I raiSed are really beside the point of that central issue whether or not he did act unfairly and discourteously to that Boxing Commission by failing to back them up as their minister, by failing to permit them to operate in the area of responsibility with which they are charged, and that is to suspend and investigate in the wake of a highly questionable card.

I think these are the questions that many Manitobans would like to have answered, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Cultural Affai rs. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed reaction, mixed feelings that I stand to take

part in this debate. I say mixed reaction because the Minister, the member who has just spoken paraphrased practically every paragraph every statement that he made by saying the Minister will say so I guess there . -- shouldn't be too much point in me standing up and speaking for myself, Now it's true that I've been called a liar before I opened my mouth but this is fin e, I must remember that my honourable friend also addressed some very kind words to me so that should also counterbalance the bad things that he said about m.e.

Mr, Speaker, I wish to say right now that I've refused this Order for Return for a num ber of reasons and I stated at the time that I will try to answer most of them at this time. Therefore I have in front of me the Order for Return.

I might say that starting from the bottom it might be a little easier, that from 13 to 16 that'll be covered in other orders, or if my honourable friend wants to bring in a separate order, I'd consider at the time, I can tell him now that at no time will I ever accept a question such as 16, the number of times that the Minister met with each such Board, Commission or Agency and so on. I certainly haven't got a counter that I'm going to keep track of any times that I do anything and I don't think that this should concern my honourable friend too much.

Now No. 11 and 12 -- and this is an important thing, The member has insinuated that I had been pressured into this and this is what he 's trying to find out in 11 and 12, Mr.

Chair man, for the record, I' ll read this: " The number of occasions from February 1st, 1972 to March 1st, 1972 on which the Minister had communication, written or verbal, with Irving Ungerman or George Chuvalo, or both; boxing promoter Jack Keller; The Canadian Profession al Boxing Federation; the Ontario Athletics Commission; the main subject of these communica tions, if any.' ' This might come as a Shock to my honourable friend because he's imputing motives to me, I will say that at no time, at no time from that date or even after this have I talked to or received any communication or written any of these people.

I don't know any of them personally. I know Chuvalo by reputation. I never heard of Keller and I knew Ungerman, I've heard of Ungerman as most people that read the sports page. So I'm very sorry to dis appoint my honourable friend , I've never discussed this with these people at all and I'm not the least bit concerned what these people think. Now from 7 to 10 there's a deep dark secret to demonstrate that this was all a cooked-up deal, that I wanted to fire the commission, to name this com.IIiission. I would tell him this, tell my honourable friend this.

That first of all on Thursday, the 24th, the Cabinet- and I'm not going to hide behind the Cabinet -- the Cabinet accepted my recommendation and

,--------------- March 29 , 1972 547 (MR . DESJARDINS cont'd) ••••. appointed Judge Hewak to be a judicial commission to investigate this special card, Now on that very day I informed Mr. Coston by phone immedi ately -,--my friend wants to say that I was most unfair -- I try to be fair, I wanted him to know before it was released, because an Order-in-Council, Mr. Speaker, as everybody knows is a public document, the press gets a hold of that and fine. So I phoned Mr.

Coston who said he understood, who said that he was accepting this and who also said that he would not have any thing to do with the conducting of any enquiry -- he or the board, he was speaking for the board - he would not have anything to do with investigating that card, He was satisfied and he told me that and at a meeting that we had at a further date he also admitted that he had said that to me. Now on the Friday I also received a memo -- we'll talk about this later on -- on Friday, the 25th I was at a meeting at Hecla Island, As I said, I informed Mr.

Coston in the morning, I had a discussion with him and sent him a memo , but I had a discussion on Thursday after noon. Now on Friday while I was attending a meeting in Hecla Island with my Deputy Minister and Assista nt Deputy Minister there was a phone call; it was Mr.

Coston that was calling me at Hecla Island, to my great surprise told me that the commissi on had met and decided to sus pend all those who had anything to do with the boxing card, I remi nded him first of all of. the intent of the Cabinet, when the Cabinet decided to name this Hewak Commis sion; I also re minded him of the fact that he had agreed not to have anything to do, the commission would not have anything to do with the commission; told me that they had second thoughts, told me that there was some statement made in the papers from Toronto, from all over the place that made him think that maybe they should act.

He said that they were doing that and I said well you know the intent of Cabinet, And that was my concern. That was my concern. My honourable friend is right. Some people say that these people , that the commission had no right to do that , no longer any right because there w

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-4-24
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 4th hansardpdf 24.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d79e8b7f189f0bb81fa8eb9aedcad415b095ead3

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