Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 149 (29th Legislature, 4th Session)

29-4-149

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

TH E LE GIS LATIVE AS SE MBLY OF MANI TO BA 8:00 o'clock , Thur sday, Ju ly 6, 19 72 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker . 3879 MR . SPE AKE R : Pre senting Pe tit ion s; Reading and Receiving Pe tit ions; Pre senting Re por ts by St a.nding and Spec ial Commi tt ee s; Mini sterial St at emen ts and Tabling of Repor ts ; No tice s of Motion; In troduc tion of Bills; Oral Ques t ion s; Order s of th e Day, GOVE RN MEN T BI LLS MR . SPE A KER : The Honourable House Leader, HON . RUS SE LL PA ULL E Y (Mini ster of Labour ) (Tran scona) : Mr, Speaker , will you call Bill 81 , MR.

SPE A KER : Propo sed Motion of th e Honourable Mini ster of Labour . The Honourable Member for Riel, MR. DONA LD W, CR AI K (Riel ): Mr. Speaker , Bill 8 1 is th e mo st impor tan t bill before th e Legisla ture and th e mo st impor tan t it em th a t we will deal wi th at th i s session , and at th is stage of dealing wi th it , I would like to pa ss commen t on tw o fea ture s of th e bill th at I th ink are impor tant, not th at th a t th ey are th e mo st im por tant, bu t are impor tan t along wi t h a number of ot her fea ture s, Mr.

Speaker , I th ink th a t in thi s deba te, similar to th e deba te th a t took place ju st before supper wi t h regard s to th e school aid is sue , th at th ere is some concern th at th ere is a fair amoun t of tribu t e and lip service paid to aspec ts of th e bill th at are going to be paid more face tiou sly th at th ey are in th e school aid is sue, I th ink th a t by and large th e bill doe s contain some good fea ture s bu t it cer tainly contain s some fea ture s I do not consider to be progre ssive legi sla tion, Mr.

Speaker , th e fir st one I wan t to speak abou t is th e Sec tion 4 of th e bill th at doe s away wi th th e exclu sion from th e Labour Rela t ion s Ac t of th ose people th a t wo uld normally fall under th e profe ssional ca tegory.

Under th i s pre sen t bill we would find th a t people th a t would normally have come under th e old ac t int o th e profe ssional ca tegory where th ey fell more under th e rule s and regula t ion s of self -governing bodie s which exis t in ot her legi slat ion th at is on th e book s, th a t th ese people will now if th ey are employee s come under th e effec t of Bill 81 , And th e re sul t, Mr, Speaker , is one th a t can be dra stic and may in fac t not be in th e be st intere sts of th ose people th at have normally considered th em selve s to be in a ca tegory of employm ent where by th ey fel t th ey had an obliga tion to th ings ot her th an th e normal employee -m anager rela tion ship, And th eref ore , I th ink th a t th is inclu sion in th i s bill for th e mo st par t, Mr.

Speaker , is wrong and should be done away wi t h and th at th e provi sion s of th e former ac t should be included and th at if necessary ex tra provi sion s may be brough t in for cer tain circum stance s, bu t not provi sion s th at do away wi th th e tradi tional obliga tion s which some profe ssional people at lea st feel th ey have to th e St at e, to th em selve s, to th eir profe ssion , to th eir employer , and such ot her th ing s, bu t not have it solely dependent on an employee -employer rela tion ship, Mr.

Speaker , under th e provi sion s of Bill 81 such people as accoun tan ts and engineers, lawyer s who work for a salary, doc tor s who work for a salary, bu t I wo uld say primarily in number s it would include mainly those people th at would fall in th e ca tegory of ei th er being a profe ssional engineer or an accoun tant, will fall in many ca ses in employm ent in Manitoba under th e situat ion where a plant th at ha s a large number of employee s th at can fall under one union, can by vir tue of th e power s of th i s ac t include th e accoun tan ts or th e engineers in th e bargaining unit as well, And only by appeal s to th e Labour Board will th ose people be able to have a ca se made for exclu sion, And th ere are no provi sions in th i s ac t, Mr.

Speaker , th at say th at th ose people , even upon an appeal to th e Labour Board, will have any particular rea son to expec t th at th ey should not be included in th e bargaining unit th a t is being formed in a par ticular place of employmen t, The al ternative logically which th ey face if th i s doe s happen is for th e La bo.ur Board to say no , you have to form your own bargaining unit, or you have to be included where all type s are lumped toge th er ; or I suppo se th ey could say to him , no you can opera t e as an indi vidual , continue to opera t e as an individual , continue to opera te as an individual, But my under standing, Mr.

Speaker , th a t th e mo st likely th ing to happen is th at of th e legi tima te ca ses made by those who would fall int o th e profe ssional ca tegory , th at th e al ternative given th em by th e Labour Board is very much likely to be th e al ternative of forming th eir own separa t e bargaining units, Well , Mr. Speaker , if th i s wa s th e will and de sire of th ose people th at would be fine , bu t

388 0 July 6, 19 72 (M R. CR AIK cont ' d. ). . . . . such is not the ca se. I can tell you in one speci fic ca se that the membership of the Engineering Association wa s polled in the fall of 19 71 in thi s regard s, and 74 percent of them replied that they did not wi sh to in any wa y be in vol ved in a collecti ve bargaining unit or in a bargaining po sition with their employer s. Well, Mr .

Speaker , I suppo se that mean s that 26 percent felt that a bargaining po sition with their employer may be of ad vantage to them , but the fact of the matter is that the vast ma jority of tho se poll s, and it is already known , do not wi sh to be included in any bargaining setup, formal bar gainin g setup with their employer . Still thi s act here goe s far beyond that. It doe s not even state a pro vision in here for anyone wh o is in a special category such as that to form their ow n barga in ing set up . There' s no mention made of it .

Th e only po ssibility that exists is that upon appeal to the Labour Board that they wou ld ha v e that alternati ve. Mr . Speaker, thi s rai ses the que stion as to wh ether thi s who le categor y of employee s that ha ve traditionally fallen under the Pro fes sional Act should now be thru st upon the mercy of that one all- pow er ful board , the Labour Board. A board , Mr . Speaker, wh ich by virtue of thi s act , an ywa y, is going to be overworked in sati sfying the requirement s that are going to be thru st upon it by the di ff erent other pro visions of the act . But why , Mr .

Speaker , should a group of people who ha v e served the pro vince we ll , and wh o ha v e served it wi th a degree of dedication that they hold, not only to their employer but by their relation ship and member ship in another as sociation wh ich they pay due s to , wh ich can ra nge anywhere from I suppo s e 30 to 35 dollar s up to $150. 00 a year to be a member of that and to be recognized as a so- called pro fe ssional per son .

Why should they in turn ha v e thru st upon them by the arbitrary action of a Labo ur Board the requiremen t that they mu st join a union becau se the pow er 's in the act to in clude them. , or alternati vely to form their own union that may not in any wa y ha v e a relation ship to the Pro f es sional Association they belong to , and all of thi s, Mr . Speaker, at the di s cretion of the Labou r Board. Well I think that the ca se should be sel f- e vident .

We ha v e a group of people-w e 're not only deal ing here in thi s act with the traditional employee- employer setup, the formation of the union under normal circum stance s, we are by virtue of thi s act including a whole new group of people that probably in the Pro vince of Manitoba number several thou sand, they wou ld number at lea st three thou sand and probably number higher, who are now going to ha v e a signi ficant proportion of that number subj ect to the Labou r Act solely becau se under Clau se 4 of thi s act anybody that wo rk s as an employee , regardle ss of hi s other af filiation, is now going to be sub ject to the pro vision s of thi s act, So, Mr .

Speaker , the reque st that is very legitimate in. thi s ca s e is that thi s cla ssif ication of employee , tho se that belong to other organi zation s that are go verned by the sel f-go verning body 's legi slation, be excluded from the act so that they can pur sue their normal wa y of li f e and their normal procedure s of the deciding by the gi ven and take method of deciding wh at their salary should be , rather than putting them into a category wh ere they ha v e to now go vern only their action s by going to the bargaining table .

I think that we ha ve to reali ze thli.t many people in thi s category do not wo rk by any of the traditional go verning factor s that go vern tho se that come under union agreement s as to hour s. I wou ld say that the vast ma jority of the people in thi s category wo rk for salary and are happy to do it, and wo rk all hour s depending on the require ment s of their job and do not , ha v e not up to thi s point concerned them sel ves or preoccupied them sel ves with tryi n g to increa se their earnings through collecti v e bargaini n g . Mr .

Speaker , I think that what thi s bill doe s it force s tho se people to as sume a new role in li f e in their job that they ha v e hereto fore not as sum ed . And they ha v e not as sumed it many :ime s becau se of their own volition even though it may in fact ha ve co st them somethi ng in term s of monetary return s. But I think we ha ve to reali ze, Mr. Speaker , that monetary return is not the only go verning factor that go vern s and dictate s to all people what they should do . Th i s is not saying that in collecti ve agreement that the only factor in vol ved is monetary return .

But certainly the monetary return factor in collecti v e bargaini n g far outw eigh s the other factor s to a greater extent than it doe s for tho se people that wo uld fall under the self -go verning body act s . There fore I think that there are alternati ves here that could be brought in to the pre viou s labour legi slation that may , Mr .

Speaker, not shall but may, alto w them in a particular circum stance where they feel it is to their ad vantage to form a unit if they feel it is ad vantageou s but lea ve it as a voluntary thi n g that they should do, bu t by no stretch of the imagination force their inclu sior which Bill 81 doe s - it doe s, except for the ble ssing of the Labour Board. And , Mr . Speaker , there 's no rea son on earth why the pro vision s of exclu sion cannot be spelled out in the act and not le f t to th is power ful body . We found in North Am erica that the only

July 6, 19 72 388 1 (MR. CRAIK con t'd .) . place for people that hav e tradi tionally fallen in to a professional ca tegory, have organized as bargaining uni ts, are in th e very large centres such as th e aero space indus try in the United St a tes, and in some si tua tions in Ontario th ere has been some in ward drive to do th is , which is a quit e legi tima te drive, if th e employees in a professional ca tegory so desire .

The only place th at th ere has been a na tural th rus t for th is to happen is in the case where you have hundreds and hundreds of people in a par ticular professional ca tegory working for salary where it becomes more of an impor tan t requiremen t. But, Mr. Speaker, th at 's not Manitoba indus try . Mani toba industry is no t th at breed of an indus try . Manitoba in dus try th a t hire professional people by and large , hire th em by th e small numbers , one, tw o, ten , tw elve , maybe 25 people in a professional ca tegory, and 25 would be a very large industry by Mani toba st andards.

And there's no reason in an industry of th at size con taining a number of people in th e professional ca tegory, why th ey should have to belong to a uni t, or why in fac t there should be any compulsion upon th em to belong to a unit if th ere is not a na tural desire on th eir par t . So , Mr. Speaker, th is legisla tion may have applica tion in some par ts of Nor t h America bu t it cer tainly has no applica tion in th e Province of Manitoba. And I' m sure , Mr .

Speaker , th at th ere will be a concern expressed by th is group as we go on to th e Law Amendmen t s Com mi ttee . -- (In terjec tion)- - When I 'm finished, I'd be pleased to. Mr. Speaker , th e ot her aspec t th at I wan t to raise on th is bill is th at of th e technological change .

The provisions th at are in th is ac t are going to work a hardship again on Mani toba in dus try in general , and when I say industry it refers not to ownership and managemen t bu t to th e entire industry, including th e employees , because we 're in a par ticular posi tion in Mani toba where we have an indus try th at has suffered for many years because of th e lack of technological input and the lack of innovative forces to change and to keep up wi t h th e demands of th e marke t place which by and large may be ou tside the Province of Mani toba. Mr.

Speaker , essentially wha t industry here is faced wi t h is th e lack of technological in pu t from a Mani toba Research Council , from th e size of th e industry which is small where the owner is usually the manager and is also the innovator , and also now you 're going to be faced wi t h a fac t th at even af ter technological input takes place , th at the resul t s of all of it are going to be open to the scru tiny of th e collec tive agreemen t . No t only th a t, Mr.

Speaker, th is legis la tion is st iffer legisla tion th an exis t s in any collec tive agreemen t th at th e governmen t can pro duce in th e Province of Mani toba righ t now. There are industries th at have technological con sidera tions in th e collec tive agreemen t, bu t I challenge the governmen t to produce any collec t ive agreemen t, priva te collec tive agreemen t, in th e Province of Mani toba th at has th e st ringent re quiremen t s th at is con tained in th is bill. So , Mr .

Speaker, if th e employer fails to no tify the bargaining unit 90 days in advance th a t a technological change is going to take place , th e em ployer can find himself in th e ex treme difficul t y involved here , and faced wi t h a cancella tion of th e collec tive agreem�m t th at has already been bargained for , and wha t he sough t to se ttle for . Mr. Speaker , th e only discre tion in here is whe ther or not th e technological change is signi fican t . Well th at 's a very broad change , Mr. Speaker , and the provisions such as exis t in 75 (

e) which allow the cancella tion of these clauses , excep t for 72, the cancella tion of th ese clauses is de pendent only on th e fac t th a t the re may be a mu tual agreemen t be tw een the employees and th e employer to exclude th emselves from these clauses. Mr . Speaker , wha t bargain er in his righ t mind would bargain wi t h any th ough t of winning to have himself excluded , or have th e agreemen t excluded , for some thing th at exis ted in legisla tion. So , Mr. Speaker , effec tively clause 75 (

e) hardly needs to be pi l.t in; nobody is going to exclude th emselves. Employees in th eir bargaining posi tion would be crazy not to avail th emselves of the provisions of th is ac t. Why would th ey allow th emselves to be bargained ou t of some thing th at exis ted in legisla tion: and th e employer only if he's comple tely naive or trying to es tablish a bargaining posi tion would hardly be foolish enough to even at tem pt to bar gain an exclusion from th e provisions of th is act. So essentially wha t you have , Mr.

Speaker , over a very short period of t im e at leas t is the inclusion of all th e collec tive agreemen t s th at come under th is ac t , th e provisions for tech nological change th at are con tained in Bill 81 , and th ey're ex treme ly st ringent.

For instance how does somebody in a competitive indu str y where th ere is a d egre e of compe ti tion wi t h another manufac turer, how does he es tablish a new produc t th at requires a high degree of innovative and change , th at is going to re quire technological change , it may re quire au toma tion in th e pro cess, and bring his product oa the mar ke t wi thou t firs t of all going to the union 90 days ahead of time , th en going to arbi tra tion, and if he fails t o do so having his plant, the th rea t of his plan t

388 2 July 6, 1972 (M R. CRAI K cont 'd.) . . . . . clo sed down bec a use of hi s failure to do th at? Mr. Speaker, it wi ll in some ca ses be a ca se of the em ployer ha ving to teleg raph to the tot al indu stry wh a t he is do ing by fir st of all announcing three month s ahead of any specific technolog ical ch ange s to the un ion .

Well es sent ially th is is wh at' s cont ained in th is leg islati on; not only th at, it ju st doe sn't add up th a t should tot ally in th is prov ince spend mi ll ion s of doll ars in tr ai ning inst itute s and work tow ard s the develo pment of people, technolog ical peo ple, who are encouraged bec ause we're in a cl i m ate where it's di ffi cult to kee p people here bec a use of the lack of technolog ical ch allenge, we're go ing to now say to them th a t de spite your be s t ef fort s anyth ing you do is st ill go ing to open to the com plete power s of the collect ive agreement th a t ex ists between the em ploy er and the em ployee, and everyth ing you do is not go ing to be judged on your innov ati ve skill, on your product ive skill , or on your ab ility to try and keep your com pany into a com pet iti ve posit ion but is all go ing to be subj ect to th a t fi nal screen wh ich is the collect ive agreement be tween the em ployer and the em ployee.

Now why should one category of people who are ded i cated to technology ha ve everyth ing they do subj ected to th at. Is th a t fai r? Mr. Spe aker , I insist th a t it is not fai r and in the bi ll I th ink th a t th a t is one of the mo s t cr iti cal part s th a t is in it, and I don't th ink th a t Manitob a is in a posit ion to aff ord it. Mr.

Speaker, mo st of the member s of the government th a t ha ve belonged to un ion s are bi g un ion men; they don't belong to sm all un ion s; they ha ve no ex perience to spe ak of in the sm all com pan ies. ·They're people who ha ve a ba ckground of ex perience in the bi g un ion s, in the ra il ro ads , in mi n ing, and so on , where you ha ve bi g number s th a t ha ve to go through the collect ive agreement proce ss. But th a t is not the ma keu p of the Manitob a indu stry.

Th e Manitob a indu stry is ma de up prim arily of sm all indu stry, cert ainly sm all indu stry by com pari son wi th Canadi a n st andard s, ea stern Canada st and ard s, and much of we stern Canada st andard s, and the se are the people who are go ing to be aff ected here, and the input of technology is the only sav ing gr ace th a t is go ing to apply in the future for ma ny of the se sm all indu stries. So, Mr.

Speaker , in the government' s ef fort s to cre ate an equ ita ble situ at ion for econom i c develo pment in Manitob a they ha ve com pletely forgotten about the inte re sts and the de sire and the very hone st attem pt s by an indu stry, and by the technolog ical people in th a t indu stry, to develo p and to ma ke the i r com pany com pet iti ve and th is leg islati on , Mr .

Speaker , ha ng s over with the se applicati on s in sect ion s 72 to 75 on technolog i cal ch ange, ha ng s over the indu stry like a gu illot ine th a t can be dro pped at any ti me, a gu illot ine th a t can be dro pped at any ti me on tho se other people who ha ve an input into ma king Manitob a indu stry he althy and com peti ti ve and from th a t point of view , Mr.

Speaker, I say th a t th is legi slat ion is one sided and suff er s from tunnel vi sion , and it suff er s from the intere s t of tho se member s on the government side who ha ve belonged to bi g un ion s and are now dict ati ng to the Prov ince of Manitob a to insure th a t everyth ing they wa nted over the i r hi story is now put in and they can we a r the ha lo around the i r he ads . But , Mr. Speaker , there are other s in th is prov ince be side s tho se people . . . MR . SPEA KER : The Honour able Member for Crescentwood. Th e Honour able Mini ster of Labour. MR .

PA UL LEY : I wonder if we ma y now interru pt the proceed ing s of the Hou se. It is my under sta nding Hi s Honour the Li euten ant-G overnor aw ait s to enter the Ch am ber to give th e Royal As sent to cert ain piece s of leg isl at ion th a t ha ve rece ived the con sider at ion of the Hou se. ROY A L ASS EN T Hi s Honour , W. J. Mc Keag, Es qu ire , Lieuten ant-G overnor of the Province of Manitob a, ha ving entered the Hou se and be ing seated on the TH RO NE: MR . SPEA KER addre ssed Hi s Honour in the follow ing word s: MR .

SPEA KER : May it plea s e Your Honour , the Legi slat ive As sembly , at it s present session , passed sever a l Bill s, wh ich in th e name of the As sembly , I present to Your Honour , and to wh ich Bill s I re spect fully reque st Your Honour' s As sent. Th e Clerk of the Leg isl at ive As sembly re a d the Tit le s of the Bill s to be assented to as follow s: MR. CL ER K: Bill No . 3 -An Act to am end Th e Mortg age Act . Bill No . 13 -An Act to am end Th e Ex propr iat ion Act and to validate Cert ai n Conf irmi ng Order s ma de under Th e Ex propri ati on Act. Bill No. 28 -

An Act to am end Th e Lord' s Day (M anitob

a) Act . Bill No. 29 -An Act to am end Th e Un sati sfied Judgment Fund Act.

July 6, 19 72 (MR . CLERK co n t'd.) Bill No . 32 -A n Act to am end The Court of Appeal Act. Bill No. 34 -A n Act to am end The Norther n Ma nitoba Affairs Act . Bill No. 39 - The Sand and Gravel Act. Bill No. 42-

An Act to am end The Am use me nts Act (1 ). Bill No. 48 -An Act to am end The Hearing Aid Act. Bill No. 51 -

An Act to am end The Real Property Act. 388 3 Bill No. 61 -A n Act to am end

An Act to incorporate Association for Retarded Childre n in Manitoba. Bill No. 62 -A n Act to am end The Count y Courts Act. Bill No. 65 -A n Act to am end The Landlord and Te nant Act. To these Bills the Royal Asse n t was announced by the Clerk of the Legislative Asse mb ly as follows: ''IN HER MA JEST Y' S NAME , HI S HO N OUR THE LIE UTENAN T-GOVERN OR DOTH ASS EN T TO THE SE BILL S. " MR . SPEAK ER : The Honourable Me mb er for Cresce ntwood. MR . CY GONICK (C rescentwo od ): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill 81 . Mr.

Speaker, I believe that this legislation ma rks a mi lesto n e in the labour history of Ma nitoba, in the labour history of Ca nada. Certai nly to my mi nd it ranks with the pio neeri n g legislation of the CC F governm ent in Saskatchewan regardi n g universal hospitalization, me dicare, public auto m obile insurance, and other pioneerin g efforts by CC F, ND P gover nments. I wa n t to co mm e nt briefly on so m e of the re m arks by me mb ers opposite.

The Me mb er for Tho m pson last eve ning me ntioned that me mb ers of the back bench of this governm ent had so m ethi n g to do with the writi n g of this legislation and that me mb ers of the labour mo ve m ent had so me thing to do with the writi n g of this legislation, and I want to say for myself that certai n ly I, for one, ca n not clai m any of the credit in the develop m ent of this bill . I do n't thi n k any other backbe nchers ca n clai m any credit either.

In fact I think there are very few me mb ers in the front bench, aside fro m the Minister of Labour, that ca n clai m credit for this legislation. And I know that fro m personal infor m ation that the leaders of the labour mo ve m ent the m selves were as unaware of the co nte nts of this leg islation as mo st me mb ers in this House. So, Mr. Speaker, this to my mi nd is to a very large degree the creatio n and the acco m plish m ent of the Mi nister of Labour and certainly is a crow ning achieve m ent in a long career in labour mo ve me nt, and in my mi nd the highlight of this legislative session. Mr.

Speaker, ma ny me mb ers opposite last eve ning and today, and earlier on in this ses sio n , have expressed fears that this legislatio n by expa nding the rights to strike. to me mb ers in the labour force in the public sector can create havoc throughout Manitoba , as it is clai m ed this extensio n of rights has created havoc outside of Ma nitoba where it has occurred. Me m bers have said the strike is an out mo ded, outdated, weapo n of labour not required any longer. But, Mr. Speaker, they have not to my knowledge , I certainly have n't heard the m provide any alter natives and, Mr.

Speaker, the only alter native, I believe, to outlawing the strike for any group of workers is to co m pel the m to work under co nditio n s or wages which they are not agreeable to , and that , Mr. Speaker, is a for m of economi c slavery. It is certainly true that unrestricted strikes in so-called esse ntial industries ca n cause mu ch inco nvenience, but the only know n al ternative is co m pulsory arbitration, and as long ago as 19 17 the Internatio nal Labour Orga ni zation exposed the fu ndam ental flaw of co m pulsory arbitratio n .

The IL O in 19 17 said that a free society cannot coerce any sectio n of its populatio n into worki n g co nditio n s which are not freely and generally acceptable. Mr. Speaker, the experience of cou ntries which have tried co m pulsory arbitra tio n as a me a ns of avoidi n g the strike substantiates the position of the Inter natio nal Labour Organization of 19 17. Brita in experi me nted with it after World War TI but had to repeal this legislatio n in 19 51 when it proved to be unenforcible.

Australia which has a labour force sm aller in fact tha n Canada's, sustains nearly as ma ny strikes and ma n-workdays lost through strikes as we do despite its longstanding co m pulsory arbitrat io n system . Mr. Speaker , to believe that it is possible to ban strikes through leg islation si m ply is not bor ne out by the experiences of those countries and those jurisdictio n s which have atte m pted to do so through the only know n alter native to the strike syste m which_is co m pulsory arbitrat io n .

The mo st exhaustive study that I know that has bee n do ne on this sub ject was ma de by the New Jersey Co mm ission in the 19 50s, New Jersey, New York. In its report to Gover nor

388 4 July 6, 1972 (MR. GONICK cont'd.) .. .. . R. B. Mather, this Commission declared, and this is aq uote: "In none of the English speaking countries did anti strike laws result in the elimination of strikes and at various times we in the U .S.A. were relatively more free of strikes than were the people of the countries which legally prohibited strikes." Mr.

Speaker, I think that members of this Legislature have been blinded by some of the more spectacular strikes that have occurred in the public service these past few months and feel that this is something which will occur in Manitoba, not only as a temporary phenomenon but something which will be with us on a continu ing basis. And this, Mr. Speaker, I think we have to examine because I don't believe for one that the strikes that have occurred in various parts of Canada in the public sector, though they have caused much inconvenience is necessarily a permanent phenomena. And, Mr.

Speaker, I think it is due to factors which I don't think need occur in the Pro vince of Manitoba under an enlightened government. The immediate cause of these strikes in Montreal, in Toronto, in Nova Scotia has been the determination of governments at all these levels to hold down their labour costs. They have done this by setting arbitrary limits on wage increases in the public sector, while not establishing and certainly not enforcing the same wage freezes in the private sector.

The governments of British Columbia, Quebec and Nova Scotia have all imposed wage ceilings on civil servants, teachers, hospital and school board workers and the public utilities of 5 to 6. 5 percent. And the Federal Government has done likewise. Now while these wage freezes have occurred most recently, and we all know that wages in the public sector have dragged behind wages in the private sector for many years thus creating a very substantial gap between the two.

On top of that there is imposed a wage freeze in the public sector while wages in the private sector are allowed to rise and take a more natural course. Naturally employers in the public service resist what they consider to be a forced subsidization of public services through substandard wages. Mr. Speaker, I believe that that is the major cause of most of the strikes that have occurred in the public sector in recent months which we have heard of and which I think members opposite are referring to.

And I don't believe that need occur in the Province of Manitoba which is willing to provide wages to public employees which are the equivalent of wages of workers in the private sector. I think that is the general policy of this government not to have a labour force in the public sector which is any way inferior in quality, in standards, in wages than that which exists in the private sector. And with that kind of an attitude, Mr.

Speaker, I don't expect any greater strike activity in the public sector than that which we know, which we have had in the private sector of Manitoba which as members opposite have said has not been a major problem in this province for some time. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk also about some of the matters raised by the Member for Wolseley last evening, or two evenings ago. He mentioned- I think this was his opening shot - that collective bargaining is fair providing there is equal strength on both sides of the bargaining table between labour and capital between labour and management. So, Mr.

Speaker, this sounds like a reasonable statement. It's obviously true that collective bargaining cannot be fair and equal unless there's equal strength. But, Mr. Speaker, to my mind that is a contradiction in terms within a free enterprise economy. There are some exceptions to the position I take but I think that in general the conflict between labour and capital and the free enterprise economy is one which favours for reasons which I shall try to explain the forces of capital as against the forces of labour. The real leaders of power, Mr.

Speaker, I believe are held by the large business owners, by the finance companies, by the mining companies, by the manufacturing corporations. I 'm not talking about small enterprise, Mr. Speaker, I 'm talking about the large 'ousiness enterprise which control and dominate most industries, not only in Ontario but also in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, let's examine some of the kinds of advantages which capital has over labour, inherent in the system irregardless of collective bargaining which no legislation, I shall go on to say, with regard to labour law, can really affect. For example there's the case of location.

Imperial Oil just some months ago announced it was relocating its operations from Winnipeg, Regina and I think Calgary to consolidate in Edmonton.

We have other announcements from Union Carbide, and these announcements have occurred in all provinces where arbitrarily, without any negotiations, without any reference to the Minister of Labour, or to any public authority, the decision makers who in many instances in this regard - in fact in all instances in this regard, do not reside in Manitoba, mostly do not reside in Canada - decide that it is more profitable for them to abandon their location in Manitoba, and check out to other points that they find more profitable.

July 6, 1972 3886 (MR. GON IC K cont'd.) Mr. Speaker , when th i s occur s there is no strength tha t la bour ha s to stop it from occur ring, becau se manager s and owner s have as sumed th at they have the righ t to decide to make thi s deci sion: and la bour ha s no say, the Governmen t of Manito b a ha s no au th ority. Well, Mr. Speaker, let 's talk ab ou t the level s of production.

We have had example s in Thomp son and ot her point s where Interna tional Nickel wa s building up it s inventories like mad; only eigh teen mon ths ago , tw enty-four mon ths ago employing people dou ble shif ts, over time, calling for worker s from all over Canada to come work in Thomp son , and many of them came and loca ted th ere. Then all of a sudden wi thou t referring to th e Mini ster of La bour , wi thout re ferring to the union, decided th at it had over- supplied, and so it cu t down it s produc tion and laid off it s la bour force.

And many of th e people who had come int o Thomp son from ou tside found af ter having undertaken th e expen se of moving, of di sloca ting th eir familie s, di scovered th at there were no jobs af ter all in Thomp son; and many people who had been living th ere for some years found th at th eir inve stmen ts in hou sing and ot her facili tie s were in jeopardy as a re sul t of a deci sion made ar bi trarily by th e owner s wi thout any reference to th e unions, wi th ou t any reference to the Mini ster of La bour, wi thou t any media tion of any kind . Mr. Speaker, th ose are ju st tw o example s.

There are many ot her s one can cite where there is an inherent advan tage to the bu sine ss enterpri se which the unions have been unable to cope wi th , and will be una ble to cope wi t h regardle ss of wha t happen s in thi s Legi slat ure with re spec t to la bour legi slat ion. MR. SPE AK ER : Order plea se. Order. MR. GONIC K: Mr. Speaker, th ere are way s in which the owner s of bu sine ss are ab le to compen sat e for increa ses in wage s where in fac t union s have had an impac t .

They can compen sate for their increa se in co sts by speeding up produc tion, by re quiring worker s to work fa ster; they can compen sate by cu tting down the quali t y of their work and th e quali t y of the ma terial s th at are used - and th i s happen s, as anyone in bu sine ss know s thi s happen s. They can pa ss on th eir increa sed wage s as price s to con sumer s, and everyone here know s th at th at happen s as well among tho se bu sine sses tha t have con trol over their produc ts.

And th ose are th e bu sine ss enterpri ses tha t I am talking ab ou t , th e large scale enterpri ses which are commonly known as monopolie s or oligopolie s. There' s th e ques tion of technology in the whole organiza tion of work which un til now it ha s been very difficul t for union s to cope wi th. Cer tainly managem ent doe s no t come to th e Mini ster of La bour when it is ab ou t to au toma t e and di splace a dozen, tw o dozen, a hu ndred mem ber s of th eir work force. The Mini ster of La bour is no t informed , th ere is no media tion, it is done ar b i trarily. So, Mr.

Speaker, it seem s to me th a t inherent in the economic system th at we have , th at according to th e term s of th e Mem ber for Wol seley, however li beral th ey sounded and how ever nice th ey sou nded , there cannot be real equali t y of collec tive bargaining in our system. And by th i s I do not mean to di scount th e important role s th at unions have had on wage scale s, on seniority, on condition s of work , and hour s, and all the ot her ma tter s that th e Mem ber for Flin Flon spoke of th i s af ternoon.

But even wi t h re spect to wage s where th e unions perhap s have had their grea tes t impac t - again mos t people oppo site who have deal t wi t h unions, who have had something to do with large bu sine sses , know th at these bu sine sse s have programmed int o th eir plan s a cer tain increa se in wage s , so tha t wha t the unions are bargaining over and wha t managemen t is bargaining over is a margin of one or tw o percent when collec tive bargain ing occur s. Mr. Speaker , organized la bour is th e only force in society th at is ob liged to fight for and to ju stify any increa se in it s income .

The only po ssib le excep tion to th at are the farmer s of Canada who are, in their own way, in a similar situat ion. The manufac turer s who wi s h to rai se th ei r income s simply add anoth er cen t , a dollar, a hundred dollar s, tw o hundred dollar s to their produc t . The re tailer add s to hi s price. The doc tor , the lawyer , the dentis t, th e archi tect rai se th eir fee. The banker s rai s e their in tere st ra tes so there are ot her fee s.

The landlord rai ses hi s rent , and all the se increa ses in price s and co sts are made unila terally: there is no negotia tion wi t h la bour, th ere is no reference to the Mini ster of La bour , th ey are made ar bi trarily without re stric t ion s of any kind , any regula tion, any law , any form of con trol .

In fact. since in th ose clime s of big bu sine ss -and again I wan t to remind mem ber s th at is what I am referring to -b u sine ss which are large , and which I say again domina t e mo st indu strie s in thi s province, as well as in th is coun try , in the se line s of big bu sine ss and in th eir profe ssion s price compe tition ha s been a dead le tter for over 50 years. Busine sses and ta xes, lVIr. Speaker , men tioned by th e mem ber oppo site -I never had as much faith, nearly as much faith in the idea th at

3886 July 6, 1972 (MR. GONICK cont 'd. ) . . . . . one can tax profits away from business through some kind of progressive tax systems, I believe that businesses which control the price of their product, and those are the kinds that I'm talking about, over a period of time will pass those prices, those taxes, on to the consumers. And it is working people and poor people who pay the taxes, and the large corporations don't pay one cent of taxes and never have since the beginning of, certain ly since the beginning of the era of big business in this country. Now, Mr.

Speaker, businesses and professional people simply announce that their cus tomers and their clients and their tenants who have to contribute so much more to their incomes beginning on a certain date, and that's the end of it. And there's no government mediation, there's no reference to the Minister of Labour, there's no negotiations with the unions. Mr. Speaker, imagine a situation that would arise if all other groups had to negotiate the increases of their incomes in the same manner as the unions have to do.

Every time they wanted to raise their incomes they would have to negotiate those raises with other parties. Suppose, for ex ample, that landlords had to negotiate all rent increases with their tenants and failing an agree ment went on strike by locking their tenants out of their homes. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the equivalent of what unions are forced to do when they cannot come to an agreement with busi nesses, when businesses refuse to provide them with the wages which they would like to see.

Suppose that the bakery industry had to negotiate price increases with their consumers, or automobile producers, or milk producers, and failing an agreement withdrew their products from the market because that was the only thing left they had to do to raise their incomes. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the position that wage and salary earners are in, and that is the vast majority of the people of Canada.

They're in that position for the simple reason that they do not own the tools and the equipment that they work with, and that is the one disadvantage that workers will always have in the kind of economic system that we now have in Canada, and I repeat, will not be changed by anything, any changes in the labour legislation which this Legislature can bring about. Every strike, Mr. Speaker, results initially from a decision by the employer not to grant increment increases to their work force; and were businesses in the same position where they had to strike in order to earn increased income then, Mr.

Speaker, we would have the quality of collective bargaining that the Member from Wolseley was talking about during his presentation. Mr. Speaker, these are the facts of economic power that exist in the Province of Manitoba according to my views, which the Member from Morris can certainly rock it and disagree with it, that is his privilege. Now, Mr.

Speaker, all the Legislature can do - as the Member for Inkster said so well - and all that it has done in the history of Canada, and the history of this province to this day, is inhibit the collective strength of labour, to restrict it, and this is what the Department of Labour have been doing for a hundred years in this country and in this pro vince. This is the purpose of government mediators, conciliation officers and all the rest.

The right to strike has been taken away from large numbers of workers; striking between labour agreements is prohibited by law in this country, not in most other countries in the Western world. The idea the government as a neutral agent, a neutral party, a referee between labour and capital -w hich is again the liberal notion of the Member of Wolseley - is simply a distortion of history. And we know it, Mr. Speaker, from the history of this very province before the Member from Wolseley and I were born.

In 19 19 during the Winnipeg general strike, the state and its armed agents at that time, the police, were used to shoot down workers in the street because they went on strike. Mr. Speaker, it was no accident that just a few years earlier MacKenzie King who performed the role as the Deputy Minister of Labour for the Federal Government and imposed his unique system of compulsory mediation in this country - which no other country had until that point, and few countries have to this day -w hen he was forced out of that position temporarily, it was no accident that he was hired by none other than John D.

Rockefeller in the United States to adjust the system which he imposed on the working force in Canada through law; to adjust it in the private market in the coal mines of Colorado, where there were militant strikes. And he adjusted it successfully, in breaking the militancy of a major strike in the mines of Colorado, and was used for many years by Mr. Rockefeller to break strikes through the private system in the same way that he did when he was Deputy Min ister of Labour through the legal changes which he brought about. Mr. Speaker, this is not ancient history.

We can talk about the asbestos strike in Quebec, we can talk, most recently in these past twelve months, there have been major strikes in Ontario where the police - and I don •t in effect blame them, they were required, they were

July 6, 1972 3887 (MR. GONICK cont'd.) . . . . . asked, they were instructed to act as strike breakers in various key strikes throughout the Province of Ontario, in Belleville, at the Tex .. . strike; and other major strikes, only in the past six months, municipal peace forces were required to help break strikes by interfering with picket lines, and even private citizens were arrested by the police for supporting in a perfectly peaceful way picket lines outside of plants in industrial Ontario. Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as neutrality between labour and capital, as the Member for Wolseley discussed it.

There can be no neutrality. The struggle between labour and capital, and that's what it is, is a struggle for control over work, a struggle for control over income. And it is very clear that past governments in this country, past governments in provinces have used the law to help businesses preserve their control, to help them preserve their disproportionate share of the total income. Now, Mr.

Speaker, as I understand Bill 81, what it is trying to do is to use the law, not to take power and control away from business be cause you can't do that by changing labour laws - simply to remove some of the legal en cum brances that have shackled labour in its attempt to win more control over their work conditions and a greater share of the income. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard much of the term industrial peace.

This becomes all of a sudden a kind of universal goal - more important than seemingly the most important goal for some members opposite - imploring governments to continue to use the law to inhibit labour, not so that they can act differently than other parties, but so that they can act in the same way legally as other parties. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I think the way members opposite are using the term industrial peace, and the way it is used in the press, is simply another term for union busting; just another excuse to conduct big business as usual with labour legislation which in hibits unions from acting, from exercising rights which all other members in our society have. Industrial peace, Mr. Speaker, is not the goal, the goal of our society, certainly it is not the goal above all others of this government. Mr.

Speaker, in Germany, in the 1930s industrial peace became a goal, a major means to a goal, and they abolished not only the right to strike, but they abolished in effect the trade union movement. And in the USSR members of the labour force were forced to join unions, but unions were stripped of all power to protect their members from abuse, from exploitation on the part of the state, but they accomplished industrial peace, so to speak. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I don't believe that it is the intention of this government to establish industrial peace at the cost of taking away rights from the labour movement which all other members and all other individuals and all other groups in this society have had, and in which they have been protected from having for many many years. The goal of this group is to maxi mize wages, to maximize working conditions and standards of living of working people, and if industrial peace happens to get in the way of these goals then, Mr. Speaker, industrial peace will have to be sacrificed, because it is not the major goal. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I want to speak briefly about one aspect of the new labour code as represented by the substantial amendments, namely the changes with respect to technology, a matter mentioned by almost every person who has spoken on this legislation to date. Mr. Speaker, only those persons who elevate economic growth efficiency and profit do God-like importance would suggest that technological change must go forward regardless of its effects on the working people.

And that is precisely what the Member for Sturgeon Creek was saying, what the Member for Riel was saying, what most members opposite who have spoken have been saying, that everything must be sacrificed so that some innovations may go forward regardless of its impact on the working people and their families in the communities in which they reside. Mr. Speaker, nobody on this side accepts that equation. The Member for Riel talked about the unfair advantage. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Lake side . . . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Wolseley. MR. I.

H. (I:z:zy) ASPER (Leader of the Liberal Party) (Wolseley): The member suggests that the opposition spokesmen in a blanket way have universally said a certain thing. I challenge this statement because I am one of those who have spoken . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. That is not a matter .. . Order please. Order please. That is not a matter of privilege. That is not a matter of privilege. Each mem ber is entitled to an opinion, may express it providing he does not charge anyone directly. The Honourable Member for Crescentwood has four minutes left to speak. MR. GONICK: Mr.

Speaker, I want to . . . there are many aspects of this

section of

3888 July 6, 1972 (MR. GON1CK cont'd.) ... .. the legislation which I wanted to talk about, but I must sum marize what I wanted to say, to talk in particular about the major shortcoming which I see in the total package, which I have spoken to the Minister of Labour about privately.

What the legislation says is that when an enterprise intends to bring about technological change of a sig nificant nature affecting a significant number of people, it must give ninety days notice, and then if it goes to that extent there can be an opening up of the labour contract and this matter can be negotiated with respect to how the technological change will affect the labour force who will be affected; how the people can be compensated; the speed with which the technological change can occur, perhaps even whether it should occur or not -I presume that is all possible once the labour contract is opened up again.

Mr. Speaker, I have no quarrel whatever with that, I think that is a principle that is very very important to establish. The only shortcoming I see, Mr. Speaker, is the qualifications which are appended to the bill, to the section, namely that a significant number of workers must be affected, and they must be affected in a significant way. The term "significant" is not defined in the section, it would be up to the Arbitration Board to consider whether or not a change is significant. Now, Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Labour has very wisely, I think, removed third par ties from most aspects of labour law in the Province of Manitoba, and this is the major accom plishment of this legislation. But here with respect to technological change, a third party is introduced which will have discretion as to whether or not the agreement can be opened up for re-negotiation with respect to technological change. Mr.

Speaker, I believe that as regards other aspects of the behaviour, performance of the labour force, that we should be able to allow for the - and assume a sense of responsibility on the part of the unions affected, that they will not in a frivolous way open up the labour con tract for re-negotiation when changes are so insignificant that they do not regard them as being important for the life of the contract. Mr.

Speaker, I believe that we should accept the responsibility of the unions in question that basically allow them to determine what is significant for them, because it is the work force that is being affected, that they are responsible to, and not some arbitration board; and if over a period of time, it appears that they are abusing this privilege, this clause, perhaps this matter as any other matter could be reconsidered.

But I believe very strongly that as in other areas which this labour legislation touched upon, in this very important one regarding technological change and the ability of the unions who are responsible to the work force who will be affected by the changes in technology, that they should be the ones to decide on what is significant and what is a significant number and what is a significant change. And with only that that I consider important but nevertheless minor in terms of the total package, Mr. Speaker, I commend this legislation to members of the House. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR.

HARRY J. ENNS (Lakeside): I beg to move, seconded by the Leader of the Oppo- sition, that debate be adjourned. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, would you kindly call second reading on Bill 59. MR. SPEAKER: Proposed Motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance. The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. SAUL CHERNIACK, Q.C. (Minister of Finance) (St. Johns) presented Bill No. 59- the Mineral Acreage Tax Act, for second reading. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, in forwarding that slip to you I note there's reference to Law Amendments Committee. I'd like to confirm with the Clerk that this bill will be reviewed in Committee of the Whole and will not go outside of the House, being a taxing measure. So that's one item that I bring to honourable members' attention.

Honourable members have been waiting for this bill for some time since it was forecast in the Budget Speech, at which time we reviewed some aspects of the proposal, the type of bill we propose to bring, proposals to insure that mineral rights which may be held for speculative purposes by corporations, cannot be retained without some reasonable return to the people of Manitoba. Companies which hold mineral rights often hold such rights in anticipation of future gain and we believe it's only reasonable that such corporations contribute to public revenues.

July 6, 1972 38 89 (MR. CHERNIACK cont'd.) . . . . . Holders of unproductive land, operators of mines, gravel pit operators, all of these, speculators in mines generally, all do contribute to public revenues, and the question is posed as far as presenting this bill, why not corporations holding mineral rights for gain? Those who wish to maintain mineral rights would be contributing to the public revenue just as I pointed out real estate taxpayers do.

The rate of tax proposed is ten cents per acre on mineral rights with respect to parcels of forty acres and over, and tax would be on mineral rights held by corporations not by individuals. An internal study made by government has shown that about three- quarters of the mineral rights, some 9. 1 million acres, are held by individuals and it is not proposed to tax those at all. The remaining one-quarter of mineral rights, some 2. 9 million acres, are under corporate ownership and will be taxable under this bill.

The justification for acreage taxation of titles held by corporations would be that some corporations, such as the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Hudson's Bay Company, were subsid ized by Canada for the construction of railways and for land rights, and it was probably not in tended that such corporations should be able to retain mineral rights for speculation, which is indeed what they are doing. The individual does not generally have large holdings which are sufficiently large to have any influence on the development of minerals,

whereas the corpor ations with large holdings, and frequently major control, have major control over a large part of the mineralized area which enables these corporations to influence the development of these minerals. I might say that ten cents may be considered only a nominal amount and not sufficient to help influence the decision-making process as to the exploitation of the resources.

Corpor ations, of course, normally pass on the tax to the lessees of their mineral rights, but the cor porations take no steps towards influencing the development -I'm talking now about the real property taxation, the corporations take no steps towards influencing development of their mineral holdings, and hold them back purely for speculative reasons, then this action can con tribute to a deterrent to mineral development. I should point out that there are certain railway rights-of- way which are exempt. The Saskatchewan legislation exempts rights- of- way, station grounds, yards or terminals, of any railway.

If they are not exempt, the CPR could effectively argue that they could not be taxed under such

an act because of the main line exemption clause in the old CPR agreement so that it might be difficult to support taxation and we thought we had better make it absolutely clear, and I might say that this feature of the bill has been tested by the Supreme Court dealing with the Saskatchewan Act and has been found intra vires, and therefore we tried to follow the Saskatchewan structure as much as possible.

We do point out that if any corporation feels that the taxation of the mineral rights is a burden in any way and that there really isn't any value in the holding of mineral rights, they can always surrender their mineral rights to the province and thus avoid paying taxation, and thus the province will have that asset for whatever it's worth for future development. The bill is designed to be effective January 1st, 1973. We have provided that it would be brought in by proclamation. We could then prepare our regulations before that.

The estimated revenues I've previously reported are some $300,000 but that would be during the next fiscal year, 73/74. As I recall it we've only put in one dollar as revenue for this current year just to create a line in the budget. Members will want to know that Saskatchewan for some years has applied an acreage tax with a basic rate of ten cents per acre for corporate holdings, and in this last session they doubled the rate to 20 cents per acre. In Alberta for many years they have applied a five cent per acre tax, but there they have applied it on holdings of both corporations and individuals.

That is not our proposal. Members may also be aware that Alberta has announced a proposal to tax oil reserves over and above the current royalty in acreage taxes. That of course is a very dramatic move on the part of Alberta where they say that even though you may not be producing oil, you got the reserve, we're going to tax it, and they estimate a very large income from that. I thought it would be of assistance to honourable members if I would distribute to them copies of the notes that were prepared for me for Third Reading, indeed for committee. They are detailed and apply to each

section and I think if they would be helpful to me, Mr. Speaker, then I would assume they would also be helpful to all members of the House, and therefore I would ask the Page to distribute copies - it's some six pages long, and it should be helpful when they review the bill and the sections with the notes that were prepared for me.

3890 July 6, 1972 (MR . CH ERNIAC K cont 'd.) May I say th a t I did not pay to o much prel imi n ary attent ion to the dr aft ing of the bill it self.

It 's a tech nical bill, a tax bil l, but I ha ve ra ised the questi on of one sect ion - on Sec ond Re ading one does not refer to sect ion num ber s, so I wi ll refer to the sect ion wh ich de als wi th the re q uire ment s on the di str ict reg istr ar, wh ich struck me as be ing rather br oad and to o pr otect ive on be ha lf of both the di str ict reg istr a r and the comp any, and I ha ve instructed the Legi slati v e Co un sel to lo ok at th a t sect ion and consider the po ssibil ity of some am endment if it th ought by the Co m mi ttee of the Wh ole th a t th is sect ion denies or defe ats any eff ort s by the indiv idual ta xp ayer to be fully pr otected fr o m im pr oper or inadequate pr oceed ing s by government.

So ha ving dr awn th is sect ion to the attent ion of ho nour able mem ber s, I am inviti ng them to lo ok at it and in the comm ittee st age to di scu ss whether or not it seem s a little bit to o pr o tect ive of government agenci es, and we wi ll then, of cour se, be able to he a r fr om the Legi slati ve Co un sel as to any comment s.

I sugge s t th a t he lo ok at the pr ovi sions as they apply to ta x sale in th e norm a l cour se, a re a l pr operty ta x is not pa id, and see whether there is mo re ju st if i cati o n to rel ate th a t kind of pr otect ion to the one th a t ex ists under ta x sale, to the pr o posed sect ion in th is bill . Other th a n th at, Mr. Spe aker, I commend the bill to mem ber s of the Ho u se.

I wo uld th ink th a t wi th the note s I ha ve given them they wi ll be in as go od a po siti o n as I to di scu ss the bill, because I assure ho nour able mem ber s as of now they know as much as I do about the bill it self and the purp ose of it ha s alre ady been di scu ssed dur ing the Budget DEbate. MR . EN NS : Mr. Spe aker, wi th out wi shi ng to prevent anyb ody fr o m speaking on the Bill at th is ti me, I mo ve , seconded by the Hon oura ble the Le ader of the Oppo sit ion, th a t de bate be adjourned. MR . SPEA KER : Does the Hon oura ble Le ader of the Opp ositi o n wi s h to pr oceed? MR.

AS PER : With out exh a ust ing my right to speak, I'd like to ask a que st ion if the Mini ster wi ll . . . MR . SPEA KER : Ye s. The Hon oura ble Me mb er. MR . AS P ER : I wo nder if the Mini ster could include in hi s expl a nation to night, or at a later date, the fi gure s tell ing us wh a t the fi scal effect, the ta x revenue effect fo r the Pr ovince of Manito ba wo uld be if the individu al ha d been included? Would it be fo ur ti me s, three ti me s as much ? --( Inter ject ion) -- I see.

And your to ta l revenue is 300, 000 so the ma ximum you could ga in on the ten cent s per acre wo uld be 900, 000 or a mi ll ion, tw o . Ca n I cont inue? -- (Inter ject ion)-- Go ahead . MR . SPEA K ER: The Hon oura ble Mini ster of Fi nance. MR . CH E RNIAC K: Well, Mr. Spe aker, it is the pr act ice whe n asked a questi on to reply, and then if the mem ber ha s another questi on, then he 's actu ally put tw o . Ye s. Th is is based on a prel imi nary study.

I sh ould say th a t there 's a gre a t de a l of det ail involved in check ing ti tle s, and th a t wa s done dur ing la s t summer wi th search ing of ti tle s and esti ma ti ng the info r ma ti o n we ha ve . It 's as go od as we 've got. Of cour se once we st art collect ing the ta x we 'll know a lot better ex actly wh a t it' s wo rth .

But the indicati o n is correct, the ho nour able mem ber is right, th a t since one- quarter of the to ta l acre age appe a r s to be corp orately owned, and there 's 300, 000 there at the same rate ; if individu als were tax ed at ten cent s then it wo uld be three ti me s three to ta ling 900, 000, plu s the three ; is 1. 2 mi ll ion. MR . SPEA KER : The Hon oura ble Mem ber fo r Wol seley. MR . AS P ER : If the Mini ster doesn 't mi nd I'd like an other questi on. In re ading the bill I' m ha ving some tr oub le wi th the langu age.

My fir st questi o n of a ser ies is wi ll you expl ain at ::;ome ti me in the de bate why it wa s deemed advi sable not to include individu a l s in the ta xati on? The second ... MR. SPEA KER : The Hon oura ble Mini ster of Fin ance. MR . CH ERNIAC K: Ju st to save ti me, I th ink the ho nour able mem ber is now ask ing de ta iled questi ons, the kind th a t wo uld be be st answered I believe in Co mm ittee of the Wh ole when we de a l wi th it.

Of cour se I wi ll ha ve an opportu nity to cl ose de bate and any questi ons ra ised dur ing the de bate on second re ading I could pr obab ly de a l wi th them in cl osing the de bate and cert ainly dur ing Co mm ittee of the Wh ole st age we could deal wi th each

part icul ar. But on the que st ion , wh ich I kn o w I interrupted, I wo uld ju st say th a t it 's the go vernment 's th ought th a t we wa nt to direct th is tax to corp orate ho ld ing s, we don 't wa nt to direct it to indivi du als, fa rmer s wh o own over fo rty acre s of land. We don't feel th a t they are the one s wh o ma y be ho ld ing up the devel opment of th e mi ner a l re sources or ho ld ing , ret ain ing ti tl e to them fo r

July 6, 19 72 389 1 (MR. CH ER NIA CK con t'd) . . . . . specu lative reasons, and th at is our th ough t th at corpo r ate ho ldings are mo re ju stif ied and th at is th e app roach . MR. SPEA KER: The Ho nourable Membe r fo r Wo lse ley. MR. ASPER : Finally, wi ll you pr ovide the Hou se wi th, or can you tonigh t, pr ovide th e Hou se wi t h da ta indicating on a na ti onal ba sis, whe the r or not we can look at thi s on a comp ara tive ba sis wi t h th e othe r pr ovinces, lo oking at options to increa se the ten cen ts, or de crea se it if compe tit ive circum stances requi re?

Do we ha ve a compe tit ive ch art ? MR. SPE AKER : The Ho nourable Mini ster of Fin ance. MR. CH ERNI ACK : Mr. Spe ake r, I ha ve indi cated th at Sa skatchew an is now ch arging tw enty cents on corpo rate ho ldings of fort y acres and ove r; Albe rta ch arge s five cen ts on all ho lding s, corpo rate and individual ; none of th e othe r pr ovin ces, to my knowledge , ha ve any such tax. So if you wa nt to spea k in te rm s of compe tit iveness th e fact is th at th ere wil l be th ree pr ovinces out of th e ten th at will be taxing in this ma nner. MR.

SPE AKER : Moved by th e Ho n ourable Mem be r for Lakeside , secon ded by th e Ho nourable Membe r, for -- I didn' t ge t th e -- th e Le ade r of the Oppo sit ion, deb ate be ad jou rned . Ag reed ? So orde red. The Ho nourable Hou se Le ade r. MR. PA ULL EY : Bill 106, Mr. Spe ake r, ple ase. MR. SPEA KER: Pr oposed 10 -- whi ch ? MR. PA ULL EY : 106. The Honourable Mini ster of Tr ansportation. Highw a y Tr aff ic Ac t on page 2. MR. SPE AKER : Pr oposed Moti on of th e Ho n ourable Mini ster of Transpo rtati on. The Honourab le Mini ster. HON.

PE TE R BURTN IA K (M ini ster of Tr ansportation)( Dauphin ): Mr. Spe ake r, I beg to mo ve , seconded by th e Honourable the Mini ster of He alth, th at Bill 106, An Ac t to Am end th e Highw ays Tr aff ic Act be now read a second time. MR. SPEA KER presen ted th e mo ti on. MR. SPEA KER : The Ho nourable Mini ster. MR. BURT NIAK: Mr. Spe ake r, for th e fi rst pa rt, th e am endmen ts in th e bill to am end the Highw ay Traff ic Ac t are ba sic ally of th e ho usekeeping va riet y.

A subs ta nti al numbe r of am endmen ts we r e requi red as a resul t of th e enactmen t of the Ci ty of Win nipeg Act, dele ting or repl acing refe rence to th e Metrop oli ta n Co rporation of Gr eater Win nipeg . An othe r gr oup of am endmen ts rel ate to th e newly revi sed Cr imin a l Co de by dele ting refe rence to old sections and sub sti tu ting th e new secti ons whe r e refe rence is ma de to th ese in th e Highw a y Traff ic Ac t . The r e is no ch ange in ei the r th e prin ciple or subs tance in any of th ese am endmen ts as such.

Th ere are, ho weve r, a numbe r of am endmen ts whi ch in trodu ce ei th e r a new principle or mo dif y in some deg ree an exi sting prin ciple , and I wo uld like to just men tion a few of th e pr oposed am endmen ts whi ch I feel are no tew orthy ex am p les whi ch I sh ould li k e to br ing to th e attenti on of th e ho nour able membe rs of th e Ho u se.

A ch ange in th e de finition of sc h oo l bu ses is pr oposed wh ich wo uld br oaden th e defini tion and pe rmi t such vehi cle s to be used in connecti on wi th activi tie s not neces sari ly rela ted to scho o l curri culum , and also gr ant auth ori ty to scho o l bo ards to appr ove such use. A pr ovision is included whi ch will auth orize th e Lieu ten ant-Go ve rnor -in-Co un cil to in cre ase by regul ati on th e ma ximum weigh t th at ma y be carried on Tr ans Ca nada highw ays at the pres cribed fees payable fo r th e addi tional weigh t carried.

Othe r pr ovin ces ha ve in crea sed thei r ma ximum weigh t and in orde r to facili tate the mo vemen t of in tra pr ovincial road traffic it is deemed de sir able to br ing our weigh t regul ations in to con formi ty wi th th e neighb ouring pr ovin ces. A new pr ovi sion is in clu ded wh ich wo ul d pe rmi t th e Motor Transpo rt Boar d or th e Taxi cab Board to is sue a tem po rary pe rmi t auth orizing th e transfe r of exi sting regi strati on to anothe r ve hicle when th e origin al ve hicle is dama ged or othe rwi se disabled tem po rarily. Su c h pe rmi ts wo ul d be valid for 15 days.

Taxi cab owners and mo tor carrie rs expe rienc e subs ta n ti al lo ss of revenue when a vehi cle is di sabled and th ey are un able to ef fe ct a tran sfer of th e regi str ati on to anothe r vehi cle du ring wee kends or on ho li days. The law rel ating to th e sus pension of mo tor ve hicle s is being am ended by al lowing a deg ree of la tit ude in th e heig ht of suspensions. Th e origin al pr ovi sion wa s we feel too st ringent and included condit ions whi ch we r e not in tended to be cove red by the enactmen t . A new penalt y secti on is in clude d for pe rsons wh o fail to stop at a weigh scale.

Presently a pe rson wh o fail s to st o p at a weigh scale or are orde red by an offic e r to stop, th e pe rson is

389 2 July 6, 19 72 (MR . BURT NIA K cont •d) . . . . . sub ject to the general penalty only with no mi nimum ; wh e reas if he had st opped and his tr uck was over we ight he wou ld be sub ject to a mo re seve r e penalty. Th e penalty pr ovisi ons fo r offences relat ing to fa ilu re to remain at the scene, or ex chan g e pa rti cu lars wit h othe r pe rsons, is be ing amended by pr ovidin g disc ret io n to the cou rts to suspend a pe rson's licence fo r up to one year.

Cu rrently the re is no auth ority to suspend fo r such offences and as some of them are quite se rious it is deemed pr oper that the Co urt sh ould have the auth ority to suspend the drive r's licence in the app rop riate cases . Pr ovisi ons related to the use of fa rm tr ucks fo r hi r e are als o be ing amended . Th e amend ment will pe rmit in add it io n to the tr ansp ortat io n of ce real grains and su gar beets , as was br ought in last year or tw o year s ag o, the tr ansportat io n of ve get ables or fr uit by fa rm tr ucks fo r hi re as we ll will be included.

Th e pr ovis ions relati ng to the suspension of drive r licences up o n default of payment of fine imp osed are als o be ing amended . So me of the amendments are fo r cla rificati on only. A new pr ovision is be ing added wh ich will all ow a pe rson to se rve out the indete rm inate pe riod of suspens io n at the rate of $1. 00 fine fo r each fo ur days suspensio n se rved. Th is will elim inate the indete rmi nate suspens ion wh ich now remains in fo rce unti l the fine is paid .

Th e pr ovisi ons wh ich auth orize bo a rds to issue a temp orary 30-day drive r's licence to pe rsons conv icted of of fences mak ing them liable to aut omatic suspensio n unde r the Act is bein g amended by extend ing the du rati on of the temp orary permi t fr o m 30 to 45 days. Th is wil l aff ord pe rsons mo re time with in wh ich the ir appeals to the bo ard can be hea rd and dete r min ed. An amendment is pr oposed wh ich will make pe rsons in default of payment of defe rred insurance premiu m s liable to suspens io n of the ir registr at ion.

Such a pr ovisi on is necessary to ensu re that pe r sons in default of paying defe rred insu rance prem iums will not cont inue to operate thei r mo to r veh icles indef inite ly. Th e auth ority to registe r comme rcial tr ucks is pr oposed to be tr ans fe rred fr om the Traffic Boa rd to the Re gist rar . Th is is me rely to fac ilitate registr at ion of comme rcial tr ucks wh ich will be inco rpo rated int o the system to wh ich all othe r types of tr ucks are registe red .

It will relieve the Transp ort Boa rd of a considerab l e am ount of work and the regulat ory auth ority with respect to comme rcial tr ucks will remain vested in the Transp ort Board. A pr ovisi o n is included in the amendments wh ich will pe rm it presc ribi ng by regulati o n standa rds fo r mo to rcycles wh ich may be registe red unde r the act .

Th ere is a conside rab l e am ount of confus ion as to wh at kinds of mo to rcycles may be registe red , resu lting in some pe r sons incu rrin g a cost in acqu irin g a mo to rcycl e wh ich they subseq uently lea r n could not be registe red fo r use on the hi ghw ay. Th ese are just a fe w points , Mr. Speake r, that I wanted to br in g to the attenti o n of the membe r s ins ofar as our bi ll is conce rned -- at least these are some of the mo re im po rtant amendments that we pr opose and wh ich I ho pe will be app roved , and I commend them to the membe r s of the Ho use . MR .

DEPU TY SPEA KER : Th e Ho nourable Membe r fo r Birtle-Russe l l . MR . HA RR Y E. GRAH AM (Bi rtle -Russell) : Mr . Speake r, I be g to mo ve , sec onded by th e Ho nourable Membe r fo r Rock Lake , that debate be ad journed . MR . DEPU TY SPE AKE R presented the mo ti on and afte r a voice vote dec l ared the mo ti on ca rried . MR . DEPU TY SPEA KER : Th e First Ministe r . HO N. ED WA RD SC HRE YE R (P rem ier)(R ossme re) : Mr. Speake r, I• m wo n de rin g if pe r haps you could call -- I' m just check in g, Mr. Speaker , to see am ong th ose wh o have the ad jou rnment wh o is in a pos it ion to speak.

Bill 98 . Th e Membe r fo r Rock Lake . Ex cuse me , Mr . Speake r. Th e Membe r fo r Eme rson pe rhaps would be prepared to speak on Bill 93. MR . DEPU TY SPEA KER : On the pr oposed mo ti o n of the Ho nou rabl e Ministe r of Indust ry and Co mme rce. Th e Ho nourable Membe r fo r Eme rson. MR . GABRIE L GIRA R D (E me rson) : Mr .

Speake r, I ce rtain l y don't wish to speak at length on the Cl ean Env ironment Act , but I wish to outl in e with some fi rm ness that I have some concerns ab out espec ially one pa rticu lar secti o n of the bil l. l fo r one realize that in orde r to pr otect the environment fr o m pollut io n -- the environ ment bein g ai r, wate r and soil -- we must have the kind of le gislat ion wh ich will pe rmit gove rnment to sink the ir teeth int o possible offences and reciti fy it in the best way poss ible .

July 6, 19 72 38 93 (MR. GIR AR D cont' d) . . . . . I do not, ho we ver, wi s h to agree with one parti cular pri nciple of the bill, and th a t pri nciple is outli ned in suc h a wa y as to give the Ca bi net , give the Exe cuti v e Co uncil almo st ab solute power with re gard to controlli ng of the develop me nt of industr ie s in Ma nito ba . As a ma tter of fa ct, the bill stip ulate s th a t the Exe cuti v e Co uncil ma y dire c t th a t in any lo cality there sh all be no other in dustry or no other exp ansio ns of in dustry withi n th a t give n lo cality. Mr .

Spe aker, I feel very stro ngly th a t thi s ki nd of power ou ght not to be left in the ha nds of the Exe cuti v e Co uncil ; and I fe e l stro ngly as well th a t the Exe cuti v e Co uncil does not need th a t ki nd of power in or der to esta bli sh a Cle an En viro nme nt Co mm is sio n with still very fa r re ach ing power s. I wi sh to voice my re jectio n of th is ki nd of thi nking, bu t otherwi se I wi sh not to deba te the bil l , I' d like to see it go to secon d re adi ng. Th ank you. MR . DE PU TY SPE AKER put the que stio n and after a voice vote declare d the mo tio n carried. On divisio n? MR .

SCHRE YE R : Mr. Spe aker , wo uld you call Bill No. 98 , the Me mb er for Rock Lake. MR. DE PU TY SPE AKER : On the propo sed mo tio n of the Ho nourable Mi niste r of Agri cult ure. Th e Ho nourable Me m ber for Ro ck Lake. MR . HE NRY J, EI NARSO N (Rock Lake ): Mr . Spe aker , we ' re deali ng with Bill No. 98 whi ch is

An Act to am e nd the Nat ural Products Marketi ng Act, whi ch to me , Mr. Spe aker, I th ink is prob ably one of the mo st im port an t bill s th a t ha s come into thi s Le gislat ure for a lo ng ti m e in sofa r as the agri cult ure in dustry is concer ned . I noti c e th a t the Mi nister in the expl anatio n he gav e to thi s bill wa s very brief and didn't go into an y deta il in sofa r as the bill wa s concer ned .

I thi n k he wa s in dicati ng th a t there were some am endm e nts to the Nat ural Products Marketi ng Act whi ch he ha d ho pe d wo uld give some fl exibility in sofa r as the bill wa s concer ned as it applie d to the Province of Ma nitob a; and also he indicate d th a t he wa nted some confor m ity as it rel ate s to the Feder al bill, namely Bill C- 176, wh ich wa s set up to esta bli sh natio na l ma rketi ng bo ard s for the whole country. And I wo uld like to say, Mr.

Spe aker, th a t in sofa r as Bill C- 176 is concer ned, I don't know of any pie ce of le gislatio n fe derally th a t re cei ved mo re atte ntio n and ha d mo re discussio n and mo re criti cism th an th a t parti cular bill . All acro ss we ster n Ca nada parti cul arly. I know th a t my collea gue s in the Ho use of Co mm on s fo ught again s t the in gredie nts th a t Bill C- 176 contains be cause they were fu lly aw are of the cons eque nce s of wh a t th is kind of le gisl atio n wo uld do for the fa rm er s of not only Ma nito ba bu t of the whole of we ster n Ca nada.

It is pe culi a r wi thi n the agri cult u ral industry, Mr. Spe aker , some thi ng we don't have in other industrie s , th a t is th a t our proble ms vary fro m pro vinc e to pro vinc e in thi s natio n, and they are re gio nal, and as a re sult it be com es very diffi cult to esta bli sh a poli cy th a t wo uld be natio na l in scope and at the sam e ti m e be sati sfa ctory to all fa rm er s acro ss thi s natio n.

And I know, Sir, th a t the Mi nister of Agri cult ure in dicate d one day la st fa ll, and the Press were pre sent, he said th at ha d his Party bee n in offi ce in the Ho use of Co mm on s , he didn' t thi nk there wo uld be an y differe nc e in sofa r as the proble ms th a t he wa s fa cing and the ki nd of le gislatio n th a t he wa s looki ng for wa rd to. Now, Sir, I am very very concer ned abo ut the am endm e nts to th is act. We ha v e see n wh a t thi s govern me nt ha s done to day in sofa r as esta bli shi ng ma rketi ng bo ard s.

I don't know whether he feel s th a t he is not sati sfie d with ju s t doin g th at. It in dicate s to me in thi s bill - and the Mi nister didn't re ally go into an y deta il s on it -- bu t he wa nts to esta bli sh a pl an where he can bri ng in re gul atory me asures to enfor ce a pl an th a t I' m very .much afr aid, Mr. Spe aker, th a t many fa rm er s are goin g to be disappoi nte d in and are goin g to be very fe arf u l of . -- (I nterje ctio n\ -- And as my colle ague fro m Morri s says, op posed to . Because wh at ha v e we ha d , Mr.

Spe aker , in the pa s t three years ? -- and I wa nt to say for my self, and my colle agues I think do agree with me on thi s parti cutl ar philo sophy -- we ha v e a governme nt th at is bri ngin g in the ki nd of agri cult ural poli cie s thro ugh ma rketi ng bo ard s whereby the gover lb me nt thro ugh the bo ard s will decide and pl an ho w th e fa rm er s are goin g to conduct and oper ate th eir bu sines s.

And as I see some of the sectio ns in th is bil l , ML Spe aker, the fa r me r is going to be re gul ated ri ght down to the single catt le beef th a t he mi ght sell th rou g h a lo cal bu tc her or wh a t ha v e.yo u. In the many area s , Mr . Spe aker, th a t the governme nt is tryi ng to enfor ce on the agri cult ural indust ry I can't help bu t feel the num ber of po licem en th a t they are goin g to ha v e to hire to control the Gest apo age nts -- I' m sorry to say, Mr.

Spe aker, if I use thi s expre ssio n , I can't help bu t feel th a t it fit s th is ki nd of le gislatio n th a t we are now fa ced wit h -- th a t they are goin g to have to enfor ce all the s e ru les and re gul atio ns th a t they

38 94 (M R. EI NA RS O N cont• d) . ar e im po s in g upon th e agr icult ural industry . July 6, 1972 I can th ink of ma n y ar eas wh ere we hav e now got mark eti ng bo ards, wh ere we hav e se en with in th e Mi nist er's departm ent -- th e Ho g Mark e ting Boar d as one exam ple, was im pos ed upon th e m with out th e wish es of th e ma jority ho g producers .

We ha ve th e Dairy Co mm iss ion- mi nd you that was Federa l -- bu t we now hav e a Dairy Boar d th at is tak ing a mu ch mo re acti ve part , an d I hav e ask ed qu est ions of th e Mi nist er in th e Ho use in sofar as our dairy pol ic y is concerned, beca use I know he did go down to Otta wa to se cure an incr eas e in qu ota for th e dairy producers of th i s provi nce. That's all well an d go od, I th in k that 's fine, bu t he ask ed for a thr ee year peri od.

Th e reas on I ask ed ho w ma ny dairy cow s were producing in Ma ni toba he was not abl e to give me th e answ er, and I th in k it is re leva nt an d im porta nt ins ofar as th e dairy industry is concern ed in th e Pr ovince of Ma ni toba . For you know , Sir, that in order that we ar e go ing to inc reas e an d capita liz e on th i s qu ota that he was abl e to get fr om th e Mi nist e r in Otta wa , we hav e to find th ose extra numb er of cow s wh o ar e go ing to produce that qu ota .

And wh eth er th e Mi nist er kn ows or not , I don't kn ow, bu t I am given to understa nd that he has ha d some of hi s of ficials go ing in t o Onta ri o to try to find out wh eth er th ere is a poss ib ility of pur chas ing ex tra cow s to be br ought in t o Ma ni toba in order that he can capital ize on th i s in creas ed qu ot a that he is ab le to get. And if he doesn't , Sir, in thr ee years ti me if we ha ve n't capita liz ed on ga inin g th at qu ota , we ar e go in g to lo s e it .

You kn ow, tak e fr om th e ti me a fem a le calf is bo rn un: til it 's in product ion it tak e s thr ee years at least be for e it 's go ing to pro duce. Th i s is one ar e a in sofar as th e prob lems ar e concern ed with in th e mark et ing bo ar d of operat ing our dairy poli cies ar e concern ed. Th ere is only one ar e a in th e agr icult ura l industry that has n't be en to uc h ed so far, Mr . Sp eaker, an d that is th e cattl e industry . It is one of th e ar eas that has be en flour ish in g th e very be st .

And th e catt lem en ar e sayin g to th e gov ernm ent we ho pe that you will conti nue to ke ep your ha nds off; we ar e not inte rest ed in a mark eti ng bo ar d to contr ol that industry be cause we fee l that wh at we ar e doing ours elv es as an orga nize d gr oup thr ough th e volu natry ass ocia ti on of farm ers wh o ar e th e producers of cattl e, I th in k ar e doing an admi rabl e job.

I wa nt to say, Sir, that I did comm end th e Mi nist er of Agr icultu re with th e ass ista nce of th e At tor ney-Genera l wh en he was concerned ab out th e egg situ at ion for th e egg producers of Ma ni toba , wh en he did cha llenge th e Pr ovi nce of Quebe c in th e Co urts in sofar as th e pol icies, th e product ion an d th e prices that farm ers were gett in g for eggs . So , Mr . Sp eaker, hav ing done that , I' m amaz ed that th e Mi nist e r sh ould mak e an ab outf ac e an d go al ong with th e ki nd of le gislat ion we hav e he re be for e us. I th ink, Mr .

Sp eaker, that th i s is a regr ess ive st ep, rath e r tha n try ing to find a way of im provin g our econom ic sta ndar ds for th e agr icultu ral industry and I, for one, am fully in agr eem ent with th e Mi nist er that th e farm e r is not re ceiv in g hi s fa ir shar e of that dollar that is sp ent by th e cons um er in bu yin g th e food that th e y requ ire for th eir daily livi ng.

And so I say I don't agr ee with th e ph ilosophy that th e y use, with th e contr ol s that th e y ar e go ing to ap ply , be cause I can't se e that th i s is go in g to answ e r th e problems that farm ers ar e fa ced with to day, rath e r it 's go in g to hi nder th em. And hav in g sp oken ab out th e egg situ a ti on, th e Mi nist e r has probably solv ed th e poultry situ at ion by th e kill in g off of wh at it is a mi ll ion he ns. He has probably solv ed that all right . But th ere's one as pect of th i s bi ll , Mr .

Sp eaker, that th e Mi nist e r ma de no me ntion of, no me ntion of wh ats oever, an d th at is some th ing that was new to me -- wh en he sp oke of an extra provincia l bo ar d, an d as I was give n to understa nd th i s extra provincial bo ar d is not only establ ish in g a provincia l bo ar d in th e province bu t an extra provincial bo ar d wh ich gives hi m th e auth ori t y outs ide th e province.

I don't know ho w ma n y mo re bo ar d s th e y'r e go ing to try to establ ish , wh eth er th e y'r e ru nning out of jobs for th eir fr iend s or wh at it is, bu t certa inly I don't kn ow wh at th ey ar e go ing to achi eve on th i s be cause , Mr .

Sp eaker, as I se e th e role that th e Mi niste r is playing right now ins ofar as th e farm ers in th i s Pr ovi nce ar e concerned, we'r e gett ing into a regulat ory situ a ti on wh ere th ese regu lati ons ar e be in g establ ish ed ; wh ere we• re go ing to mak e an isla nd out of ours elv es he re in th e Pr ovi nce of Ma nito ba , an d th e outs ide ar e go ing to dict at e as to wh at we ar e go in g to get for our produce in th e Pr ovi nce of Manit oba . Th e Mi nist er has th e idea that we he re ar e go in g to be abl e to dictat e th e prices bu t, Mr . Sp eaker, it just does not work that way.

We hav e to depend, as we ar e an export in g provi nce, we hav e to depend on wh at th e outs ide mark et is prepar ed to pay for wh at we produce as a surplus comm odity that we hav e in th i s provi nce. And sp eak in g of th e extra provincial bo ar d, Mr . Sp eaker, I wa nt to sugg est to th e First Mi nist er -- I know th e circ umsta nces that

July 6, 19 72 389 5 (M R. EI NARSO N cont•d) . . . . . th e Mi nist er of Agricult ure is in, he 's not he re to night - bu t I wa nt to say to th e First Mi nist er that I th in k under th is act th e y ar e vio lati ng th e Brit ish North Am erican Act by tr ying to br ing in th ese powe rs be cause I be lieve it does contr av ene th e Briti sh Nort h Am erica n Act, that I th in k that wh en th is is ma de law th ere is not h ing to sto p some on e fr om cha llenging th e Mi nist er in th e Co urts .

And I say, Si r, be cause I th ink it 's very im porta nt, an d I wa nt to quot e Se ct ion 121 of th e Brit ish North Am erican Act .

It stat es: "All arti cles of growth , prod uce or ma nufa ct uring of any on e of th e pro vinces sha ll fr om an d aft er th e unio n be admi tt ed fr ee into , each of th e oth er pro vinces." Now, Si r, I don't know ho w th e Mi nist8 r is going to fi nd hi ms elf wh en he br ings in th is legislat ion, enacts it , mak es it law in Ma nitoba , ha s that ext ra pro vincia l boa rd to op erat e hi s autho rity outs ide th e pro vince wh en we ha ve a clau se in th e Brit ish North Am erican Act, Se ct ion 121, wh ich stat es as I ha ve ju st quot ed to you .

Th is rema ins to be seen as to how th e y ar e going to ha ndle th is matt er. Th ese ar e some of th e comm ents that I ha ve to mak e, Mr . Sp eake r, insofa r as thi s bi ll is concerned, an d as I said I th in k it is a very im porta nt on e, an d I am very concerned abo u t th e powe rs that ar e be ing stat ed he re an d th e consequ ences it may ha ve on th e ag ricul tu ral indust ry in th is prov ince, be cause I do fe el that it is an indust ry that is very im portant an d very vita l to th is pro vince.

I th in k th e Mi nist er could do we ll, rat he r tha n to br ing abo ut regulat ion s an d contr ol s th rou g h hi s ma rketi ng boa rd syst em if he wo uld sit down an d discuss with th e indust ries that we ha ve to wo rk wi th , in tr ying to prom ot e a be tt er understa nding an d in tu rn wo uld mak e be tt er fo r th e ec o nomic we ll-b eing of th e fa rme rs of th is pro vince. Ha ving said th is, Mr .

Sp eake r, I awa i t to ha ve a mu ch be tt er expla nat ion of ma ny of th e secti on s in th is bi ll be cause I th in k th e y ar e very im portant an d to me th is is th e mo st crucial legislat ion insofa r as ag ricultu re is concerned that ha s com e be fo re us in a long ti me . MR . SPE AKER : Th e Ho nou rabl e Memb er fo r Mo rris. MR . WA R NER H. JORGEN SO N (M o rris): We ll, Mr. Sp eak er, I mo ve secon ded by th e Ho nou rabl e Memb er fo r Fort Garry that debat e be adjo urned . MR.

SPE AKER : Mo ved by th e Ho nourab le Memb er fo r Mo rris, secon ded by th e Ho nou r- ab le Memb er fo r Fort Ga rry that deb at e be adjo urned. Ag reed? So or dered. MR . SPE AKE R: Th e Ho nou rabl e Ho use Lead er. MR . PA ULL EY : 103, Mr. Sp eak er. MR . SPE AKER : Prop os ed mot ion of th e Ho nourab le Mi nist er of He alth , th e Ho nou rab le Memb er fo r Fort Garry. MR . L. R, (B ud) SHERM AN (F o rt Garry): Mr.

Sp eake r, Bill 103 essenti al l y ad ds up in ou r view to a mi ld disa ppoi ntme nt, in that som e of us ha ve be en awa iti ng som e fa irly bo ld new ini t iat ives an d definit ions of direct ion fo r th e me dical prof ession an d th e who le he alth care fi eld in Ma nito ba , an d we ha d anti cipat ed that perha ps during th e lif et im e of th is session, som e of tho se new directi on s wo uld be outl ined. Th e bi ll be fo re us real l y does not conta in any of th e ho pe fo r pro vision s an d init iat ives, an d as a consequ ence I sugges t that in essence it is a disa ppoi ntm ent to us, Mr .

Sp eake r, an d that it const it ut es me rely a case of mu ch ado abo ut noth ing . On th e oth er ha nd th ere ar e some ho usek eeping as pect s to th e bi ll whi ch no doubt wi ll mak e fo r a mo re effi cient admi nist rati on -- th e He alth Se rvices Insuran ces Act an d al l that it im plies in th e pro vince, an d I recog nize th e need on th e part of th e Mi nist er in th e Depa rtm ent to ha ve tak en some of th e ho useke eping st eps conta ined he rein.

My on ly majo r obj ect ion be ing as I ha ve suggest ed that I ha d ho ped fo r some th ing mo re tha n th is in th e fi eld of he alth services fo r Ma nito ba ns. Th e part of th e bi ll that gives us a cause fo r great est concern is that ha ving to do with th e ap peal that a me dica l practi ti on er can file agai nst an or der of th e Me dical Review Comm itt ee.

And we ar e jo ined in ou r anxiety ov er that part of th e legislat ion by th e Co llege of Ph ysician s an d Su rgeo ns, who se spok esm en as sure us that th e y sha re ou r concern with th e fa ct that th e decision s of th is Me dica l Re view Comm itt ee ar e going to be bi nding an d th ere wi ll be no ap peal fr om th em, Si r, an d that th e me dica l pra ct it ioners ar e possib ly put in an ex tr eme ly disa dva nta geo us positi on fr om that point of view .

It' s tr ue that th e me dica l prac t it ioner who is aff ect ed by an or der of th e Me dica l Re view Comm itt ee real l y ha s a cha nce to go th rou g h two peer reviews , two reviews by ju ries of hi s peers, bu t he reache s a point at th e end of th e line under thi s legislat ion fr om wh ich th ere is no ap peal to th e court s. Th ere is no ap peal to th e inst rume nts of law, an d we don't be lieve that it 's good legislat ion in th e fi eld of me dicine in

part icula r, that th e decision s of a boa rd of th is nat ure sho uld be so bi nding an d uncha llenge ab le. We be lieve that anyone sho uld ha ve th e right to ap peal th rou g h th e me chan ism of th e

38 9 6 July 6, 19 72 (MR. SHERMAN cont'd) . . . .. courts because there may be points of law that the Review Committee itself has either missed or is not familiar with. There may be aspects of the law with which it' s not conversant and familiar. As a consequence there could be injury done to those medical practitioners who are affected by such orders and who ultimately have no re course to the agencies and instruments of law that would be conversant with and familiar with those sophisticated points of law that the Review Committee overlooked.

These greater powers of the Medical Review Committee are all right to a certain extent one admits, but they're only all right if they're used properly and responsibly, and when you consider that the committee can act under this legisla tion, Sir, without the authority of the commission itself, that is the Manitoba Health Services Commission, I think an area of possible inj ury and possible danger certainly is opened up. It's this facet of the legislation in particular that the Colleg e of Physicians and Surgeons is concerned wit h, and it's certainly this facet that exercises us most of all on this side.

I would be interested in the Minister's explanation as to why coverage in mental hospitals outside the province is being introduced in this form at this time, and just how broad an exten sion of coverage it contains in this measure.

There are a number of instit utions of a mental health, of a quasi mental health nature in parts of this country to which Manitoba residents sometimes go for treatment, there are some in the United States, There is certainly in British Columbia two or three in the nature of homes to which residents of Manitoba sometimes repair, and the question arises as to how the categorization of these instit utions is achieved; wh ether or not the legislation applies to those mental health institutions which come very strictly and specifically into a particular definitive sphere, a particular sphere of clear definition, or whether the application is going to be so broad as to include as I say, some of the institutions -- and the Province of British Columbia is notable for a number that would fit less into a category of mental hospital and perhaps more into a category of a special type of res t home.

I would be interested in the Min ister's explanation as to just how broad this provision in the legislation is and how far it goes, whether rest home or quasi rest homes are included, and why this particular

section in the legislation is introduced in the manner that it is and at this time.

It's obvious to me from the -- or let me put it this way, it would seem obvious to me from the way the legislation is framed, Sir, that we still suffer in this province from a lack of special psychiatric services and facilities for young people as we ll as for adults, and that there may be a tacit omission here in the legislation that the Province of Manitoba, the Government of Manitoba has to cover and ·.protect its citizens els ewhere in other administra tions , in other jurisdictions, and provide for same in legislation of this sort because the neces sary facilities are lacking here.

That question naturally arises when one considers the specific provisions contained in this bill, and I must mention for the Minis ter' s consideration and commen t that we are concerned that sufficient psychiatric facilities and mental care facil ities be provided within the Province of Manitoba naturally for Manitoba citizens ; and that be regarded as a major priority rather than that the emphasis go on the other side of the equation, and that coverage be provided for outside treatment.

I think particularly in the field of children and young people, youthful patients, we have a severe shortage of the necessary treatment, psychiatric treatment facilities . It would be interesting to know whether any parts of this bill are retroactive, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps the Minister can comment on that. Those are ess entially the reactions that we have to the legislation.

As I say, basically it's a question of being unhappy with the fact that orders of the Medical Review Committee reach a point where they are binding and where the me dical practitioner has no recourse to appeal, or further judgment; and equally unhappy with the fact that the bill is narrow and restrictive in its vision, and that many of the new initiatives necessary in the health services field in Manitoba are not approached and not covered in this legislation whatsoever.

What is necessa ry, in fact, is for the Minister and his department to review once again in a formal and full overview the needs of the health profession and the health services field in Manitoba, and that a whole new legislative approach be made available to clear up the confusion that exists in the field at this time, and permit those practitioners and those participants in certain health centers in Manitoba to proceed with the programs that they believe are necessary.

Many of those programs have been interrupted by the lack of policy of the government, or by the indecisions of the government in the health services field, and none of those questions are answered in the legislation contained in Bill 103.

Ju l y 6, 19 72 MR . SPEA KER : Th e Ho nourab le Minist e r sha ll be cl osing deba te. Th e Ho nourab le Mini st er. 389 7 HO N. REN E E. TO UPIN (M inister of He al th and Socia l Developme nt )(Sp ring fie ld) : Mr . Speak er, I wo uld only like to mak e a fe w comm ent s at th i s stag e. I be lieve tha t a lot of th e qu estions tha t we re posed in th e Ho us e by th e ho nourab le me mb ers can be deal t wi th mayb e mo re effe c ti vely and mo re in de tail by an of ficia l tha t wi ll be wi th me in commi ttee wh e n th e bi ll is di scu ssed and ap proved clau se by clau se.

I can und ers tand to som e exten t th e di sappoin tme nt of th e Ho nourab le Memb e r for Fort Garry wh e n he ta lks of th e bi ll it self. I don' t be lieve tha t he is opposing very much of th e -- no t th e intent anyway of th e bi ll it self -- bu t mayb e th e lack of legi sla ti on th a t ha s be e n pre sent e d at th is sessi on per taining to he al th it self. I tried, Mr.

Speak er, to outlin e to me mb ers of th e Ho us e one of th e reas ons why mo re legi sla ti on had no t be e n present e d at th is sessi on per taining to he al t h lea ving asid e socia l de velopm ent, and one of th e main reas ons wa s th e pre para tion an d th e ho peful tabl ing of th e Whi te Pa pe r on he al th at th is present sessi on th a t wi ll de f init ely engag e a lot of professi ons, cert ain l y th e Depar tme nt of He al th and th e He al th Servic es Commi ssi on in very seri ous di scu ssion on th e exi sting ser vic es wi th in th e he al t h fiel d s in th e Pr ovinc e of Mani toba, priva te and publ ic in stit ut ions, and th a t it could cert ain ly, in my mind, produc e mo re effe ct iv e legi sla ti on for th e next session.

And tha t is th e main reas on. We can opera te wi t h exi sting stat ut es th a t we ha ve wi thin th e Depar tm ent of He al t h and Socia l Developm ent. Some min or chang es had to be mad e regarding th e Mani toba He al th Servic es Commi ssion and th ey• re be for e you. And th ey ar e ho us ekeeping am endm ent s I' ll ha ve to agr ee wi t h th e ho nourab le me mb er. Th e ho nourab le me mb e r wa s asking th e reas o n why we present e d th e sec ti on dealing wi t h me ntal ho spit al s and servic es outsid e of th e Pr ovinc e of Manitoba.

Th ere ar e cert ain ser vic es th a t ar e no t ac tua ll y avai lab le in th e Pr ovinc e of Mani toba tha t we can ac tua lly purcha se else wh ere in Canada and thi s is one of th e reas ons why we wan ted to ha ve th i s sec ti on in th e bi ll al lowing th e Manitoba He al th Ser vic es Commi ssi on to pay for such servic es, and equa lly for em ergency serv i ces th a t do ha ppen now and again.

And so far as th e ho nourab le me mb er' s qu estion per taining to th e re tr oac tiv e feat ur e of th a t clau se, th ere is a di scr eti onary po wer lef t to th e Commi ssi on pe rtaining to th a t possibi lity. So far as th e he al th centre s ar e conc ern ed th ese wi ll be deal t wi t h like many oth er it em s in th e Whi te Pa per on he al th and di scu ssion wi ll take plac e be twe en sessions and ho peful ly th at wha t ha s be en announc e d and wha t ha s be en star ted to da te per taining to he al t h and socia l de velopm ent centre s wi ll proceed.

Th e oth er as pe cts and possib le effe c t of oth er clau ses wi thin th e bi ll th a t we re no t deal t wi t h by oth er me mb ers of th e Ho us e could be deal t wi t h effe ct iv ely whi le we re view th e bi ll in commi ttee. MR . SPEA KER put th e qu estion and af ter a vo ic e vote declar e d th e mo tion carri ed. MR . SPEA KER : Th e Ho nourab le Ho us e Lead er. MR . PA ULL EY : I wo nd er, Mr . Speak er, if you wo uld now kind l y ca ll th e ad journ e d deba te on third reading , Bill No . 12. Th e Ho nourab le Memb e r for Fo r t Roug e . MR .

SPEA KER : Th e proposed mo tion of th e Ho nourab le Memb e r for Fort Roug e. MR S. INE Z TR UEM A N (F ort Roug e) : Mr . Speak er, in third reading of Bill 12 it 's in ter esting to us to re view th e progr ess th a t it ha s mad e th rough th e Ho us e and th rough Law Am endm ents Commi ttee. In firs t and sec ond reading th ere wa s plac e d be for e us a very simp le piece of legi sla ti on wh ich ap pear e d to be innocu ous and even in effe c tual in ach ieving th e stat e d aim of th e go vernm ent.

Subs equ ent l y in Law Am endm ent s Commi ttee a numb e r of am endm ent s we re br ough t in which comp let el y chang e d th e charac ter of th e leg isla ti on and in effe ct im plem ented many of th e recomm enda tions of th e Klass Commi ttee Re port. Now in th ird reading we ar e consid ering an entire ly chang e d bi ll. In stead of simp l y lega lizing unau th ori zed sub sti tu ti on of gen eric drug s for one which ha s be e n prescrib ed by a physician, th e bi ll now mak es it comp ul sory for th e pharmaci st to do thi s.

Th e pati ent's righ t to kn o w and to cons ent, in my opinion, ar e stil l no t ad equat el y recog ni zed. Let' s con sid e r for a minu te if thi s bi ll wa s ap plied t o some oth er as pect of our li ving than drug s. Le t's say tha t you we nt to a stor e -- let• s say th a t th e Atto rn ey-Gen era l we nt to a st ore and he wan ted to buy a ho t pink shir t, a ho t pink shir t -- pink shir t, ho t pink shir t . . MR . SPEA KER : Order, pleas e . MR S.

TR UEM AN: . . . and suppose he wa s told by th e st oreke eper , yes we ha ve tha t shad e of pink in a shir t bu t we ha ve a gr een one tha t' s consid erab l y ch eap er, th e ma teria l's a

3898 July 6, 1972 (MRS. TRUEMAN cont•d) . . . .. little rough, it' s not quite as fine a shirt but the govern ment says that we must give you the lowest cost shirt in our inventory. -- (Interj ection) - Well, let's suppose instead that you went to buy some shoes and the shopkeeper was compelled to sell you his lowest priced shoes -- (Interj ection) -- Ouch, how they would hurt. -- (Inter jection) -- Wrong size, wrong colour.

Or suppose that you went out to buy your favourite brand of breakfast coffee and you couldn't be sure that when you took the coffee home that you'd really gotten the kind that you always liked to have in the morning, there could be a lot of cranky people at breakfast time.

Or maybe if you want to go out and buy some nice chops for dinner and you could be told by the grocer that, well he was sorry, he had chops but he couldn' t sell those to you because he had some ground meat that was considerably cheaper; or maybe even some synthetic protein product which has been recently invented and suppose the government made it compulsory that we had to spend our money on the lowest cost product. Well, these slightly ridiculous situations involve esthetics more than our health, and they might offend our tastes t� a cems'irierable extent.

And I think that people would truly res ent having government tell them how they were to spend their money, what they could buy when they went to the store. For here in a much more vital area we are dealing with drugs that are designed to affect the state of one's health and we ll-being, the state steps in and overrides those individual rights. Well, my first reaction to the compulsory aspect was to think that the government was going to move into central drug purchasing, bulk purchasing, and that they were· simply insuring that they would have a market for their product.

Now even the biggest corporation can't do that. They can only resort to advertising and persuasion and this is really quite benign compared to government compulsion. Well, I must have been wrong in that assess ment because in a subsequent stateme nt the Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Health and Social Policy in an interview stated that alt hough the government intends eventually to introduce bulk purchasing it may not come about by establishing a new agency to do it.

Well the more I thought about this the more intriguing it was and I thought that if the government wasn• t going to do the buying and selling it seemed to me that a captive market was being provided for someone and that this was going to work to that person' s financial advantage; in other words that someone was going to make a lot of money out of the results of this bill. We are told that under this legislation the lowest cost drug must be provided to the patient and the dispensing fee will be established in consultation between pharmac ist and government. Well, of course that• s price fixing at that level.

Representation was made to Law Amendments Committee by Sabra Pharmaceutica ls, a firm which buys on Canadian and Foreign markets and then apparently packages and sells to the local market. Their spokesman was so vehement about the virtues of this bill on drug sub stitution and he proposed amendments that were much like those that were subsequently sub mitted by the government, that I couldn't help feeling that there must be some self interest concerned here and that perhaps the windfall would be possibly going in that direction.

I' d been hearing about this comp any and I determined to try to get hold of an annual report and see just exactly what they were and what they did and so on. Well my attempts to get their annual report were frustrated because there apparently has been no report filed for 1971-72, and in fact the company is not in good standing and will lose its charter if a report is not filed by the end of the year. So I was unable to learn just wh at the comp any does, who the owners are, though there's talk around which I have not been able to verify. Once again I think the public's right to know has been frustrated.

The Member for Crescentwood has spoken of a large savings to the public. Pm sur prised that a person so versed in economics it didn•t occur to him that some where back there the person who was doing the bulk purchasing for a compulsory captive market was going to be reaping quite a harvest. This is the very thing that outraged the governm ent so, when we suggested that there should be compet ition in the auto insurance. They were horrified at the idea that auto insur ance could be made compulsory and the people lef t in the hands of private enterprise, but that's exactly what is happening in this Bill 12.

And I suspect that in this bill we were all just led a little bit down the garden path. I think that I would like to make it clear that in the amendments that were proposed I was quoted in one of the newspapers to the effect that mine were the same, and I would divorce myself from the first four sections that were proposed by the government as amendments and would like it to be clear that my amendme nts simply provided that the lowest cost drug in the

Jul y 6, 1972 38 99 (MR S. TR UEM AN cont 'd) . . . . . in vent ory ha d to be th e one that was sub stitut ed, and my othe r am endm ents dealt with th e lab elling on th e container an d th e inf ormati o n that was to be in th e prescri pti on. Well it will be int eresting to wat ch what ha ppens next by way of im plem enting th e Klass Re port , and it lo oks to me as if th e Minist er has ma de quit e a start fr o m an inauspicious be ginning and I am truly regr etful that th e com puls ory as pect is intr oduc ed. If it ha dn't been fo r that I think we wo ul d ha ve be en mu ch ha pp ier with th e Bill.

MR . SPEA KER : Is it th e pleasur e of th e Ho us e to . ad opt . . . Th e Ho nourabl e Memb er fo r Rhin elan d . MR , JA CO B M. FROE SE (R hin elan d): Mr. Speak er, I be g to mo ve, se cond ed by th e Ho nourabl e Memb e r fo r Chur chill , that deb at e be adjourn ed. MR . SPEA KER presente d th e mo ti on and aft e r a voic e vot e declar ed th e mo ti o n carri ed. MR , SPEA KER : Th e Ho nourabl e Ho us e Lead er. MR . PA ULL EY : Woul d you now call th e adjourn ed deb at e on th e Resoluti on of th e Ho nourabl e th e First Minist er? I un derstan d, Mr.

Speak er, that th e Ho nourabl e Memb e r fo r Inkst er has some tim e left in order to co nclu de his remarks. A MEM BER : Point of order, Mr . Speak er. MR , SPE AKER : Order, pleas e. Order, pleas e. I wo ul d lik e to indicat e that at ad journm ent ho ur I ha d indicat ed that th e ho nourabl e me mb er's tim e ha d ela psed an d I ask ed th e will of th e Ho us e at that tim e wh eth e r deb at e wo ul d remain in his nam e an d I was gi ven th e agr eeme nt , no one obj ect ed at that tim e, consequently th e deb at e remain ed in hi s nam e . Th e Ho nourabl e Memb e r fo r Inkst er.

A MEM BER : On a po int of privil ege, Mr. Speak er. I 'm a me mb e r of this Ho us e an d I' m enti tl ed to sp eak. MR. PA ULL EY : Mr. Speak er, if I may on th e point of pri vil ege . . . he canno t now withh old .. . MR , SPEA KER : Order, pleas e. Order, pleas e. Order, pleas e. Th e tim e to obje ct was wh e n I put th e qu esti o n to th e Ho us e . Th ere was no obje cti on at that tim e. Th e Ho nour abl e Memb e r fo r Inkst er. Th e Ho nourabl e Memb e r fo r Rhin e lan d stat e his point of order ? MR .

FROES E: Yes, I certainly didn't understan d fr o m your remarks that his tim e ha d expir ed and that you we re as king fo r leav e . MR , SPEA KER : Order, pleas e. Let me in dicat e to all th e ho nourabl e me mb ers , I try my be st to enunciat e and to sp eak clearly. If th ere 's any diffi culty in he aring me I wish th e y wo ul d te ll me at th e tim e wh e n I am asking fo r wh at ever is gC!ling on at that parti cular mo m ent . At th e present tim e th e Ho nourabl e Memb e r fo r Inkst er has th e fl oor. Th e Ho nourabl e Memb e r fo r Inkst er.

Order, pleas e. -- (I nt erj ecti on) -- Ord er, pleas e. Sh all .the ruling of th e Chair be concurr ed in ? All th ose in fa vour pleas e say aye. Against say nay. In my opinio n th e aye s ha ve it , declar e th e mo ti o n carri ed. . . . continu ed on next pag e.

3900 July 6, 1972 MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR , SIDNEY GREEN, Q. C. (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member s for their indulgence and I will try to not overstay my leave. I do have some remarks which I believe can be concluded rather quickly. Mr. Speaker, I left off with the point of suggesting that I believed that it was dangerous to the rights of religious freedom and that it was dangerous to the concept of freedom of thought for the state to involve itself in financing any particular ideologies or beliefs. I also indicated, Mr.

Speaker, that I thought it was more than Utopian, I thought that it was out of the question that the state would at some stage adopt a posture of allowing and treating all beliefs equally in terms of financing was concerned; therefore I said that the only way of treating beliefs equally in our society is to try to have an educational system which embraces all of those beliefs and does not direct the system towards the teaching of any one.

And I' ve indicated that at times when I have used this argument some people have said that it was a hypothetical argument, that that is not the kind of thing that we would ever be faced with in our society. Mr. Speaker, in response to that I started to read at the closing hour from an edition of the We stern Jewish News dated Thursday, June 15, 1972, which is not long ago. The heading, Mr. Speaker, of the report is "School Protest" and the location is Johannesburg. And I am sure that the people in Johannesburg, Mr. Speaker, think that they are a very democratic country; they think that, Mr.

Speaker, they have a value in the different racial groups that compose that country. As a matter of fact , Mr. Speaker, many of them think honestly - and I don •t agree with them - but many of them think that the policy of apartheid, whereby the races are kept separate for many many reasons , is one which is conducive to the growth of those particular groups and is not a disadvantage to them. But, Mr. Speaker, the

article reads as follows : "The Jewish community has expressed concern over the new regulation directing that religious instruction in state-run schools should be Christocentric to prepare that pupil, through his knowledge of the Bible, to accept Jesus Christ as his personal saviour. " Mr. Speaker, I know that the majority of the people in Manitoba are Christians and I respect their belief in Christianity. I have suggested that it is dangerous for the state to be involved in the furtherance of religion through the school system. I believe that it is equally dangerous, Mr.

Speaker, for them to be involved in the furtherance of five religions , or six religions , because that then becomes the institution of a state church. Mr. Speaker, in Johannesburg where the state has seen fit to ask for religious instruction in the schools , it has now said exactly what I have said that it would say whenever it takes this type of position; that it is going to say what that religion shall say, and in the state-run schools in Johannesburg, in the state-run schools , it must now be taught that we are saved through Jesus Christ. Mr. Speaker, where does that leave a person who believes in Judaism ?

Oh , I'm sure tha,t it will be said in a country of that kind, ''Well, we will set up Jewish schools where you can go and therefore you won't have to go to the state..:run schools." Mr. Speaker, that takes me back to where my people came from, because my people came from Russia and I grew up all my life with the knowledge that they were prohibited from going to the public school. And the kind of thing that we are suggesting, Mr.

Speaker, although it seems very innocent today -- and let me not present the Jews as being the ma rtyrs in this case because the Jews are able to behave just as negatively as any other people in this connec tion, and I have had personal experience in that regard. Because, Mr. Speaker, the Jewish community of Winnipeg collects money and then finances its own school system, and in 1950 they used to finance roughly four schools ; one of them which could be identified as the United ,Tewish Peoples Order School, which was identified by the rest of the community as a Commun ist school.

And during they h-eyday of McCarthyism, Mr. Speaker, it got to the Jewish com munity that it would not be tolerated that they continue to support a Communi st school. And the debate that I am taking place in right now, Mr. Speaker, I took

part in 22 years ago when the Jewish community , which I considered to be a fairly progressi ve community, decided that they would cut off funds to this particular school because they considered them no longer en titled to be called Jews and therefore a part of the Jewish school system. Mr. Speaker, this is not hypothetical - it happened. And I suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, that if we decided that we are going to subsidize religious schools today, in 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, in some period of time we are going to start telling those schools what they have to teach, and some group of cabinet ministers are going to look at the education budget, Mr. Speaker -- Mr. Speaker, some group of cabinet ministers is going to look at the education

July 6, 1972 390 1 (MR. GREEN cont '

d) budget and they're going to say, Mr. Speaker, "That you know you have 20 , 000 Jewish people in the Province of Manitoba out of a million. They've got three schoo ls ; why do they have three schools for such a community ?" And we should tell them that there should be one school regardless of the fact that there were differences in the Labour Zionist School and the Cons ervative School and the Orthodox School; we're going to tell them that we can't afford the luxury of three Jewish schools for a community of 20,0 00 people.

And maybe then they will amalgamate them in one school and at that time the community will not be able to say anything. And then, Mr. Speaker, in another 10 years, or 15 years, I don't know the time, but I know that every time the state has gone into this it has meant a restriction of religious liberty; that somebody's going to come in and complain to the government, ''You know what they're teaching in some of those schools ?

They're teaching that God inflicted 10 plagues on the Egyptians , boils and the killing of the first born and a whole bunch of things of that - which amounts to hate , and there are people, there are people in our community who are objecting to it. " And the Jewish people will be called in and said, "Now look. We don't like this part of what you are teaching. " And it will not only happen to the Jewish community, it will happen, Mr. Speaker, in every community where the state decides that it is going to usurp the function of involving itself in the teaching of the beliefs of various parts of its citizens . Mr.

Speaker, these are not hypothetical questions. These things happened; they happened to me; and I vowed, Mr. Speaker , and I still vow, that I would not be a party to that kind of thing happening, because I know the results of it when it has happened. And if we are interest ed, Mr. Speaker, in maintaining a fair treatment for all the diverse elements in our community, the way of doing it is not providing them with separate schools ; the way of doing it is making our school system so all-embracing that these people fit into the school system and are not directed by it to move in one direction, Mr.

Speaker, or another. And that is the fundamental iss ue, Mr. Speaker, that I am fighting. It has been introduc ed into this House because the principle is sought to be made less important. It's rea lly intro duced into this House, Mr. Speaker, as an administrative problem, that we have been giving money in different ways and that there are some schools who have been accepted into the school division and others that have not, and really we want to set up a committee to give us advice on this administrative problem. Mr.

Speaker, I suggest to you before the committee could give advice on the adminis trative problem, it would have to know; does the government wish to encourage the separation of schools and the facilitating of such separation by financial support on the basis of religious or racial differences, or does it not wish to encourage ? Bec ause if it does wish to encourage, it should extend relief on an equal basis to all these schools , amd eventually it means a 100 percent basis.

Because if the argument is sound that every parent has a right to designate the allocation of their school dollar, then it is sound, not 50 percent or 70 percent, it is sound lOO percent. Mr. Speaker, theref ore that decision has to be made. And if the decision is that we don •t wish to facilitate such separation, then the committee will say, well, your decision is easy.

You cut back on those services that have gone beyond the spirit of the Shared Services Agreement , and you tell those school divisions that have been facilitating school differences on the basis of religion or race that they are no longer to do so . And that's the simple answer . The question that remains unanswered is what do you want to do ? It's not a legal question, as has been submitted by the First Minister , as to whether the agreements are legal or not. Be cause if they were legal and 57 members said, ''We don't want to do it," they would quickly say, "Don't do it. " And if they were illegal, Mr.

Speaker, and 57 members said ''We want to do it, " they would quickly make them legal. So all of this notion of a committee being able to solve the problem, really begs the question. Mr. Speaker, what is going to be the make-up of this committee ? Well, I will predict to you at this moment that if this res olution is passed it will be suggested that the make-up of the committee be composed of people who have not really taken firm positions on this issue; that it be composed of people who have been moderate, who have not firmed up their mind on this issue. Why, Mr. Speaker ?

Because if we accept the fact that we're see king a way of giving money to the school, then the people to do it are not people who don't believe in that kind of program, and somehow it will be suggested that those people who have the least interest in the matter are the best ones to serve on the committee. Which is always suggested, Mr. Speaker, when you are seeking a compromise approach from moving in one direction on the principle or the other direction on the principle.

3902 July 6, 1972 (MR . GREEN cont'

d) Mr. Speaker, I'm coming to the conclusion of my remarks, I want the House to know that. I want this House to accept the fa

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-4-149
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 4th hansardpdf 149.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e5452de12eef2f1578a6ab1e2e70df73fbcec958

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