Manitoba Hansard — 11 March 1980 (Sitting 14B, 31st Legislature, 4th Session)

31-4-14b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Time: 8:00 p.m. LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 11 March 1980 CONCU RRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - ATTORNEY GEN ERAL CH AffiMAN, Mr. Morris McGregor (V irden): Committee to order. 3.(a)( l). The Member for St. Vital. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned at 4:30 this afternoon I was seeking clarification from the Minister of the amount of salaries under 3.(

a) and I believe I was getting ·an understanding of it by the time we adjourned and that was that this committee had approved $64,800 last year and, at some time between then and now, an additional two research positions had been authorized, which positions were filled and apparently are still being filled and that there is an additional amount of some $3,500.00.

I would like to ask the Min ister if he can now give us an up-to-date figure for the year that is just closing, of the $64,800 plus the additional amounts that were authorized and can he estimate whether all of those funds will be expended for this fiscal year? MR. CH AffiMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. MERCIER: The year hasn't been concluded, Mr. Chairman, obviously I don't have the final figures for the 1979-80 fiscal year. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I realize that and that's why I asked the Minister for an estimate. I also asked him if he could give me the total amount in dollars for this fiscal year.

I would assume, Mr. Chairman, that if all of the positions are filled and if the predictions were made accurately, that the department would expect to spend all of the authorized funds in this fiscal year. If that is the expectation of the department, That would answer my question. MR. MERCIER: Yes, it is the expectation that all of the funds will be spent this year. MR. WALDING: And the total? MR. MERCIER: The anticipated expenditures for salaries would be $79,400.00. MR. WALDING: Yes, Mr.

Chairman, now I think we are in a position to compare apples with apples instead of apples with grapefruit or something else. We are apparently now not comparing 64 •. 8 with 82.9, the comparison is 79.4 to 82.9, wh ich is easier to understand in view of the answers that the Minister has given to us • . He did provide us at the beginning of his Estimates with a fairly thick sheet of pages which I presume were to give us information and provide explanations and generally to be of help to the commit tee, but what we have found is that really it hasn't been too much of a help in this case.

It's been more misl eading than helpful to read the Minister's page 6 comparison, and presumably the comparison is given with last year because that particular

section appears at the top. It would appear that there is an increase of staff .man years of only .13. That is the amount indicated as being increased but in fact, from the Minister's answers, it would be indicated that the increase is from this fiscal year actual to what is being sought to be approved for next year; wh ereas the amount of dollars that are shown as a comparison is in fact the estimate for the 1979-80 year with the estimate for the coming year. Now wh ether it was the intention of the Minister and the department to· misl ead the committee or not, I really don't know.

I suspect that it was not but I would also like to suggest that the Minister could have been, or his staff could have been, a little more careful in presenting the information to us so that this, I wouldn't say deception, that members would not have been mistaken in reading the facts that were before us and it wouldn't have taken us, I guess, half an hour to really get down to the situation and find out just what has happened. I wonder if the Minister has any comment on that. - 689 -

Tuesday, 11 March 1980 MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, certainly there was no intention to mislead. It wasn't anticipated by myself or by the department that my Estimates would be considered first in this committee, and we attempted in a short period of time to put the information together and obviously there should have been a reference to the fact that an additional staff man year was approved in the midst of 1979-80, which would clarify the situation. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I accept the Minister's explanation and I accept that there was no intent to mislead the committee.

I also note that the bottom of the page where it speaks of program highligh ts it does mention the appointment of the new chairman. There is no mention given of the additional positions that were approved and the additional funds that were approved for the fiscal year in which we are in. Had that been done I think it would have been much clearer to the committee. I would like to ask, on a slightly different topic, of the Minister, if he can tell us, the commit tee, what subjects or areas he has referred to the commission over the last year; perhaps he can take that as calendar year. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, of course I tabled the report in the Legislature last week but I believe this is the report wh ich has not yet been printed and so therefore has not been distributed to all members. The report as usual sets out the matter s on which the Law Reform Commission reported in the last year and includes a number of items that were referred to the Law Reform Commission arising out of the last session of the Leg islature. In particular, the one year rule for enforcem ent of maintenance arrears,

Section 9 of The Manitoba Evidence Act Report,

Section 7 of The Payment of Wages Act Report, the term "illegi timate", which arose during the last session, were all matters that were referred to the Law Reform Commission last year and on which they reported. MR. WALD ING: Mr. Chairman, I counted four items there that the Minister read out - I might have missed one - and I believe the Minister further said that the Commission had reported on each of those four items. I would like to know if there were any other items that the Minister or the governm ent has referred to the Commission and whether or not they have reported on them. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, I note there is one other item, The Seduction Act, was referred during the last year and reported on, as was The Wills Act, and The Fire Department's Arbitration Act. MR. WALDING: I now count seven items, Mr. Chairman. Are there any other items that were • •• MR. MERCIER: One major item that was referred to the Law Reform Commission, Mr. Chairman, was priori ty of liens. There are a large number of conflicting pieces of legislation which involve conflicting priorities of liens, and the Commission, that was referred to them list year and is a major piece of work to be undertaken by the m. MR.

WALDING: No further questions, Mr. Chairman.m MR. CH AIRMAN: The Member for Elmwo od. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to discuss with the Minister the report of the Law Reform Commission on political financing and election expenses.

His department has been reviewing these proposals and I wanted to ask him about one particular ••• I have a number of points but the first point I wanted to discuss with him was whet her or not he will be introducing provisions in The Elections Act providing penalties for excessive campaign spending because, unfortunately, we don't have a floor in terms of election spending, namely, some public support, which is in effect in a number of provinces and in the Federal Government, but we do have a ceiling, and it appears that from time to time that ceiling is and has been violated.

The easiest example to look at, the most current, was the three by-elections, and there were a couple of very heavy over-expenditures, one by the MLA for Fort Rouge and one by the Liberal candidate in River Heights. What is interesting is that in Fort Rouge the Liberal Party spent $5,700 over the provincial law and in River Hei ghts they spent $4, 700 over the law. - 690 -

Tuesday, 11 March 1980 What I find interesting is that the people involved said in effect that the ceilings were unrealistic and that in the case of Ruth Krindle who was, I believe, the official agent for the MLA for Fort Rouge, she said that, "Yes, we deliberately overspent", and she said, "Everyone always go over the limit. They did it in the last provincial election and the election before that.

The legislation is just silly." So I think it would be interesting to hear from the AG as to whether or not he intends to prosecute or examine these violations, and perh aps there is no penalty, wheth er he intends to introduce penalties for excessive campaign spending and whether he is now re-examining those ceilin gs. I have to say in general on that point, Mr. Chairman, although I would certainly be interested in heari11?; a full-scale debate, I my self believe that the ceiling should not be raised too much.

I don't know whet her it is too low now or just right or too high, but in my judgment I would not favour a massive increase in the ceiling, because I think the higher the ceiling the more money required, the more money spent, etc., and I believe that there are now sufficient barrie rs to the democratic process that we don't need to will ingly and knowingly encourage the expenditure of more funds.

So I wonder whether the Attorney-General would comment on his intentions and his reaction to the fact that a number of candidates, I guess in the by-elections, probably in the last general elections and probably since the beginning of time, since the legislation was introduced at least, have overspent. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, the Law Reform Commiss ion generally reco mmended that penalties for any election offence should be severe, not only to deter offenders but also to demonstrate to the public that law makers and their political associates will be treated exactly the same as other members of the general public. I concur in general with that recommendation.

As I indicated this afternoon, amendments will be introduced to The Elections Act, I hope at this session of the Legislature, and it's a matter of which all members will be concerned and be prepared to comment on, I'm sure, but I don't think the Member for Elmwood • • • I think he realizes that I cannot indicate before the legis lation is tabled or introduced in the Leg islature what the contents of that legislation will be. There's certainly no question that the existing legislation is badly in need of revision. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Chairman, the other point related to the Law Reform Commission Study, and one that I have very strong and longstanding views on is the need for some public funding. · There have been comments made from time to time; apparently the Attorney-General, back in September, indicated that he was not that enthusiastic about the commission's recommendation that regi stered candidates who receive at least 15 percent of the popular vote in their electoral districts should be reimbursed for the lesser of their cam paign expenses or an amount based on a fixed sum.

He said, at that time, according to a Free Press article, "There would be more difference of opinion and more debate on the public subsidy part of it. My personal view would be to support the tax credit part first." I would be surprised if the Attorney-General was bringing in a public funding in his bill, but I would be delighted if he did.

And I know that wh en the question was raised in the Legislature last June, I asked the Premier about making tax deductability a feature and also providil1?; partial funding, and he said at that time - and it's very hard to understand what he meant, but he said that the tax deductible should be given consideration. And of course, he could give it consideration and throw it out, or give it consideration and put it in. So we don't exactly know whether he's lukewarm or red hot on the idea.

But I know my own leader spoke in favour of this principle, and I have spoken on it on occasion: I'd just like to make a few points, or perhaps the AG would like to comment. I believe he doesn't want to comment at that point. I believe that unless and until we have public funding of two candidates and possibly, and I'm less certain of this, but possibly four poli tical parties as well.

Un less and until we have some public funding, I believe that the democratic process is impaired, and that you have what I would call a dollar democracy, namely that if you have a lot of money and you put it in the right places, it can make a difference in an election campaign, especially in regard to the purchase of materials and especially in regard to the purchase of television and radio time.

I would say to members of the committee that they may have a different view but, in my judgment, the federal legi slation is one to emulate, and I think that it has certainly enabled the smaller poli tical parties, other than the old traditional parties of the Liberals and Conservatives, certainly allowed the New Democratic Party and the Social Credit Party and the potential of other parties to compete without having both hands tied behind their back. - 691 -

Tuesday, 11 March 198 0 I point out that public financing, partial, is in effect in a number of European countries, West Germany and Sweden, but in Canada we have the federal program, which I think could be copied in our province; we have a program in Nova Sco tia, in Quebec, in Saskatchew an, and in Ontario. So four of the provinces, including the two largest, now have a program of rei mbursement, usually tied and related to a maximum, usually based on a mm1mum percentage of the vote, like 15 percent, so that somebody doesn't run and get three votes and get several thousand dollars to campaign.

My point here, Mr. Chairma n, is that it would not be revolutionary and it would not really be breaking new ground to im plement this. We had an opportunity, I suppose, when we were in government, to introduce this legislation, and we put in a ceiling, and that to me was really a half-hearted measure, I mean, to limit expenses. I think it was a step in the right direction, and I think you need a ceiling and I support the concept of a ceiling but it's the floor which I'm talking about.

It's the possibility of, to a cer tain extent, not entirely, not 100 percent public funding, but to a certain extent, equalizing the opportunities vis-a-vis dollars and bucks which count in cam paigns. So I would ask the Attorn ey-General whether he would care to give us the benefit of his views. Maybe they've changed since he last was quoted in the press on the matter, or maybe upon re-examination of the Law Reform Com mission report, maybe he is now sympathetic and maybe he intends to introduce a measure to provide some equality in this area. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, the amendments are still under .consideration, and I'll have to defer any comment until the amendme nts are introduced in the Legislature. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairma n, I'm then going to propose the Doern Am endment to this debate, because I have my own views on how this could be handled.

And i just throw this out by way of illustration, that I believe we could implement a program; first of all, we could copy any province or we could im plement the federal program, but one such possible program would be to determine the number of eligible voters and then to have a maximum expenditure, which I think now is 40 cents, I don't know if it's higher than that -(I nterjection)- 65? And to take whatever the ceil ing is and provide a basic floor of about 50 percent of the maximum allowable expenditure.

So that in this case if an average riding has about 10, 000 or 11, 000 voters in it, then you are talking about say $7,000 or so, and the public, I think, could prov ide that amount of money and that when you consider that times 57 , you get into one million and one-half to one million and three-quarters for the cost in relation to our budget over a period of four years, and I think that is a small price to pay for providing a candidate with a fair chance of presenting hi mself and his party.

So I sim ply say that I think there is a need for a proposal in this regard and I think that also it prevents an unhealthy reliance on the part of the politi cal parties on organized groups, on individuals and so on, and that there must be a concern on the part of a taxpayer, on the part of a citizen, for undue influence or undue consideration or any consideration being given to people who make substantial contributions. We don't want this sort of thing; we don't want people in government and in positions of influence to be receptive to people because they are big contributors.

We don't want anyone beholden to anyone else. It is true of all organized groups, and I say that I believe that partial public funding of elections is a long overdue reform, and I urge the Attorney-General to move in that direction. One final point, Mr. Chairman, and then I will yield the floor. There is a require ment to disclose, I guess, the people who make donations to political parties, but this has often been masked or just co mpletely circu mvented.

Going back about three or so years ago, well the provincial election of 197 3, going back to that election seven years ago, in submit ting a list of donors, the Prog ressive Conservative Party of Manitoba reported they had one single donor and that single donor was the Conservative Party of Canada. There is the letter of the law and so on and the spirt of law; that was a violation of the spirit of the law. The Liberal Party of Canada ••• I am reading from a le tter here, but it was either the ••. MR. FILMON: Who wrote the letter? MR. DOERN: I wrote the letter.

This is from three years ago and there may be an error in this. The Liberal Party of Canada ••• -(I nterjection)- Control yourself. The Liberal Party of Manitoba had a single donor and that was a trust fund, and so I am saying when you ask people to reveal their contributors and one says they got it from one donor in Ottawa and the other one says they got it from a single donor, a trust fund, they are obviously not com plying with the Act. I mean I guess legally they are complying with the Act, but in _fact they are violating or not answering.

I would ask the Attorney-General whether there he is looking into that or whe ther he has no cGncern for answers of that kind? _ -69 2 -

Tuesday, 11 March 198 0 MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, on that particular point it is my view that there should be full disclosure of donations to a candidate or a political party throughout the year, not just during the course of an election campaign, within certain limits, whatever is agreed upon is reasonable. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. JUNE WESTBURY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you for recogmzmg me.

It has occurred to me in the past few minutes that it might be easier to face this sort of thing in a court of law where the rules of evidence would prevail, rather than around a table where anything can be said and just one side can be presented. You know, obviously rules of evidence don't prevail here. I want to say that the requirement to disclose that was brought in by the previous government I believe also did not hold any penalties if one went above the ceiling. Now we have heard a lot about the overspending, shall we call it, of one candidate. We have not heard about incomplete disclosures.

At the same by-election, at least the last report I heard, there was one candidate which made an incomplete disclosure, and the third candidate had a corpo rate disclosure, but we don't hear about those; we only hear about the one who overspent, a great deal I may say. I would also like to point out that when the legislation came down a member of the legal staff of the government - I am sorry I don't know in which department; I can find that out if anyone cares enough -who was required to draft this, sent a note with the draft saying this legislation is worthless.

I didn't know that until after the election, but I know it now. Now, I think there should be disclosure. I don't think there should be any undue advantage to one candidate because his party knows ahead of time when the election is going to be called, and I would suggest that that advantage does exist. I don't think there should be any advantage to one candidate or two candidates, three, four candidates, because they were nominated earlier than others.

What I suggesting is that if there is going to be any limits, I would suggest there be penalties, we have the same limit for everybody and we go back to six months before the writ is issued so that those people who ordered their billboards and ordered their stationery before the writ was issued will have to make their full disclosure on the amount they spent, Mr. Chairman. Because I am prepared to say to you that throu ghout my election, now I didn't know what we were spending. That is no excuse, okay; I am not trying to make an excuse, I am merely making a statement.

We were keeping some sort of track of what the other candidates were spending. I suggest that I was not 1Pending more than the other candidates were spending. I wouldn't for one moment question the honesty of their returns, of course, but I suggest they did a lot of their spending before the writ was issued and therefore they were complying; they weren't not complying with the legislation.

So I am suggesting that if you are going to have legislation, make it realistic, make it the same for everybody and nobody have an advantage because their government is in power at the time that the writ is issued, and so their Premier is able to say, all right, I will call the election in October. Because I was told by a prominent Conservative in June that that election was going to be October; unfortunately I didn't trust him. And I would also like to suggest that there be some limit on what perhaps there should be received from any one donor.

I don't have a strong feeling on that but it's just something that perhaps the department could look at that maybe there should be a ceiling on how much any one contributor can give. I would like to say also that I was a candidate in 197 3. .MY committee put in a return, whatever you call that thing, and I can remember reading in the paper that I had filed my return and that it was in order. So my committee did not claim anything from the Liberal Party in trust.

There might have been a donatio n from the Party but my committee in 1973 made the same sort of a return, we had less money, but the same sort of return as we made in 19 79. So I would suggest that was not a fair comment. · I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney-General will look seriously at the fairness of the Legislation, have the same rule for everybody, nobody have undue advantage because they are the party in power and I think that's a fair request to make. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Wolseley. -693 -

Tuesday, 11 March 1980 MR. ROBERT G. WILSON (Wolseley): Well, Mr. Chairman, having ran in an urban riding which has unique problems I would concur with some of the comments of public funding to a certain degree and level for recognized parties and individuals that could come up with a certain amount of signatures of ratepayers or voters in the area. It would seem to me it is needed because it not only affects the candidate while he's running but if affects him after. It affects his possibly perceived notion as to why he was elected, why he or she was elected. I toss out a couple of ideas.

One, I can't quite completely agree with a percentage of votes obtained as how you get back your money. It would seem to me that if you spent a lot of money you would come up with a lot of vo tes, besides your own personal appeal. So I would rather have a flat rate and some formula based on percentage of votes obtained. In other words, each person that received the required voter support on the nomination papers and/or been a member of a recognized party would be able to run in the election.

My other area is I think that all surpluses that are obtained candidates in affluent areas of our city should be turned over to the central party because in so many cases the people that are not from the elite or the privileg ed classes or do not hold high positions in an organized union are not able to muster the type of money that they need to run a decent campaign to present their case to the public. I agree that anybody that does run has to be prepared to sacrifice a bt of their own money if they do not come from one of the more established areas.

This is why I think that there has to be more emphasis on the central party aspect because I become rather envious of certain candidates that throw large pre-election parties whether they are successful or not, some running into thousands of dollars because they have surpluses in their campai gn funds while ot hers are spending money from their own pockets to be able to present their case to the public. I would like to suggest to the Minister too, that while we are sitting in the Legislature there's certain requirements under, I believe,

Section 87, which prohibit people harassing us during the Session of the Legislature. My experience and we all know that two certain groups, namely the legal profession and the school teachers, love to dominat e politics, especially the legal profession, they will win at any cost. And part of the problem is, as a small businessman in a contrav ersial occupation, of again, Pm only the owner of the company, I've never done any of that type of work, it's an investment like if I bought a travel agency or a grocery store or whatever.

And I find that every single election that I run in members of the legal profession will very conveniently issue a statement of claim and say whatever they want in that and as soon as they file it becomes a public record; and then all of a sudden I have to read in the p·aper where I've taken some lady's man from the St. Charles Hotel, I've taken his Cadillac with gold hub caps, and harassed a 78-year old father or something.The next day I pick up the paper and Robert Matis of the Tribune has me pushing an old man down a flight of stairs or something.

And this is the kind of nonsense that you have to confront in the election and I would think that the public has a right to know the people that are running for office, but I don't think that enemies of that person running for office who has a sincere desire to present his political ideas and his economic ideas to the voting public should not be harassed by the legal profession because they want to dominate politics. And I think a ban on harassment of candidates during the campaign is just as important as a ban when the House starts.

Now Pm sitting here right now, the lawyers have to leave me alone but when I'm running for office they have a field day and I think that is wrong and I would like to see that amendment. I also would like to throw this thought -that I think a person should be able to save their election material from campaign to campaign and this official agent requirement, in my opinion, is very. very questionable. What difference does it make who the official agent is?

Why can't you put it on the material by a stamp or some form , because I know they kid me about being thrifty Bob, and I get a lot of complaints about turning Spivak folders around and having my name on the other side and this type of thing, but I believe a person should be able to rent a garage, or if they happen to own one, and store their election material between campaigns because in theory we are basically spending the taxpayers' money. Especially if we adopt the Member for Elmwood's suggestion which others have made in the past, that we do have public funding.

What if we get into public funding and you have an expanded budget? You know you're not even going to bother to take down your signs and that's another thing thing that bothers me. I drive here every day down Stradbrook and I look up and I see Savino and Westbury still on all the apartment blocks right across from the Squash Club and I say there should be a requirement for people to take down their election signs. I think there should be an oblig ation on the candidate, if he wants to run for public office, to be able to take down your election material at some point in time.

With all due respect to the Attorney-General, I go across the Osborne Bridge and I see one of his family posters there. His brother's is still up. -694 -

Tuesday, 11 March 1980 So what I am saying is at what point in time after the campaign is over should there be a requirement that the candidate takes down his election signs because basically with -(Interjections)- Pm simply saying, my suggestion is that there should be some requirement, a 60 day requirement, that election material should be taken down; there should be an allowance where a person should not have to have the official agent printed on his material, it should be able to be put on the back or any other place, if it's used material.

By that I mean, a person should be able to save his campaign material from one election to the other. We talk about saving money and we talk about tightening our belt, and I think that this is the type of material that can be saved. You want to talk about the cost of plywood, I can tell you I have a garage full of plywood boards ready to go for the next campaign, and I know they cost about 22 bucks a sheet, and I would like to see this. I'd like to also talk about methods of ••.

I don't know, maybe it's considered all right but a certain candidate that ran against myself raised $15,000 in a raffle in which they had television sets, some very expensive prizes, and the prizes were donated, yet it didn't show up anywhere, and Pm wondering, is there anything in the election pro vision to, for instance, if merchants start giving you things and you turn around and turn those prizes into money, is there anything in The Election Act which prevents somebody giving you something in kind, and you don't put a value on it? Maybe we're getting down to the chief electoral officer.

Maybe part of the chief electoral officer's duties could be in an amendment to the Elections Act that that person appoint somebody to go around to the different areas and put a valuation of materials. Because if you're buying all your materials, pre-ordering your signs, saving them between elections, having somebody else order them six months ahead of time or, as the Member for Fort Rouge said, the party in power has an advantage in knowing when they're going to call the election, so therefore they are able to pre-order all their signs, and I would like to see maybe what we can call an evaluation of materials.

In other words, the chief electoral officer will sort of have a certain expertise in elections and certainly somebody from the printing industry could go around and evaluate. If they walked into the Member for Fort Rouge's committee rooms and saw that she had $10,000 worth of material, he may give her an appraised value of say, $8,000.00. Likewise, the Member for Elmwood; he could walk into his committee rooms, give an evaluation of say, $3,000.00.

What Pm saying is -(Interjection)- No, but in that way we would have, rather than have doctored bills, where people allege they do things on volume basis where it stands to reason if you have a fat cat organization that can order 30,000 of a particular article, they get the volume price,

whereas an independent candidate running with a $1,500 bu dget either handpaints the signs or he goes down and they want, for instance, in a balcony banner they may want $37.50 for one banner,

whereas on a volume basis you could get it for $15.00. So the campaigns, the way they're being run now, it seems to me, certainly favour the establishment, rather than the independent candidate. I just put those thoughts on the record, and I wondered, in speaking to the Minister, if he would like to comment on the aspect of surpluses obtained by a candidate while running. Not all of us are in that envious position, but is he allowed to keep them in a bank account for the next election or can certain candidates run in certain areas? Not in Manitoba but I know in certain areas, it's alleged that Mr.

Connally raised something like $10 mi llion, the gentleman from Texas. What I am saying is, is there any provision that protects the public that the people that are running for office, in some cases are not running to make money? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Ros:; mere. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you. I was happy to hear the Attorney-General say that he was supportive of the view that all donations to political parties should be made publicly and openly. I certainly fully support that view. When we get into the area of spending during election campaigns, I think that the current law is rather di fficult to work.

I think that there should be penalties for going outside of that law. At the same time, if there are going to be penalties, then we have to make certain that we know what our limits are. · Pll give you an example of that, in my particular case in Ros:;mere, I believe I overspent by something like 30 bucks on a riding with some 14,000 or 15,000 voters. Now there is no way of knowing how many voters or how much money one can spend. There's no way of knowing how much you can spend until after the election is over, because that is the time when you will find out how many voters there were.

We didn't realize that there were so many people already leaving the province, and had there been 100 les:; people leave the province from our riding, we would have been within the spending limit. -695 -

Tuesday, 11 March 1980 Now, if we're going to set limits, the point is, the candidate should know at the starting time what those limits are. I also think that the limit should not be 35 days. I think that provi sion in the law is totally impractical; it's unfair. I think that it should be six months or some period like that, and then the law should indicate that all expenses incurred for election purposes should be added into a candidate's account.

That is, if prior to six months before the campaign, the candidate goes and buys his signs or her signs and uses those signs within the six-month period, then that should be part of the election expense of that particular candidate. You shouldn't be allowed to buy ahead of time to circumvent the law. Now that doesn't mean that I would condone the idea that just because there are no penalties you can just spend whatever you want within the period, as some people are saying they can do now. I don't think that that's appropriate either.

I don't think the level should be increased by any substantial amount, other than by the amount of inflation. In· Ross mere we declared all of our money, all of the amounts spent; there was nothing pre-spent that we didn't declare, and I think that we had adequate funds with which to fight an election campaign.

Now it may be that out in the country you might require some more funding or less funding, I don't know; I think that may be an area where people who get involved in country campaigning might have more knowledge but in the city I think that the current rate is not that inadquate to provi de a decent election campaign. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I appr eciate the views that have been expressed on the existing legislation and changes that some members would like to see. Again, I can only reiterate that we intend to introduce amendments and I'm sure the amendments will be subject to a lot of discussion. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for River Heights. MR. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, because the discussion seems to have centred around the recent by-elections, I thought that I should contribute my own observations, not to be left out. I ·think there's no question that there's pro bably a need for increasing levels of spending, but there is anot her difficulty that some of the ot hers obviously didn't run into, and that is that in some constituencies the voting population is declining really drastically.

In River Heig hts over a period of time it went from something like 13,000 in 1973 down to something in the order of just under 10,000, I believe, in 1979. A MEMBER: They've probably all gone to Alberta. MR. FILMON: As a matter of fact, I think demographic analyses indicate that the inner city population is moving out to the suburbs, by and large, and in fact that has a great deal to do with it.

All of our suburban ridings are burgeoning and it was rather interesting that, for instance, Rossmere had more than twice the number of electors that River Heights did, as do Riel, Charleswood and so on, which is why we're undergoing redistribution. But between redistributi ons, that's a serious problem, and I think in addition to increasing the level, we should have some benchmark level at which there is that funding at least, and then beyond that it could be on a per capita basis.

But just to get to the point of discussion about whether or not the party in power has any particular advantage in knowing the time that the date is going to be set, I would like to share with the Member for Fort Rouge my own experience. I was going door to door from about the first week of September, about the beginning of September, and as one does, you introduce yourself at the door, and it was on about, I believe the l 2th of September, and I had gotten used to the normal reaction of people coming to the door and not even realizing that there was a by-election coming up.

And I would always introduce the topic by saying, "I'm a Conservative candidate for River Heights; of course there is a by-election coming up, we don't know when the day is going to be at the moment." -696 -

Tuesday, 11 March 1980 I believe it was the l 2th of September was the operative date, I arrived at this one door at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, having gone door to door all afternoon and the gentleman said, "What do you mean you don't know when the election is to be called for?" And I said, "Well, as far as I know, the election hasn't been called yet and we're not sure when the date will be", and he said, "Don't you read the paper, sir?", and I said, "I beg your pardon? " and he produced the front page of the Free Press, on which the headline said, "L yon Sets By-Election Date for October 16th".

So I said, "Obvio usly, sir, you can see that our party doesn't hold any favourites and we certainly put everybody on an equal basis." And that indeed was the case. -(Interjection)- How did your opponent know? I'm not sure. But I think that it goes without saying that the legislation in existence now doesn't give any particular advantage to any parties because most of the parties who were involved knew that the election was coming up sometime in the no t-too-distant future; it was likely to be in October, any good crystal ball could have predicted that. MR; CHAIRMAN: The Member for Elmwood. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Chairman, just two bri ef points. I want to point out, in regard to comments of the Member for Fort Rouge that I didn't say that individual candidates gave, as their source of funding in 1973, a trust fund. I said that the Manitoba Liberal Party gave, as its source, a trust fund, as the provincial Conservatives gave a single donor, namely the Conservative Party of Canada. The only point I wanted to make here, Mr.

Chairman, was to completely agree with the Member for Rossmere and the Member for Fort Rouge that it's the year-round disclosure that should become a fact of life; that it's too easy to circumvent the election period, and order in advance, and spend in advance, and I guess in some cases, pay bills, or I don't know what, make arrangements, for being billed and for paying something later on. So I think there's a tendency to almost encourage people to violate the law by having a short period, and a temptation on the part of candidates to beat that particular requirement.

So I think that in his Election Act amendments, he should give consideration to year-round disclosures, I suppose by political parties in particular, and possibly by candidates, or to extend the period of election expenditure limitations, so that it's not just a 30 day period, or a 35 day period. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Wolseley. MR. WI LSON: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to finalize the Manitoba Law Reform Commission

section of the Minister's Estimates by speaking, if I could, on something he may have touched upon before but maybe I missed it, but Pm concerned of the year-in and year-out plea on behalf of the people in our industry, the credit industry, for prio rities of payments of money without going to the expensive interpleader procedure and hiring a team of lawyers to solve something which should be put into the Statues of Manitoba in very clear and precise terms.

Because what I have is an observation that in the repossession field just last month our particular firm -and since the time for appeal has lapsed, I can speak about it -the Toronto Dominion Bank named us in an action and we saw no need to go down to the court or anything because we had done nothing wrong; we had been hired by a law firm on behalf of the landlord of a shopping centre. We held a public sale and disposed of the items for $5,500.00.

In arriving at who the money should go to, the learned judge ended up costing us $1,350 because we had paid out the money because of certain requirements under The Consumer Pro tection Act and the Consumers' Bureau. We are required to pay out these trust funds or trust moneys, and the auctioneer deducted from source $1,100; the judge allowed him $162.5 0. The judge awarded costs against the defendants that the bank had named and we were nailed $150.00.

We were nailed a quarter of the disb ursements, which were $44.50, and since we had already paid the hydro $218, having done nothing wrong, we were compelled to pay $1,350. 00. · Now what happens is, we perceive the order of things are based on a long, historical thing, yet we find that we can never guarantee the decisions of the judiciary, based on the fact that they have so many sets of law books which they can refer to, and I think the small busineS>man and the property management people, and for that matter, maybe governments, have a right to know where they stand. -697 -

Tuesday, 11 March 1980 I can talk about, in a commercial matter, the Labour Board comes in and says, wages take priority. The income tax comes in and says, we take priority. The corpor ate tax comes in, and we take priority.

Section 88 from the bank say, we come there somewhere. The Federal Development Bank says, we have a

section where we take priority. The Hydro has a

section that they take priorit y, and the business tax, naturally says they take prio rity over everyone under the Winnipeg charter or under the provincial. And then the Landlord and Tenant Act, Williams Landlord and Tenant Act and others say that the landlord takes prio rity over the business tax, yet several court cases have ruled that a chattel mor tgage takes priorit y over the business tax. So you have a dog chasing its tail. You have the landlord that's here, the business tax takes priorit y over the landlord, but the chattel mor tgage takes priorit y over the business tax.

With this type of situation it's no wonder we have so many problems and time-consuming things before our courts that could better be settled by very clear and concise amendments, and I would hope that members of the Law Reform Commission will get on with that. The other aspect is that I noticed with interest that the Sheriff's Department has very liberal fees, and yet under The Distress Act we are still being held down to something like. $1.50 or $3.00 for making a seizure.

Ontario has made changes, and I don't think anyone can start up their car for $1. 50 in this day and age, let alone take a taxi, and even the pink lady is allowed to charge $2. 7 5. So I would hope that there would be amendments to The Distress Act and there would be amendments under The Lien Note Act and others to clearly deal with this matter. One other matter is The Lien Note Act. It says that all people who sell goods to citizens and to corporations and that are to clearly mark their chattels. I would think that there should be some clear, concise direction on what they mean, clearly mark it.

Do you mean pu tting an X or pu tting a skull and crossbones? I think there should be a standardized form that is put on the back of all pianos, television sets, or whatever. If they're sold by conditional sales contract by different retail stores that intend to hold those chattels until the lien is cleared, they should comply with The Lien Note Act.

I'm sure the intent of The Lien Note Act, when they talked about marking the goods and chattels, was to mark them in such a manner as they would be clearly identified as belonging to them and not a skull and crossbones or an X, or some trade name or whatever you want to call it, so that those in our particular industry and those buying second-hand goods would be better pro tected. I just put those comments on the record. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. VitaL MR. WALDING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know that the Member for Wolseley is not in a position to finalize the discussion on this item.

That will be decided by the members of the commit tee when they decide to move on to the next item. I wanted to make a request of the Mini ster. It arises following discussion by other members of election campaigns and possible changes to The Elections Act. The Minister might recall that I intro duced an amendment, I believe last year, to the Electoral Divisions Boundaries Act, and that was to try to ensure that when the Boundaries Commission brought in its report that it would be within closer margins of the quota than is presently allowed within the Act. You are aware that the Commission is ••• MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mini ster on a point of order. MR. MERCIER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think you've been very lenient in the past in allowing a wide-ranging discussion on matters in which the Law Reform Commi ssion had· made recommendations. They have made no recommendations with respect to The Electoral Boun daries Act. I think if you were to allow discussion on this point, you could allow discussion on any possible amendment to any piece of legislation that could be brought before the House under this amendment. And I think that would be stretching the relevancy rules, Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Committee, I think I have given a lot of latitude. We went around this table almost twice for all those and really we are maybe abusing our rules just a little bit in stretching beyond this particular item. The Member for St. Vital. -698 -

Tuesday, 11 March 1980 MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister had allowed me to finish the

preamble to what I was saying, you would see that it was directly relevant to this particular item. I was speaking of The Electoral Boundaries Act, and remind honourable members that it went down to defeat, that members of the Conservative Party were obvious ly not happy with it, and I don't know whether the Minister himself voted against it or not. But the Boundaries Commission next looks at those boundaries in nine years' time from now, so there would be no need for any change in the Act until that time.

The request that I am making of the Minister, would he be prepared to refer this matter to the Manitoba Law Reform Commission, and ask them to look into it as carefully as they have looked into matters of election reform in Manitoba. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(a)( l)--pass. The Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. WESTBURY: I am still learning the procedure, and I am sure that you will tell me if I am in error.

Is it cor rect for us to be able to talk about reports that have come from the Law Reform Commission at this time, recommendations, or to ask whether things will be referred to the Law Reform Commission, as has just been done? I wanted to ask about the transfer of the jurisdiction over divorce. I understand that Manitoba has taken a position on that, but I wondered if it is a Manitoba government position, or if it is the Attorney-General's position, or just where that stands. The suggestion has been made that jurisdiction over divorce should be returned to the provinces, and one would hope that will not be done.

I understand the Attorney-General has taken the position that Manitoba will not support that position. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I will take the matter raised by the Member for St. Vital under consideration. MR. CHAIRMAN: It is Fort Rouge . MR. MERCIER: I know, he spoke prior to the Member for Fort Rouge. With respect to the Member for Fort Rouge's concern, Manitoba has, at constitutional meetings, taken that position, that jurisdiction over marriage and divorce should not be transferred to the provinces.

Most other provinces favour the transfer of jurisdiction, and we will have to await, I suppose, the next constitutional meeting in order to determine whether or not the position of the federal government has changed. I have to say both federal governments, the Liberal federal government origi nally took that position, and in the one constitutional meeting that we had with the Pro gressive Conservative federal government, it didn't appear as if there was any change in the position of the federal government. MRS.

WESTBURY: The other questions I wanted to ask about were the one-year maintenance limits and that recommendation that came from the Law Reform Commission, and whether we can expect a statement from the Minister on the abolition of that one-year maintenance limit; the forced sale of land when one spouse is in default of maintenance payments -that also has been recommended by the Law Reform Commission. And I don't know if the Law Re form Commission is looking at this particular subject - I wondered if the Minister is intending to refer to them the need for an ability to enforce custody orders.

I understand that Ontario is the only province with which we do not have agreement on reciprocity on custody orders. First of all, I wanted to know if I am allowed to talk about those things, and then I wanted to know what is happening on them. MR. MERCIER: No, I think those questions, Mr. Chairman, are very relevant, these are reports that have been made by the Law Reform Commission. I referred both those matters to the Law Re form Commission last year when we dealt with amendments to The Family Maintenance Act in order to improve the enforcement of maintenance orders. The reports are now being reviewed.

I hope that there will be legislation brought forward under both items for consideration at this Session of the Legislature. With respect to •• • MRS. WESTBURY: Recipro city on the custody. -699 -

Tuesday, 11 March 1980 MR. MERCIER: I can only indicate that there may very well be legislation on that particular matter also. There may very well be legislation before this Session of the Legislature on that item. MRS. WESTBURY: I am sure the Attorney-General is aware that there are cases of hardship where custody orders have been granted in one case by Family Court, and by the Court of Queen's Bench, and they have proved unenforcible in Ontario. MR. MERCIER: I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that on that item, the biggest area of difficulty is in other provin ces.

Manitoba is a leader in this field, in that we supply counsel in order to assist in enforcing custody orders in Manitoba. Not all other provinces do that, and that has caused some difficulty in other provin ces. MRS. WESTBURY: Is this something that the Minister would bring to a conference of Attorneys-General at some time in the future? MR. MERCIER: We have expressed that concern, Mr. Chairman, at meetings of Attorneys-General. If the Member for Fort Rouge has a specific case in mind that we could follow up on, if she wished to raise that matter with us afterwards. MRS.

WESTBURY: There is a specific case, but I think the Attorney-General is already aware of it. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(a)( l)-pas<;; 3.(a)(2) ••• The Member for Wellington. MR. BRIAN CORRIN: I am sorry for snapping at you, Mr. Chairman, I was just trying to draw your attention. The Honourable Member for Lakeside would, of course, be an expert on what is unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman.

With respect to situations arising out of appeals of proceedings pursuant to prosecutions by the Honourable Minister's Department, I too have a concern which I was wondering whether he would address to the Law Reform Commission or an appropriate agency, and I believe it is one which has met with some success and approval in at least one other province, namely, Saskatchewan, and that is the question of whether or not an accused person who is a successful appellant, a person who appeals a decision made against him in a criminal prosecution and is successful, could obtain the costs of obtaining the transcripts of the depositions from the government, recover those costs from the government, in order to reimburse him or herself for the expense that they have been put to in order to file the appeal.

In most appeals you are required -as I am sure, Mr. Chairman, the Minister is aware -you are required to file transcripts of the former depositions. And under current regulation and Jaw those transcripts, the cost of transcribing those records, are borne by the appellant, regardles<; of whether or not the appellant is successful in the cause. Sometimes, Mr. Chairman, as I am sure the Minister is aware, this is quite expensive. If the transcripts are lengthy, there is a fairly considerable charge per page.

It seems to me that it would only be fair and just, if the prosecution was poorl y-founded and the Crown has lost its ca�e against an individual taxpayer, that the taxpayer mi nimally be reimbursed the cost of having to pay for all the transcription. I was wondering whether or not the Attorney-General would agree with me, and whether he would recommend such a revision of the Jaw to the Law Reform Commission, or for that matter, take it into hand and bring appropriate amendments before the Legislature in this or next year's Session. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, we are aware that the Province of Saskatchewan are either studying this matter or have actually got a pilot project going, and we are certainly prepared to consult with them first, and see how that project is going. MR. CORRIN: Just supplementary, if the Minister could undertake to review with the court reporter's office the nature of charges made against appellants and find out what sort of expenses they have to bear in the course of those sorts of proceedings, I think that would be educative and well worth the time and activity consumed by the Department.

I think it would also be illustrative of what is a fact, that appellants are put to a fairly substantial expense in pursuing their rights in our courts. Transcription costs are very high today, and as -700 -

Tuesday, 11 March 1980 a result, in a lengthy trial the transcripts can cost several hundreds of dollars. And when you put that, of course, on top of what usually is a fairly substantial bill for legal services and other attendant losses, such as time lost from work or your private business, it all adds up to a pain in the neck and in the pocketbook for the indivi dual in the courts. I don't think that we should accord the same ri ghts to those who were found guilty. I don't think we have to make it of universal application. That would be carrying social democracy a bit too far.

But is seems to me that we can at least accord this respect to those who have been put to unnecessary bother in the case of unfounded, relatively unfounded, prosecution. MR. MERCIER: Well, Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, I know that that matter was under way in Saskatchewan, I think last fall. We will pursue that matter with them. MR. CH AIRMAN: 3.(a)( l)-pass; 3.(a)(2)-pass; 3.(b)( l )-pass; 3.(b)(2) • . • The Memb er for Wellington. MR. CORRIN: What Item are we on? MR. CH AIRMAN: I thought we got to 3.(b)(

l) then. MR. CORRIN: Fine. Mr. Chairman, in this regard, in dealing generally with the Manitoba Human Righ ts Commission and the impact of these Estimates and past Estimates and budgetary provisions for the Commission, I think it is significant and worthwhile to note, it is of some edifying purpose to note, that the reduction in the Comm ission's operating budget of some 40 percent last year has simply not been made up in this particular fiscal year. I calculate that there is - and I may be wrong, Mr.

Chairman - but my calculations are to the effect that the Human Ri ghts Commission has only experienced an 18 percent increase over 1977 funding levels. That, in annual terms, yields only some 4 1/ 2 percent per year of, I won't call it real growth, I almost called it real growth, of growth. It obviously doesn't matc h inflation or the cost of living. Mr.

Chairman, it is of concern to us on this side, and I think it should be of concern to all mem bers who are interested in this subject matter, that this particular item has been accorded such low priority in the past several years, while we noted that general planning and management to the Minister's Department had an increase of almost 60 percent in the same time frame. We compare that to only an 18 percent increase in this particular area.

And although we are not suggesting there shouldn't have been a 60 percent appreciation in the funds allocated for Planning and Management, we would suggest that it is highly inappropriate and highly unsupportive of the government only to have accorded such minimal priority to the Rights Commission. We feel that the work it does is of priority, paramount importance, to the Manitoba commun ity, and we feel that it is impossible to effectively provide for the expansion of the concept, proliferation, proselytization of the concept in the aooence of an adequate funding base for the Comm ission. Now in this regard, Mr.

Chairman, I'll provide you with a quote made by Mr. Sig Enns, who is, of course, the Chairman of the Manitoba Human Rights Commission. It was reported in the newspaper, and I think it's of some interest. Mr. Enns indicated to a reporter, and I'm quoting now, "The significant cutbacks are to be deplored, but how many education officers and how much money can be effectively emplo yed in combating discrimination? Isn't it a question of societal change in which we all have to be involved?" Well, with due respect, Mr.

Chairman, I would like to say from the outset that is sim J?lY in my opinion, and I think the members' on this side collective opinion, an untenable pos1t10n. We don't feel that it is appropriate for the chairman of the Human Rights Commission to, on the one hand, deplore what he describes as significant cutbacks, and on the other hand say, well, why should we throw money at the problem. It won't wash. We would suggest that awareness of the law is the key. Awareness of the Human Rights Legislation is the key to making it effective.

We feel that, as is the case in all laws attempti ng to govern human behaviour, people have to be aware of the law. They must have confidence in the administration of the law prior to actually feeling the impact and effect and the benefit of the legislation. We feel in a case where there is substantial disinclination to provide adequate sustenance and support to this sort of new conceptual programming and legi slation, that the end result simply is an inability of the commissio n to make inroads, serious inroads, into combating discrimination in our society. We feel that the commiss ion, if -701 -

Tuesday, 11 March 1980 it is to be effective, must have the financial wherewi thal to effectively provide both eduaction and advocacy to the commu nity. And we feel, Mr. Chairman, that it is simply impossible for them to do that in the absence of sufficient moneys, in order to found their activities. Now, Mr.

Chairm an, it has been noted in a recent task force report prepared by the Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties that there was indeed a direct relationship between the amount of educational activity and the number of co mplaints about discrimination, so that there is a high degree of correl ation between the money allotted and allowed the com mission for educational purposes, and the am ount of business, to be somewhat pedestrian, Mr. Chairman, the amount of business, the volume of case load and flow, the number of comp laints that come before the Board. So what we're suggesti1l5 is that, effectively, Mr.

Enns is wrong when he suggests that money can't make a difference. We suggest that education officers can effectively be em ployed in com bating discrimination. We would suggest that education has a direc tly proportionate effect on the attitude of our people, on the awareness of our people of their entitlem ent to ce rtain rights. On this basis, Mr. Chairm an, we should also note - and it is regrettable that we should to have to at this time, Mr.

Chairman, make this a matter of record - that in the past year there have been, and this is not something that one wishes to discuss publicly, but I think that we must discuss this in this forum, there have been very ser ious and critically em ergent difficulties as between the native com munity of this province and the Human Rights Commi ssion. Now, Mr. Chairm an, this is a very serious allegation, but I think it's honest to say that it has now been significantly documented. I think back to Yvonne Monkm an's resignation from the MA RL task force.

She said it was a waste of time to try and do anything to upgrade the standard of care, as it wer e, of concern, provided by the Manitoba Human Rights Comm ission and its officers. Ms Monkma n, who is a former assistant director of the Indian and Metis Friendship Centre of this particular city, said that she was totally - and rm quoting - she was "totally frustrated, as were all native Man itobans, with the attitude and services provided by the Human Rights Comm ission." And, Mr. Chairman; I think that it behooves the Attorney-General, and all memb ers of this com mittee, to consider this in some depth.

This lack of confidence began several years ago. We all know it, and rm willing to air some dirty linen. It began with the infamous Ma rlborough Hotel case. In that particular case the comm ission, as rm sure we all remem ber, refused to act on behalf of native comp lainants. There was court action taken on a civil basis by the Man itoba Indian Brotherhood and, Mr. Chairman, nothing has occurred in the insuing yea rs to resist the continuiJl5 disintegration of relations between the native commu nity of this province and the comm ission.

Ms Monkman - I won't give my opinion yet - Ms Monkman said in a ne wspaper report that an increasing number of native Manitobans have given up on the comm ission because they see taking complaints there as, I'm quoting, "a long, endless and totally frustrating battle". Now isn't that a shame, Mr. Chairman, when a representative of our native co mmu nities, a former executive officer of the Indian and Metis Fri endship Centre of this city, has to suggest that taking a com plaint to the Human Rights Comm ission is a battle. There is something very much the ma tter when that sort of situation arises.

She co mplained that either the comp laints were handled very poorly in her opinion, or they were com pletely ignored, or the discretion allowed the officers was used to throw the complaints out altogether without recourse to due process. Now, this has been further documented.

The MA RL, task force when they reviewed the offices of the Human Rights Comm ission this past year - just sever al months ago they tabled their report and I believe a copy of it was provided to most me mbers of this House, and I presume cer tainly to the Attorney-General - they found that there was good reason to be concerned about this situation. They indicated, perh aps if I can quote to some small extent from the text of the prepared brief, they said that, and I'm quoting, that "Fairness and efficiency are not the only characte ristic needed by an effective Human Rights Commission.

The confidence of the public se rved by the co mm ission is also indispensible. If com plainants, or others, are not fully confident that the co mm ission and its staff can and will perform its duties fairly and efficiently, com plaints will not be brought forward, respondents will not co-operate in informal settlements, and educational programs will lack the power to persuade." They went - 702 -

Tuesday, 11 March 19 80 on to say "For reasons that we do not fully understand, the Co mm ission appears to have lost the confidence of the ma jority of Manitob a's native com munity. The position of the com mission under the Act is, in theory at least, so closely controlled by the government of the day as to give the appearance of lacking the autonomy essential to such a body." And, Mr. Chairm an, I wa nt to digress on this point. I will tell you, because the Premier makes great play of this in his few speeches in the House.

That gentle men has on numerous occasions indicated that the former government was prone and want to use its offices to retain the ser vices of political partisans. Well, Mr.

Chairman, with respect to the gentleman who is currently the chairman of that particular commi ssion, I would indicate that there is no more partisan membe r of the Manitoba commu nity. rm not indicating - and I don't wish it to be thought that I'm indicating that I feel that he's a person who would be subject to the whims of partisan political activity - but I am suggesting that if appearances mean anything, if that's to mean anything at all, and I suggest that when we're dealing with something as touchy and sensitive as human rights, it should, I would suggest that the appointment of a former conserva tive· me mber of parliament - I believe he was a memb er of parliament in the early to mid 19 60's - a person wh o I believe is quite closely related to a member of the Honourable Minister's Cabinet, is a questionable practice.

I would suggest that, and I'm not saying that it is nepotism or patronage, but rm suggesting that cer tainly I could understand if so me person construed it as being something in that nature. And I think that's what the MARL brief was saying.

I think in very polite and respec tful language that's what they were telling the government, that the theory is so precious that the government not either control the commi ssion or, even give the appearance of having any sort of even the most tenuous control of the commiss ion, has really forfeited and distorted the mandate provided that particular body by the legislation accorded the favour of this House. So, Mr. Chairman, and Pm going to try and later make the point. Pm going to show you why it's so difficult to operate with a political operative at the controls of the Man itoba Human Rights Comm ission.

Because, Mr. Chairman, in this past year there have been cases, and I suppose one in particular involving the question of political affiliation, involving a person who I guess is a we ll-known political personality, to loosely use that phrase and term, in the Manitoba commu nity. And I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that person would be justified in feeling that he got short shrift. So, Mr. Chairman, if he was indignant, and felt that there was some possibility that there was a political bias manifested against him, my friend from Wolseley suggests that this was a Marxist Leninist.

To my friend from Wolseley, I would respectfully suggest that whether he is a Marxist Leninist of the pinkest stripe, or whether or not he is a Conservative of the very most re actionary stripe such as the John Birch Society bears, makes no difference. When it comes to liberties and rights, all people are equal. And I think that's a lesson for the learning, and one that sometimes takes a lot of time. We don't accord any people better rights, I hope, than any other class of citizen. But notwithstanding those digressions, Mr.

Chairman, I would indicate that there is a serious proble m with respect to the relationship between the nativ e co mmu nity of our province and the Human Rights Commission. I believe that it is being exacerbated. I do not believe that the co mmission is dealing with it effectively. rm not sure that - again I don't want to quote myself. i don't want to put words, to make suggestions on the basis of mere hearsay to relate Ms Monkm an's concerns as stated to the newspaper and the comm ission of inquiry.

I want to tell you that she said - and this is her representative view - that she found the most disturbing, and it was her assertion, and the task force indicated that they found conside rable independent corroboration on this point, that the majority of the native commu nity in Manitoba share her views, although requested to do so in the Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties Task Force requested all of the, as far as they were aware, all of Manitoba's native organizations to submit a brief to the task force.

Not one, not one of those organizations in this province would do so, and the task force indicated that it was their conclusion that se veral of the mem bers of these organizations had experienced incidents of racia l discrimination and were no longer willing to themselves, or recommen d to others, that they be taken before the commission.

The task force went on to note that racial discrimination is the most common form of discrimination reported to most provincial Human Rights Comm issions, and they noted that the 19 78 annual report of the Manitoba Human Rights Comm ission indicated a steady decline in the number of such cases reported over the last four years. They noted that the 1978 report - and I have a copy of that in my file, Mr. Chairman, which I can provide to you, determined that cases of discrimination involving race were less frequent than those involved - 70 3 -

Tuesday, 11 March 1980 discrimination based on age, marital status, family status or sex. Now this is very very unusual, Mr. Chairman. I can only say that is com pletely anomal ous; it defys the experience of other provincial jurisdictions and our former experience in Man itoba. I would suggest that it is something that should be given the ut most priority on the part of the Minister and his depart ment and the commission.

I should indicate that the Task Force recommen ded that the commi ssion undertake a thorough exami nation of its relations with the native com munity of Manitoba, and suggested that methods should be determined which could improve those relations. In that regard, Mr.

Chairman, I also want to say that I think that, in order to do that role, and in order to properly as;;ess the role of the Manitoba Human Rights Commission in this and other respects, it is absolutely es;;ential that we establish a Standing Commi ttee on the question of Human Rights, that this Legislature establish such a Standing Com mittee to deal with that subject. It seems to me that it is absolutely impossible to do anything effectual, to have a proper overview and insight into the problem, if there isn't a Co m mittee charged with that sort of specialized responsibility.

I do believe that other provinces have adopted that format and I think generally, Mr. Chairm an, that they have found that it lends itself to. productive solutions to problems presenting to the Comm ission and the concept. I think that it's time that there be some sort of ongoing, not non-partisan but bi-partisan, overview and application of legislative intent and activity with respect to this problem. MR. DE PUTY CHA IRMAN: The Honourable Me mber for Wo lseley. Oh, I am sorry. MR. CORRIN: It is quite alright, the member can go on and I will pick it up later, Mr. Chairman. MR.

WILSON: We ll, in de aling with the report, there were a couple of sec tions that interested myself and, maybe for clarification, it seems that most of the compl aints, do you still have a large comm ittee of 12 individuals, together with three offices throughout the provinces and an Executive Director ? Is that the size of it ? MR. MER CIER: Two offices. MR. WILSON: Two offices. Then it seems to me that a lot of the complaints seem to do with those that are engaged in the property ma nagement field under the Housing Section, and I wondered if any progress had been made.

It seemed that the Com mittee seemed to lean towards that if a person had the ability to pay, and there was previous good conduct, that they were entitled to acco mmodation; and this I couldn't agree more with. How do they deal with cases where people have a history of destruction, a history of second and third-generation welfare, and a history of non-payment, and a history of alcoholism? Is there any choice of the property ma nagement person to refuse these people acco mmodation? Under what guidelines can a property management person refuse a person acco mmodation?

If the Minister wants to pick up that answer some later on. The other is the refusal, what I think is, maybe it won't be considered under Human Rights, but if look at some of the other sections in dealing with source of income, and other sections, you wonder about the refusal of the insurance companies to ensure properties in the core area of the city, and ensure businesses because of the lack of protection, or the sort of the ongoing jungle caused either by inadequate social services or drifting or transient movemen t or whatever, but a general, I don't know what it is, it's a way of life in the core area.

And those people that own property in that area have to pay, if they're lucky, very very high insurance prem iums, ten times what they pay in the suburbs in many cases. And in many cases they can't buy insurance for any amount of money, especially if their property has a history of being vandalized and destroyed. I am wondering if the government, at some point in time, that if they can't fund the proper police protection, that there is some human rights for the individuals that own property in those areas to be able to dem and some form of insurance.

And if the insurance isn't available, or it is available at a high cost, there should be some possible means of a subsidy to offset this horrendous cost which is discrim inating against certain sections of the city. Our former Mayor Juba always said we were Unicity, one with the strength of many. Yet it doesn't apply. We pay the same tax bills, yet we seem to be discrim inated against. And I have a feeling that, while it is quite tenuous pertaining to human rights when you talk about sources of income wher e a person might be refused rent because somebody can't check out his credit rating.

In the mea ntime, he could have inherited money, or had a large stock portfolio - 70 4 -

Tuesday, 11 March 19 80 or possibly moved here from the far East with some of the benefits of an oil well or something in his pocket. This is an area which I would like a look at. The other is, under

section what they call artifacts rac e, where a great deal of concern was expressed by the native population, and it seems to be quite fashionable about anybody that wan ts to com plain, that any type of sm allware sold with a see mingly racial tone to them are removed from the shelves, and yet a lot of the establishments throughout Canada and the United States have names which, to some people who are proud of their ethnic back ground, some take it in a humorous vein and others take it in a rather insulting vein.

A case comes to mind of the chain of Hunky Bill's Restaurants which is threatening to move into the Manitoba area after a great deal of success in Vancouver; and entertainers, whether it is McL ean and McL ean, Nestor Pistor, or the others who go around and publicly billboard and capitalize on ethnic humour.

I would like the Minister or somebody in this year's report, or possibly next yea r's report, to clarify it because it seems that the only issues that the Human Rights Commission have been dealing with - and I am only referring to the report - deal with the native Indian problem and I a m wondering why the co mmission would not look at other ethnic groups who might be insulted by public disclosure of what many would consider an ethnic slur. MR. DE PUTY CH AIRMAN : The Honourable Me mber for St. Vital. MR. WA LDING: Mr.

Chairman, I had a different topic, I will defer to the Minister if he wishes to answer the previous two speakers. MR. DE PUTY CHAI R MAN : The Honourable Minister. MR . MERCI ER: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the MA RL Report, that report is, as I understand it, under active consideration by the Board at the present time. With respect to the Memb er for We llington's com ments about the Chairman, he may not be familiar with the bac kground of the Chairman. Let me just briefly give some background. Mr.

Enns graduated from the Un iversity of Manitoba in Arts, Education and Social Work; currently Executive Director of Concordia Hospital; previously his em ploymen t experience included two years of teaching, farming, Executive Director of the Children's Aid Society for the Central Manitoba Region, em ployment with the Department of Health and Social Development, held elected office to the Portage la Prairie School Board, to the House of Comm ons in 19 62, 19 63 and 19 65, founding Board Member of the Vanier Institute of the Family, a memb er of the Council of the National We lfare Service s, former Chairman of the Board of the Bethania Personal Care Home.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to the Memb er for Wellington that the present Chairman of the Human Rights Comm ission is extremely well-qualified to carry out the authority under The Human Rights Act. With respect to the Memb er for Wolseley's concern re tenants. My understanding is that the com mission has been very actively reviewing a number of policies in effect in the Comm ission, particularly the housing policy, and will be issuing some new guidelines on the housing policy within the next few week s, I believe when they continue their practice of holding annual meetings outside of the City of Winnipeg.

Last year, I believe they held their annual two-day meeting in the City of Thompson; this year, at the end of the month, I believe the mee ting will be held in Brandon, at which time they have a practice of holding public worksho ps and try to make it as educational an experience as they can for the com munity involved. So my reply to the Memb er for Wo lseley is that those housing guidelines will be published in a matter of a few weeks, and widely advertised and distributed, and he could certainly contact the Human Rights Com mission in a few weeks, or my office, and we could obtain that information for hi m.

MR. DEPUT Y SPEA KER: The Honourable Memb er for We llington. MR . CORRIN: In response to the Minister's defence of the Chairman 's qualifications, I would only suggest this, that I am not going to challenge his qualifications. I know of the reputation of the individual, and I have no reason to believe that he is motivated by political partisanship or those sorts of concerns. I just note that the gentleman was a former mem ber of Parlia ment. I would imagine he is quite proud of his affiliation with the Honourable Minister's party.

He doesn't disclaim his affiliation, I am sure he is proud of it, just as I am - 705 -

Tuesday, 11 March 19 80 sure all memb ers around this table are proud of their affiliations with respective parties. But I would note that - and this is, I think, the substance of the issue - the comm ission has to investigate, Mr. Chairman, complaints against not only individual citizens, not only me mbers of the private sector, but also against various deparmen ts of government. And that is the rationale for the appointment of a Minister who is even slighlty suspec ted, who could be possibly, potentially suspected as being under the influence of the government of the day.

It is impossible for any person filing or tabling a co mplaint with the commi ssion to not direct his or her attention to the possibility that the Chairman may well be motivated by some element of political partisanship. Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that we are going to ever effectively be able to provide laws that will truly accord equal rights to all our citizens. But rm suggesting that the least we can do is show the way. The least we can do is at least try and establish proc esses, to the best of our ability, that will facilitate the purpose and the end.

And rm suggesting that in appointing a person who has that sort of politically partisan background and affiliation, that it is simply impossible for that person to suggest, when, as I've indicated earlier, he is closely related to a Minister of the Crown, has just left an active political career, for that person to' suggest that he is totally unmotivated by political concerns! rm not suggesting that we 'll ever get an appointment who is, and I'm not suggesting that it is possible, but I have to suggest that we strive for some sort of perfection, and in ma king an appointment of this sort, I think we fall somewh at short.

MR. DE PUTY CH AIRMAN : The Honourable Me mber for St. Vital. MR. CORRIN: I'm not finished, Mr. Chairman, I'm just waiting ·for the Honourable Me mber for Minnedosa to comp lete his remarks. MR. DA VID BLA KE: If anybody else was making those accusations, we'd be worried, but with you, we're not too concerned. Now, do you want to hear my remarks; do you want to put them on the record? MR. CORRIN: Mr.

Chairm an, I'm not goi ng to digress, but I think I would be more than interested in hearing what the mem ber thinks about the Human Rights Comm ission and what he thinks about the rights of Manitobans. -(Int erjection)- If he's not interested in my remarks, Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, he of course has an option, and that's to clear the room. MR. DE PUTY CHA IRMAN: Order please. Order please. Let's confine our re marks to the Chair, please. MR. CORRIN: Mr. Chairman, I'll continue. I'm sorry. -(Interjection)- Mr.

Chairman, I recognize the right of even buffoons to speak their piece, but only when they're recognized by the Chair. Mr. Chairman, I think that it is illustrative of the difficulties that have arisen with respect to the native com munity that the courts of this province have over this past year indicated serious concern for the lack of leadership demonstrated by this department with respect to the defence and promulgation of native rights. It was only a very few months ago, Mr.

Chairman, that provincial Judge Graeme Garson had occasion to, while sitting on a case dealing with the provision of social and child care services to treaty Indians resident in Manitoba, that -(Interjection)- Mr . Chairm an, I would ask that you call the me eting to order. I am finding it somewh at difficult to make any sort of presentation in these circums tances. MR. CH AIRMAN : If you want to caucus, we'll caucus down the hall half a block. The Member for Wellington. MR. CORRIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Provincial Judge Garson indicated that there had been a clear transgression by the provincial government of the rights of treaty Indians to receive equal child care services, pursuant to The Child Welfare Act. Judge Garson, in a lengthy decision, determine d that the provincial government had abrogated its responsibility to treaty native residents of Manitoba, in not providing child welfare services on the reserves, where they lived. He indicated, and it was tra gic, that in the absence of -706 -

Tuesday, 11 March 1980 supportive provincial services, he had no choice but to remove a native child from its natural family situation. This was at the Little Grand Rapids Indian Reserve. He indicated that it was his opinion, and he relied also on the opinion of the Ma nitoba Court of Appeal in a recent decision, that the provincial child welfare legislation was of general applicability to all people of the province, and that it was inappropriate for the province to rely on provisions of the treaty, the Indian Act, to rebut this particular state of affairs. I would indicate, Mr.

Chairman, in this regard, that it is a very sorry state of affairs, and it has existed for ma ny years. I'm not suggesting that it's endemic or unique to this particular government, because it's not. It's gone on for more years than I've been alive, I suppose. But the native people of our province are not accorded certain basic services on the same basis that our other residents expect and enjoy. The Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties called upon, and I believe that they commu nicated with the Honourable Minister - or at least the Human Rights Comm ission.

They called. upon the provincial government to show greater leadership, and I'm quoting, "show greater leaders hip in this regard." They asked that the government support the need for a more enlightened approach to the special proble ms of our native population, and they streS>ed that that should be with respect to wherever they live within our provinc e. They stressed, as did Judge Garson, that the Child Welfare Branch of this province has been acting illegally.

I would indicate that I think it would be of some substantial merit if the Honoura ble Attorney-General would direct his attention to this judgment and this opinion, and try and do something to redress that situation. As the chief law officer of the province, of course, he is entitled to do that. He has it within his capacity even to apply to the court in order to effect an assurance. He could apply for a directive order, albeit against his own government, that would affectuate the provision of child welfare resources to the native reserve population.

Also in this regard, talking about the absence of leadership on the part of the government, I should note, it would be unfair not to note, that this government did take one very negative step in the past year with respect to Indians living on reserves, when they rescinded, when they deprived the right of Indian families in this province to apply for help under the Critical Home Repair progra m. Mr. Chairman, I thought that was unwarranted. I appeciate that there have been, for years, for decades, arguments with respect to whose responsibility status Indians come under, but notwithstanding that, Mr.

Chairman, to remove an established area of program ming after it had already fallen into place, and I think all of us at this table will admit that it was certainly directed, when it was directed towards the reserve Indian commu nities, it was directed at an area of some great need -(Int erjection)-. Mr. Chairman, I would indicate that, although I won't call that discriminatory action, I would suggest that it's cer tainly buck passing, and it's certainly tantamount to discrimination.

I think that a native reserve person could justifiably file a co mplaint to the Huma n Rights Comm ission dema nding redress of that particular grievance. It seems to me that that is clearly a case of discrimination in government progra mm ing. Frankly, I am absolutely shocked that such a complaint has not to date been filed, but perhaps the explanation is that natives no longer, as statistics now substantiate, natives no longer are reposing their trust, their faith and confidence in the comm ission.

Also in this regard, we were talking about whether or not there was reason for. a _ diminution of confidence -(Int erjection)- Mr. Chairman, the Member for Ste. Rose,- Tri addressing himself to the Memb er for Minnedosa, makes the point that natives are important too, and I would want to reinforce that. MR. CHA IRMAN : The Memb er for Minnedosa on a point of order. MR. BLAK E: I've never indicated that natives were not important. Natives are important. I am merely indicating that if the Me mber for Ste.

Rose, who is well experienced in the needs and requiremen ts of native people, would talk to his colleague in Winnipeg and let him know really what's going on out in the outside world, where he would qujt wasting the time of this commi ttee with the drivel that he's been giving us here tonight. Natives are important, and I agree they're important. I mere ly stated a point that if you want to have one equal rights, you've got to have both equal rights. You've got to get it all together before you come in here and waste the commi ttee's time. MR.

CHA IRMAN: The Me mber for Minnedosa, I don't think had a point of order. If he wants on the list, he can signal the Chairman. The Memb er for Wolseley. - 707 -

Tuesday, 11 March 1980 MR. WILSON: I have a point of privilege on the same matter. The Me mber for Wellington continually will read into the record, sideplays that are com pletely inaccurate. I asked the Me mber for Burrows a question, if the Memb er for We llington was talking about Nick Ternette, or the Ma rxist-Leninist, and then the Memb er for Wellington went on a tirade as if I was against the Ma rxist-Leninist. I never said anything about the Ma rxist-Leninist, I merely asked the Member for Burrows a question.

I think that you should not allow him to read these side com ments into the microphone unless they are true. MR. GRE EN : Surely you are against them. I'm against them. Anybody who's not against the Marxist-Leninists, put up their hand. MR. CHAIR MA N:. Let's get this co mmittee back ••• The Memb er for Minnedosa. MR. BLA KE : I object when the Me mber for We llington snidely re marks, to get it on the record, that the Memb er for Minnedosa has said this or that, just to get it on the record, and the odd time you don't really get a point of order to object to what's been put on the · record and it stands there.

He's been in this House long enough to know that there are little comme nts going back and forth. If he's going to take them all personally and want to get the m all on the record, that's his problem and not the rest of the House. I just want to categorically state that, that he is prone to mentioning a me mber and getting something on the record that the member might not object to, and it stands there, and two years later it comes out, and he says, well you didn't object to that.

He's trained in the law, and we know that, and we know the tricks that they pull. -(Int erjection)- He said I wasn't opposed to native rights. MR. CHAI RMAN : Order. Order. The Me mber for We llington. I would appreciate it if all remarks are shot towards the Chair so then we know where we're going. MR. CORRIN: We appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that the Me mber for Minnedosa is not opposed to native rights, rather he directs his red baiting to a much more insinuous sort of practice. I would suggest he follow the practice of his First Minister and do it full face in a • MR.

BLAKE: It's trained Ma rxist-Leninists like you we're worried about. MR. CORRIN: As I suggest, he's now adopting his First Minister's lead; I told him to, and now he's doing it. But at least we're having an honest exchange of opinion, Mr. Chairm an. MR. BLAK E: ••• remember too that the Member for ••• said that I was asked to put that on the record that he was trained Marxist-Leninist. A MEMB ER: That's already on the record. MR . CHAI RMAN : On a point of order, the Me mber for Souris-Killarney. MR. BRIAN RA NSOM: A point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you could inform us which item we're on. MR.

CHAIR MA N: Yes. 3.(b)(

l) Resolution 17 . The Member for Wellington. MR. CORRIN: Yes, I was saying, Mr. Chairman, that there is good reason why mem bers on this side might have conc ern about the appointment of a person who has political affiliation, notwithstanding the fact that we feel that that individual may have a great deal of personal integrity and the highest ethical standards. As I indicated earlier, a person who, I don't know what his political persuasion is, I think I can say that at one point in time he was certainly a member of our party, the New De mocratic Party.

I don't know currently what he is, I suppose though he could be defined as being a person who occupies a position in the left political spectrum of our province, Mr. Nick Ternette; a person whose views I do not personally subscribe to, but nevertheless, certainly was a citizen of our province in 19 79, did submit a complaint to the Human Rights Comm ission on the basis of discrim ination, on the basis of political beliefs, pursuant to the Act. - 708 -

Tuesday, 11 March 19 80 And I would indicate - and I think it's almost for the record that it should be indicated, that in this regard the protector, interestingly, the protector of Mr. Ternette's rights was none other than a Conservative, or at least a very fine lady who was married to a very well-known consevative, Mrs. Helen Steinkopf. She ended up being the prim ary defender of Mr. Ternette's rights. What had happened was that Mrs. Steinkopf had retained Mr. Turnette to fill a position with a volunteer organization she is affiliated with in the city of Winnipeg, known as Citizen Advocacy.

Subsequent to her retention of Mr. Ternette, the board of the organization dec ided that they were to - and there's a question, I think, to be absolutely fair to all parties - decided that there had been a change of heart. They also indicated that the retention of Mrs. Steinkopf, of Mr. Ternette was without full legal authorization, and I think that's much to the point in the case. But nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, they indicated to Mr.

Ternette that, due to his public reputation - and I'm now reading right from the com plaint file with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission - due to his public reputation, and those were the words used by Mrs. Steinkopf in advising Mr. Ternette of his termination, and I would indicate that fine lady actually paid hi m two weeks salary in lieu of notice, although I don't think he may have been legally retained, that the association had to withdraw the offer of employment because of the board's feelings on this point. The question of public reputation was interpreted by Mr.

Ternette to mean that he had been denied a position of employment because of his political beliefs. He believes that is the basis for his public reputation, and I think all of us around this table are sufficiently familiar with the activities of Mr. Ternette, obviously, because we've already had him referred to as a Marxist Leninist, to concur that he is a person with a very high political profile.

But never theless, he put forward his com plaint in November - I believe it was November or that portion of 19 76, to be accurate, no it was February 1978 that the application or the complaint was actually filed with the Human Rights Comm ission. It wasn't heard until 19 79. It wasn't dealt with until 197 9. Subsequently, and I should indicate with respect to the question of his political affiliation that the Member for Wolseley does not discrim inate because in the com plaint, Mr. Ternette indicated that he had recei ved high praise from one Mr . Howa rd Pawley, the former Attorney-Gener al, Mr.

Murdock Mc Kay, the Wolseley NDP candidate, and one Mr. Bob Wilson, Progressive Conservative MLA for Wolseley, and Mr. John L. Sinclair, who's the chairman of the board of Citizen Advocacy, confirmed that to the comm ission. So there is evidence that the Memb er for Wolseley was insincere when he suggested that, certainly not making his full feelings known when he suggested somewhat derogatorily that we were dealing with a Ma rxist Leninist. Obviously, he is truly sympathetic to all people. But in any event, Mr.

Chairman, the result of this inquiry was that there was finding that - and I'll read from the reporting letter of the Human Rights Officer to Mr. Ternette - "On October 20, 19 78, the comm ission reviewed the results of our investigation into the above comp laint and determ ined that the case be dismissed due to insufficient evidence". Now Mr. Ternette, I think to his credit actually, did some research into the Act, and he wrote the Honourable Attorney-General in February of 197 9, and he received a reply. And, Mr. Chairman, the reply Mr.

Ternette recei ved was as follows and I'll certainly table this document, if it is wished. I'm sure the Minister has a copy of it as well. He says, and perhaps I can just do a rough precis, but I will attempt to maintain the integrity of the thought process and pattern. Well, some memb ers say why not just read it out, and I think in fairness we should, because otherwise it might be su bject to criticism. It says, "I refer to your letters of November 28, 19 78, and January 24, 19 79, in which you urge that The Human Rights Act be amended by the insertion of a definition of political beliefs and religious belief.

You doubtless have in mind Subsection 61 of The Human Rights Act," and then it chronicles the

chapter etc., "which prohibits discrimination in em ployment on various grounds, including religion and poltical beliefs. " Other forbidden grounds mentioned in that subsection are race, nationality, colour, sex, age, ma rital status, physical handicap, ethnic or national origin, and family status. In

Section 1., the definition

section of the Act, family status, national origin, and physical handicapped are defined. I think if you look at those

definitions you will agree that they add little to the ordinary natural meaning of the words used in Subsection 61, and I have serious doubts that a definition or attempted definition of religion or political beliefs would be any more enlightening. Where a statute does not give any special mea ning to words used, the practice followed is for the courts, and for that matter the Human Rights Commission, to interpret them in accordance with their ordinary dictionary meaning. Howe ver, if you can suggest a definition of these words which - 70 9 -

Tuesday, 11 March 1980 you consider to be an improvement on that contained in standard dictionaries, you are ce rtainly at liberty to bring them to my attention. My reaction would probably be to refer them to the Human Rights Commission for study and recom mendation." I must have added a word because it says, "any suggested definition that you might prefer." I think I added a "them". We ll, that's fine, and I think it's com mendable that the Att orney-General rendered that particular reply to the com plaint.

What I want to indicate, though, is that the Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties looked into this matter as well, and they had some real, some very serious concern about the nature of that particular section, and they did pro vide for some tangible reform of that particular provision. They noted that the Act - I should just go into some detail again I think.

They said that the Manitoba Human Rights Commission considered a case during the past year in which em ployment was refused on the basis of the individual's political activities and publicly known political affiliation rather than his political beliefs. The com mision was apparently of the view that one is permitted to discriminate on these grounds. They aver that it might be a correct

interpretation of the wording of the Act, but they say "we believe that· it's not desirable. It makes a mockery of any intended protection from discrimination on political grounds to say that although political belief is sacrosanct, political activites and political affiliations are not." And they go on to say "It would be a sorry de mocracy that purported to permit its citizens to believe what they wished, but not to practice those poltical beliefs, or to associate with others of similar views.

We reco mm end that the Act be amende d to prohibit discrimination on the basis of lawful political activities or lawful political affiliations." And they noted that "the Ontario Commission has proposed that discrimination based on political or other beliefs should be covered by a very general expression, such as the word creed used in the Ontario legislation." Well I think the point is, Mr. Chairm an, that first of all, the Minister should address himself to the Ontario legislation because obviously, I think, they have made provision for this situation that is somewhat more adequate than our current situation.

But getting back to the substance of the point, Mr. Chairman, I think it is very difficult. It is inconceivable that the Minister can expect someone like Mr . Ternette, who may be of the New Demo cratic persuasion, to repose his trust in a board chairman who is avow edly a memb er of another party. It's not a question of whether Mr. Enns is machina ting in the background, or trying to circu mvent Mr. Ternette's rights. That's not relevant at all. The question is the perception of what is happening.

It's the question of seeing, or rather of the appearance of justice being done, as opposed to whether or not we know for sure and cer tain and we never will, whether it ac tually has been done. So I think, Mr. Chairman, that in all fairness, it is important that the Minister give serious consideration to the appropriateness of appointing close political affiliates to such a sensitive position. I suppose, Mr. Chairman, I could go on to deplore the same practise with respect to the other comm ittee position. I know some of the other people who sit on this comm ission. They are fine people.

I think for the most part, most of the m would be more than candid and forthcoming in the admis sion that they, too, were supporters if not memb ers of the Honourable Minister's party. I don't think that it affects the purpose to play fast and loose with these sorts of appointments. To give an example, we appointed Mr. Robert Sme thurst to the board of the Human Rights Commission. I know for a fact that Mr. Smethurst is not a memb er of our party and I believe, almost for a fact, that he is a memb er of another political party. We appointed Mr. Val Wer rier -{Inter jection)- We appointed Mr.

Val Werrier to the com mission. Both those me mbers were replaced, along with others, but I would note that neither of those particular mem bers, to my knowlege, have ever participated in any events to do with the Ne w De mocratic Party. As a matter of fact, I think in both cases the gentlemen in case would strongly resist any such inference or implication. I think we can truly say that they ser ved as independent me mbers of the comm ission and they did fine work.

I may be, with respect to Smethurst - and I want to make the point - I may be wrong with respect to the appointment of Sme thurst and We rrier to this particular commi ssion, it may have been the Law Reform Comm ission. Right now, I have some of the appointments confused in my mind. But the point is, I think the point that holds true is that both the Law Reform Comm ission and the Human Rights Comm ission are the types of boards and commi ssions where political partisanship plays no place. - 710 -

Tuesday, 11 March 19 8 0 MR. CHAI RMAN : The Mem ber for Inkster. MR. SIDNEY GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I think if we are going to look for villains, we should look a little deeper than the particular person who was appointed to the board. I would think that the Memb er for Wellington would relate the fact that Mr. Gordon Fairweather, a member of Parlia ment, heads the Human Rights Comm ission of Canada, and he is an excellent chairman.

And he is a political person, and he was appointed, and therefore the notion that because a person has been involved in politics, and partisan politics at that, somehow that appears to make him not right. Maybe it appe ars that way to some, Mr. Chairman. It doesn't appear that way to me, and I don't think it appears that way to a majority of the public ••• MR. CH AIRM AN: The Memb er for Wellington on a point of order. MR. CORRIN: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, and rd respectfully ask the memb er to address himself to this. I do believe that Mr.

Fairweather was appointed with the concurrence and the approval of all parties in the House. MR. CHAI RM AN: The memb er does not have a point of privilege. The Memb er for Inkster. MR. GREEN : Mr. Chairman, I don't think that makes any difference whatsoever. I still think we are talking about who the appointment was. And I don't know that Mr. Trudeau went and asked Mr. Clark, and I don't know whether he had to, or whether it would make any difference to me if he did. I know that we didn't ask either Sidney Spivak or whoever it was, when we appointed Harvey Moats.

Now, Harvey Moats was a New De mocrat and a candidate for the New Democratic Party, and I think he's a very good man, by the way. And I would not exclude members of my famil y from holding positions with the government because they are either related to me or are New Democrats. We're talking about discrimination on account of political belief, and we are saying that we cannot appoint a chairman who has a political belief. Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to look a little deeper as to what is our problem. We are not dealing with an easy question.

We are trying - and I do not think that rm being inconsistent because when we passed this legislation in the House, I know that I expressed a misgivin g that this is one way, only one way, and in my view not the best way, of trying to deal with some of the unfair practices that are occurrin g in the area of race, in the area of creed, in the area of color, and the area of religion. Some people think that you can deal with all of these problems by legislation, and I say, Mr. Chairman, that attempts can be made, but when it breaks down, don't blame the people who are on the Board.

Part of the problem is what we are trying to do. Now I state here and now, on the record, I will not hire a Nazi, and when I don't hire this Nazi I won't go before that Human Rights Co mmission and say I didn't hire him because he had red hair. I will say I didn't hire him because he is a Nazi, and I will deal with that question when the time arises. ·W hen we are dealing with the question of Nick Ternette not being hired ••• Now people are entitled to pursue whatever positions they want in society. Sometimes it involves a problem, sometimes - Mr.

Chairman, I don't expect a person of strong Zionist beliefs to look equally at the applicant who is a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and at somebody else, especially if that person, in addition to being a memb er of the Palestinian Liberation Organization is running around the country saying that Hitler was right, that they should have burnt more than they burnt, and believes that, politically believes that.

I do not know how the law can go into a person's emotions and say that you will behave not as you are naturally expected to behave by virtue of everything that you have lived through in all of your history, you will be behave according to

an Act that some politician passed that. said that you cannot do this. Now I am not going to deal solely with the case of Nick Ternette, but I will tell you this. If Nick Ternette was not Nick Ternette, if he was Terry Nick, and that he believed and ran around the city saying that what they are doing to Sakharov in the Soviet Union, and what they are doing to all the Jewish dissidents is right, I would say that he would have difficulty getting employment with some people, and that is the way it should be. I am not saying that he shouldn't get employment, but he will have to accept the opprobrium that society casts on - 711 -

Tuesday, 11 March 19 80 him, which will be affected when he puts in a job application by that particular political belief. Mr. Chairman, I can deal with this very personally, that I knew when I took certain positions in the University, before and after, that I knew that certain doors would be closed to me, and they were. There were also certain openings, but one cannot deal with all of these questions. It carries from the sublime to the ridiculous.

The decision that I saw of this Board, of the Hum an Rights Commi ssion, said that you don't have a proper case, or something like this, and the Member for Wellington will help me if I am wrong, you haven't properly established that you weren't hired because of your political beliefs because you don't really have a membership in the Ne w Democratic Party, your status as a party member was not really there, and therefore you can't comp lain that it was political beliefs, which took the statute one step further • . 1n order to get protection it is no longer that it is irregardless of your political beliefs, but you must be a memb er of a political party.

In order to get the protection of the statute, you must be a mem ber of a political party. -(Int erjection)-. Well, but you say that that is what they said. I say they were trying to do a job, and I say that they are dealing with legislation which itself, Mr. Chairman, is mired with great· difficulty. And I am really not trying to run down the position that the Memb er for Wellington is making. I am trying to indicate that the problem does not lie in Sig Enns.

The same problem would occur, and I do not say that the naming of Sig Enns to be the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission makes the Commiss ion not appear to be an unbiased body. I'd have to see what was done. And certainly the Nick Ternette case, I c·an envisage perfectly legitimate organizations saying, "We want somebody in this job, we don't want a person of high political profile, it will make it more difficult to do the job." I believe that that is a reasonable statement.

I believe that if Nick Ternette was somebody else and that that man was running around saying that the Ayatollah Kh omeini is right, that the Shah should be extradited back to Iran, and the hostages should be kept until he has done, and after they bring him back that the Am ericans should be condemned or what have you, I can imagine somebody saying, "Well, that is his opinion, he can go ahead and express it. I don't want to have that particular person workin g for me.

It may even be that I would have him working for me if he was less profile, but I don't want that additional. com plication in my organization." Surely the Me mber for Wellington - when the Act was put in, it wasn't intended to say, that no matter what you do, what you say, what position you are taking publicly, you will have the same rights to a job as anybody else, because if it did, then that is the villain, because we will never be able to achieve that. What we will do is create a lot of liars in society.

They will say, oh it wasn't because he runs around saying that the Jews should be crema ted and that Hitler was right that I didn't hire him. I just took the aptitude tests, which are very subjective; I looked at them very carefully and I didn't like that one. He will lie, he used to be honest; he used to say, ''I didn't hire that guy because I don't like the way he is running around town doing things, but now there is a law that says that if I say that I go to jail, or something; or I have co mmitted an offence, and therefore I have to figure out something else to say." Now, Mr.

Chairman, I put in on the record, I will not hire a Nazi, and I will go before that Human Rights Commiss ion, and if I have to go to jail, I will go to jail, but I will not hire that person, and I don't care what your Huma n Rights legislation says. The Honourable Memb er for Wellington should think about that, he should think about that. MR. CH AIRMAN: The Me mber for St. Vital. MR. WA LDING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, on another point.

I raised a matter with the Minister at the Com mittee when we were discussing the Minister's Estimates last year, having to do with a matter that I consider to be discrim inatory on the part of the government itself, and the Mi nister undertook to review the matter with the Commission. I would like to ask him now if he would give us the results of that review, please. MR. MERCI ER: I don't have that review with me, Mr. Chairman; that was the teacher problem that you raised. MR. WA LDING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it was the matter of the teachers. Would the Minister be prepared to give me a copy of that review? MR.

MERCI ER: Mr. Chairman, I'll review my files and supply the memb er with the information that I can. - 712 -

Tuesday, 11 March 1980 MR. CHAIR MAN : The Member for Wellington. MR. CORRIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do wish to address the concerns raised by the Member for Inkster, because I suppose in a sense, we've shared a lot of things together in our life. We haven't always agreed, but of necessity, we've shared the same cultural heritage, the same religious belief and, for a good many years, the same political philosophy. We were memb ers of the same party, and I want to tell them and I think I've said this before in our caucus, and rll say it publicly, that I believe in affirmative action program.

I know he doesn't, he doe sn't think that it can affect the sort of reform that is necessary. He believes that an anti-Semite will always be an anti-Semite, and a Jew who hates someone else will always hate them and you can't change. MR. GREEN : Mr. Chairman, let the memb er stick to his own beliefs on a matter of privilege. I.d o not believe what he has just said. I do not believe that an anti-Semite will always be an anti-Semite. I believe that there a lot of anti-Semites who don't think they are, and those are the worst kind. But I db not believe that an anti-Semite will always be an anti-Semite.

I never expressed that opinion. MR. CORRIN: I accept that he - to put it couch in more general terms, he seems to feel that it's the right of a person to - not their right per haps, but at least he would accord them the opportunity to discriminate on the basis of their own persuasion of predeliction. MR. GREE N: Let the member stick to his own beliefs. I take my position. MR. CORRIN: Mr. Chairman, I believe, in response to the memb er, through you, Mr. Chairman, that there is a benefit to be derived from affirmative action progr ammi ng and legislation in the area of huma n rights.

I believe that it is only through affirmative action programm ing as is embodied in the concept of the Human Rights Acting Commission. Mr. Chairman, the mem ber asked me for my opinion and asked me to state it, and now he's turned his back on me and walked out of the forum. Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is only through these sorts of innovations, these sorts of reforms, that we heighten public awareness of a pervasive problem in our society. It is true, we all do have individual points of views and perspectives.

Sometimes these individual perspectives are labelled by others, by society as a whole, even at times, to be prejudices. We define them as bigotries and biases. They relate to race, they relate to religion, they relate to God knows what, probably as many things as there are permutations in human nature. But, Mr. Chairman, when we embody these sorts of concepts in law, we take a great step forward. We do what our forefathers did not do. We address the proble m.

We say to people that it is wrong, that it is wrong to have these sol'ts of petty biases, regardless of how they came to be and whether or not they are possibly even justified. And rm sure some are, rm sure some people have bitter experiences that not only stay with one generation of a family or one generation of a people, of a country, but for many generations. But notwithstanding that, Mr.

Chairman, I would suggest and suggest with respect that by addressing the problems in their broadest sen5e, we bring the light of public scrutiny to bear upon them, and in so doing, we enhance the prospects of some real reform, some real change in the way people think. We change people's outlook. We really do bring people together in the se nse that they begin to realize that it isn't just natives that get pushed around, or Jews, or Marxist-Leninists, or blacks, but we all, to some extent or another can fall prey to those sorts of petty prejudices. It pertains to us all.

We have something in com mon and we share it. So I would suggest to the Honourable Memb er for Inkster that there's good reason why we have these sorts of laws on the books, and it's true that they don't always work. But I would suggest that we must do our best to assure the public that they can be effective tools, even if just educative tools, and I suggest to do that we have to make people obtain confidence. We have to give a sense of confidence in the institutions which we enshrine. And rrp respectfully suggesting that when we appoint partisans - and I'm saying this now with respect to Mr. Moates.

I did not note that he was a New Democrat. rve never met this gentleman. With Mr. Moates, I would suggest that the case does pertain. Mr. Fairweather - there's a distinction. He was the recommendation of all parties in the House. You couldn't ask for a finer man, and the job he's done is a singular statement of his ability. But I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the problem won't go away. We can't sweep it under the rug; we have to continue to deal with it in effective ways. - 713 -

Tuesday, 11 March 19 80 MR. CHAIRMAN : 3.(b)(l )-pass; 3.(b)( 2)-pass - the Memb er for Wellington. 3.(b)(2). MR. CORRIN: Mr. Chairman, we might ask for some direction. Could the co mm ittee indicate how far they wish to go this evening, just so we have some idea of how late we're going to be here? MR. CHAI RMAN: We had hoped to get down to the top of 18 ; in other words, clean up 17 , really, is the Minister's aim. MR. CORRIN: Well, I can indicate with respect to Item (f), I can indicate that a member who is unable to be here tonight wants to speak to the Manitoba Lotteries Licensing Board.

I believe the Me mber for St. Boniface indicated that he had several issues to raise, and I have several more on this item, Mr. Chairman. I know of nobody on our side that wants to speak to Items (

c) or (e), but I can say that we'll be dealing with Item (d), The Manitoba Police Comm ission, to some extent as well. So, if we're to proceed tonight, it will be a very late night indeed. MR. CHAIR MA N: 3.(b). MR. CORRIN: Dealing with 3.(b), Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with other aspects of The Human Rights Act, which had been found to be wanting; and there is one in particular that I think deserves the Minister's attention. As he is aware, there is curren tly no prohibition with respect to landlords obtaining agencies to effectively do their renting on their behalf.

Apparently, it has come to the attention of the Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties that this is a real flaw in the Act insofar as it effects discrimination in the renting of housing, which is not within the ambit of The Human Rights Act. Apparently the - and I think the offensive

section is

Section 2( 1) and

Section 4(1) - apparently the Commiss ion has determined that rental agencies can discriminate as between people with respect to the letting of suites, or residential premi ses,

whereas it is an offence under the Act for a landlord to do that. If they delegate the responsibility for letting the premises to a rental agent, that's quite acceptable. And this, apparently they found in their study, included cases where the landlord had actually told the agent of certain preferences; like, had submitted a list of preferences to his agent - his or her agent - and the agent had really merely just followed the instructions received from the principal. Now, I would like to know whether this has been brought to the Honourable Minister's attention, Mr.

Chairman, and I would ask whether there's any intention in this session, or the upcomin g session next year, to rectify this particular proble m. MR. CH AIR MAN : The Honourable Min ister. MR. MER CIER: Mr. Chairman, I'm advis

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-4-14b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 4th hansardpdf 14b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e6e0aa23bea9a79a1acc620f864e3f7114acf9ff

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