Manitoba Hansard — 6 August 1970 (Sitting 165, 29th Legislature, 2nd Session)

29-2-165

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 .o'clock, Thursday, August 6, 1970 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MATTER OF GRIEVANCE 4263 MR. BUD SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of personal privilege, ariSing out of an ugly allegation that was made against me in this Chamber yesterday and that has been repeated outside the Chamber today in the course of the noon hour and has now been made publicly- not that it wasn't made publicly when it was made in the Chamber but it has not been made over the media.

I see the government House Leader rising and lf he wishes to speak at this point I'll defer to his position. HON. SIDNEY GREEN, Q. C; (Minister of Mines, and Natural Resources) (Inkster): Well, Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering whether the honourable member is supposed to rise before the proceedings of the House are commenced. The Minister of Labour would like to speak on it. HON. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Minister of Lab>ur) (Transcona): Mr.

Speaker, may I sug gest to my honourable friend, ·in all deference, that the point that he raises - and I must say · that we had a little preliminary discussion on the matter- may I respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the proper time would be when we enter into the Orders of the Day and not before the routine proceedings. · MR. SHERMAN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I have the most profound respect for the Minister of Labour, and was profoundly moved by ·what he said in this ·chamher this morn ing, but I submit, Sir, that on the basis of Rule 24, our own Rule 24, that I have the right to raise a matter of privilege at this time.

Rule 24 states tlui.t when a matter of privilege arises it shall be taken into consideration immediately, and in support of that, Sir, I would like to say that I was considering raising the matter earlier but I deferred my personal considerations, I - subordinated my perSonal considerations to th,e greater issues that were at stake and under discussion in the House at the time. And I think that I have patiently and respectfully awaited an opportunity to raise what I suggest is a legitimate point of privilege, Sir. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, in all deference to my honourable friend, and I'm not trying to suggest any preclusion of him raising the matter, but I'm sure that it's clearly under stood that matters of this nature follow routine proceedings of the House. I'm not trying to suggest, Mr.

Speaker, in rising at this particular time that my honourable friend should be precluded, but there are rules of the House which indicate that matters that my honourable friend has suggested should be on the Orders of the Day and my honourable friend make refer ence to the first opportune time for him to raise the question, and I respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is after the routine proceedings of the House and not before. I appeal to my honourable friend again that I'm not trying to suggest that he should not raise the point, that he should, but the rules, I think, of the House, Mr.

Speaker, are clear and they have been adhered to over the years and I respectfully ask my honourable friend ff he would not reconsider that the first opportune time is after consideration of the routine proceedings of the House. I don't want to get into any hassle •. Surely, Mr. Speaker, we've had so many hassles of procedure -- I don't give a continental, really, but only respectfully suggest that that would be the propertime in accordance with the custom of this House. MR. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, having sat through the past two days of proceedings in this Chamber it's been fraught with emotion if not a certain amount of poison, I certainly do not want to transgress the rules of the Chamber but I wish to make a personal request then, Sir.

I wish to say what I had to say in the presence of the First Minister of this province and I know that his duties require him to be out of this Chamber more than he would like, but if my right to rise on this point of privilege is to be deferred to later in the afternoon, and I would stand by your ruling in that respect, Sir, I would respectfully request of the First Minister that if it's possible for him with his pressures of business in his office to be in this Chamber when I raise my point of privilege, I would appreciate his bei.Dg here. HON. ED SCHREYER (Premier) (Rossmere): Well, Mr.

Speaker, I can certainly give that assurance regardless of what other business may be calling for my time. I'm sure that· when I'm advised that the honourable member will be rising on a point of privilege I can be here.

4264· August 6, 1970 (MR. SCHREYER cont'd.) Whlle I'm on my feet, Sir, it seems that ~ere is some difference of

interpretation as to when it is in order to raise a point of privilege, and both

interpretations having been put for ~rd, it seems to me the logical thing to do now is to await the

interpretation. of you~elf, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: I wish to thank the honourable members for their ci>mments. I would appreciate some further guidance on Beauchesne 105 (2). I am not -- I wish to make it clear that I'm not ruling at this matter but I wish further advice from the House on this point, which reads as follows and I quote: ''It is the practice in the House of Commons to bring up a question of privilege after prayers and before the House has taken up the Orders of the Day." MR. JAMES H. BILTON (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, if I may rise on this occasion.

This matter is a personal matter with the honourable member and I think, as you have quoted a moment ago, is a proper procedure- immediately after prayers, and it seems to me that is the earliest possible moment that the honourable member could take advantage of the rules of the House to say what he has to say, and I think the House should be patient and listen to what he has to say. · MR. PAULLEY: I have no objection , Mr. Speaker. I only rose on the conduct of the House over the last number of years.

I would point out that our own Rule 24 deals -and that was quoted by my honourable friend - that when a matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately, which infers, of course, immediately after there has been a breech of the privilege. It doesn't matter. We've had enough hassles in this House, and if it would suit to convenience my honourable friend, as far as I'm personally concerned, as a m_ember of this House and not having anything to do with the conduct of the proceedings of the House, if it suits his accommodation and with your acquiescence, and I again want to point out, Mr.

Speaker, I trust you are in command of this House and not any individual member, that if it suits the convenience for my honourable friend to proceed, I wUl raise no objection to it at all. Let's get on. . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. SHERMAN: I wish to thank the Minister of Labour, the government House Leader and the First Minister, and you, Sir, for your indulgence in this respect. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal grievance emanating from an allegation that was made against me in this House yesterday by the Minister of Transport. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

May I remind the honourable member that there is a matter, a motion which I have taken under advisement and which I am still holding, and no doubt related to it are many matters which had developed over the last two or three sittings, and I would ask the honourable member to refrain from referring to anything which may have transpired in the House during that time. MR. SHERMAN: Well, I'll rephrase my

preamble, Sir, because the same allegation has been made today. I was merely referring to what happened previously by way of introduction. At the time that it happened • • • MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, as I gathered from the honourable member's

preamble to his remarks, he is referring to a personal point of privilege which relates to something that the Honourable Minister did outside of the House, and I question - I question whether a personal point of privilege arises from conduct of an honourable member outside of the House, and if that's the course that my honourable friend is going to take, then I think it should be questioned right at this time. This is a personal point of privilege. I know that it can -- that we, the Speaker and the House, have control over members when they are in the House but I rather doubt, Mr.

Speaker, whether on a personal point of privilege that a member can ask the House for ••• MR. BILTON: I wonder if the Honourable Leader of the House, if he was the accused party, if he would be fiddling the same tune that he's fiddling now. I say the honourable member has a right to speak his mind on something that was said outside of this House only a few short hours ago which he feels aggrieved, and surely you're not going to deny him the right to reply in kind. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, on the point of ••• MR. SHERMAN: I don't wish to reply in kind, Mr. Speaker. I don't wish to reply in kind.

On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, on the point that has just been raised. My honourable friend says would I be fiddling the same tune if I was accused outside of the House. Well, Mr.

----"; August 6, 1970 4265 (MR. GREEN cont'd.) • • • • • Speaker, if I had to do that, this House would sound like the Unfinished Symphony with me continually fiddling. MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order please. May I remind ladies and gentlemen in the gallery, that applies to them too.

May I draw to the attention of honourable memblrs of the House that Citation 114 reads In parts as follows: ''In a just sense. any offence committed by a member relating to the parliament, though done out of the House, is termed an offence In parliament." At the moment the Chair has no way of knowing whether the point of privilege raised by the honourable memrer is such as may fall within this category or not and I have no way of knowing until I hear the honourable member's matter of privilege. The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reason I referred to the previous day's events, Sir, is because you'll recall that I did raise a point of privilege at the time and then I deferred pressing that case because of the events that were taking place In the House; I felt that I should subordinate my case to the greater issues In the House. Now today, Sir, I was prepared, I hoped to accept the admonishments, the profound admonishments of the Honourable Minister of Labour and the Honourable Member for St.

Boniface, who I think directed with great conscience and sincerity and iroport messages to this Chamber that deserve the attention and the consideration and the acceptance of all of us. And so once again, when the opportunity came up In procedural terms for me this morning, I deferred my desire to rise on a point of privilege again and was prepared to subordinate my desire completely, Sir, until at noon, publicly, over the media of this city and this province, the Minister of Transportation repeated against me an allegation of the ugliest kind that he made In this Chamber yesterday and which I denied.

Now I do not quarrel with or dispute the First Minister's contention yesterday that In the heat and passion of debate many things of an Intemperate nature are said, and I have been as guilty of this as anyone has, but I submit, Sir, that it is a norm accepted through the decades if not through the centuries of parliamentary and legislative procedure In the British Common wealth that when a member of a legislative and of an elected Assembly In the Commonwealth denies an allegation made against him before his colleagues In the House - and In this case I count 56 colleagues In this House of all parties Including you, Sir- that when a member denies such an allegation, his word is accepted by that Chamber, or else what the Chamber is saying in effect is that they are accusing him of standing In his place and lying to the House.

Now, the First Minister and I have had our differences and I would expect over the next 20 or 30 years that we'll have them again, and the Minister of Transport and I have had our differences and I would expect over the next few decades we will have them again.

But we have never, I trust, Sir, sunk to the level --, (Interjection) -- no, sunk to the level -- (Inter jection) - Well I would like to be jocular with the Minister of Labour because I know he is sincerely trying to lighten the mood of this Chamber and I give him full marks for that because the past day and a half have been venomous enough, but I can't feel particularly jocular about the slander laid at my door.

I have no more claim to be an enemy of everything that the Nazis ever stood for than probably anybody In this Chamber except that I do have people very near and dear to me who lie buried In Canadian military cemeteries, and I am sure that everybody In this Chamber has people who met that fate and I don't wish to be maudlin about the point but I can say to the First Minister that for all the anger and for all the fury that he and I may en gage in In ideological clash over the direction that this society of ours is taking, that I do not consider the despicable and repugnant Nazi salute anything to joke about or jest about, and when the Minister of Transport cbarges me with having given him that salute, I say, Sir, that the Minister of Transport is wrong, he made a mistake; and for the First Minister to say as he said yesterday, well it may not have been the Member for Fort Garry but I can tell him that if it wasn't he - or him - it was somebody sitting very close to him, I think is a -- (Interjec tions) -- I think is a statement that the First Minister in conscience will regret, because the First Minister has quoted from John F.

Kennedy and has quoted from other people who have spoken of justice and equality . • • MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order please. I am wondering about the propriety of bringing In matters which have occurred one, two or three sittings ago, as the honourable member had Indicated that he by his own volition chose not to raise this matter earlier, and it would seem to me that he thereby had forfeited his right to raise those matters as a question of privilege, and I would therefore ask the honourable member to limit his remarks to the matter that may

L August 6; 1970 (MR. SPEAKER cont'd.) • • • • • properly be raised as a question of privilege at this tlm:e. MR. SHERMAN: That is a correct direction. Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry. I accept that admonlahment. I was really spesltlng from thing!! I had thought of saying yesterday and of 00ur11e the opportunity to say them has now pused procedurally, but I do think that when we talk of justice and equity and honesty and fairness that I can appeal to the Fir~~t Minister • • • MR. SCHREYER: Will the honoU.l'llble member permit a question since he has made reference to me? MR. SHERMAN: Yes. MR.

SCHREYER: May I ask him this: with all .this reference to certain kinds of salutes which I did not per~~onally see or in no way involved with one way or the other, but is the hon oU.l'llb le member aware that I was told by a per~~on whose statements I accept almost without question - I refer to my colleague the Minister of Finance, who I've not found to tell me other than the truth up to now - did .tell me that there was a member opposite who did make such a salute and I certainly confirm it wasn't the Member for Fort Garry. I said so yesterday. MR. SHERMAN: Well, may I say, Mr.

Speaker, that the only per~~on in this House who comes close - well, perhaps it's presumptuous of me - I was going to say the only per~~on in this House who comes as close as the First Minister does to respecting the word of tlleMinister of Finance is the Member for Fort Garry. That may be presumptuous but I mean that sincer ely, and if the Minister of Finance said that, then all I can say is that the Minister of Finance is wrong and I would wish that he would - (Interjection) - No, but if he did say - (Inter jection) -- Oh, well, I had the impression from what was said yesterday ••• HON.

SAUL CHERNIACK, Q.C. (Minister of Finance) (St. John's): Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to say that I did not name the Honourable Member for Fort Garry at all. I named another member and I'm prepared to deal with that if necessary. MR. SHERMAN: Well, I'm sorry we got on to the - I'm sorry we got on to what the Minister of Finance said because it's really irrelevant to the basic issue, Mr. Speak~r. and I accept the word of the Finance Minister and the First Minister.

My point relates to the differ ences between the Minister of Transport and myself, and I was named in public pronouncement today by the Minister of Transport as having given him that despicable and repugnant salute, and I say, Mr. Speaker, as I said to you yesterday and as I said to my coll~es in this Chamber of all parties yesterday, that I did not do so. Now the Chamber can either accept that as truth or it can say that I'm lying. I'm not going to ask for a retraction or a withdrawal; there's been enough of that in this Chamber in the last day and a half.

I don't want a retraction or a withdrawal; I simply want that accusation expunged from my record and my family's rec ord. MR. PAULLBY: We accept it. You did not ••• MR. SHERMAN: Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Re ports by Standing and Special Committees. REPORTS BY STANDING COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for St.

Boniface and the proposed motion of the Honourable Leader of the Official Opposition in amendment thereto, and the proposed motion of the Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party in further amendment thereto • STATEMENT HON. JOSEPH P. BOROWSKI (Minister of Transportation) (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a statement, if I may. I made a statement of retraction at this morning's sitting, which I gave without condition. I have the impression that the statement was so re ceived by, Mr. ·speaker, yourl!elf, but it is now suggested by some that I did attach a condition.

In order that there is no doubt on this point, may I repeat that the statement of retraction which I made this morning and which I make is without condition. I under~~tand that the problem is not one vf saying what one believes to be true or not say Ing it. but rather certain things should not be given an opinion on at all as to guilt or innocence. I therefore will state no further opinion on a matter under investigation or before the courts as of now. MR. SPEAKER: • • • that the Honourable Minister's retraction is accepted by the House.

August 6, 1970 4267 REPORTS BY STANDING COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for St. Boniface, and the proposed motion of the Honourable Leader of the Official Opposition in amendment thereto, and the proposed motion of the Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party in further amendment thereto. The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SIDNEY SPIVAK, Q. c. (River Heights): Mr.

Speaker, in entering into the debate, I would hope that those on the other side who may want to question me, as they often do, will simply allow me the opportunity of expressing myself completely and then certainly I'll allow them the opportunity of questioning me, and I would hope that there would be coriSideration given to me as it was given to the other memmrs when they made their presentations, so that I can make my contribution in some detail to the debate that bas taken place so far. Mr. Speaker, the First Minister yesterday made several statements that I would like to deal with.

One was that logic and merit rather than emotion should guide us; secondly, that facts can only take you so far and that the final few yards you have to rely on judgment; and thirdly, that nothing good comes from the east. Let me deal with the last first by suggesting to the First Minister and to the members of this House, that all one has to do is to look at the press gallery to realize, as one of the radio announcers announce today, that the heavies from the east are here so we can suggest that some good does come from eastern Canada occasionally.

Now let me now deal with the question of logic and merit rather than emotion guiding us, and I must suggest to the Honourable First Minister that notwithstanding his two hours and 15 minutes performance yesterday, that if someone were to grade him on his logic, he would fail. Well, the First Minister said it; so will I. We'll see -- (Interjection) - Allow me to con tinue my presentation then we can judge it at the end. And I say this very seriously because logic does not take you to the conclusions that the First Minister arrived at, and I want to deal with that as best I can.

Now I agree with the First Minister that facts can only take you so far and then at o~e point a judgment has to be made, but it still follows that judgment should not be substitution, or should not be used as a substitute for facts when facts are available, and one of the very valid points that the Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party made this morning was the real fact that much of what has been said and suggested is unsupported and it's not just judgment that's involved, it has to be based on facts, and surely we, as members of this committee, and the people of Manitoba are entitled to know those facts.

Now there are three questions that we in the Legislature must ask ourselves at this point. First, will the government scheme give Manitobans cheaper and better auto insurance? Secondly, can lt only be done through a government monopoly? Can the government compete or is it necessary for the involvement of the government in the underwriting field at all? And thirdly, has the government offered a plan of compensation that will take care of the dislocation that would occur if a government monopoly in auto insurance is undertaken? Now it's obvious, Mr.

Speaker, if there is no government monopoly, that if the govern ment is prepared to compete, the compensation is not required.

Now along with the three basic questions, whether the scheme that's proposed will·give Manitobans a cheaper and better auto insurance, whether it could be only done through a government monopoly, whether the compensation is fair or not, there is another general question that must be asked which is an umbrella over all of the questions: whether the proposals that are now brought forward to bring cheaper and better auto insurance for Manitoba and the proposals even for compensation to the agents, have been arrived at with meaningful discussions with the industry, with the agents and people affected?

Well, let's see if we can arrive at that conclusion or not and I'd like to,· if I may, refer to three specific items. The first is an interview that Premier Schreyer had with the Tribune July 15, 1969, and I'd like to point the question and his answer for the record. The Tribune asked him, and I quote: "Would this mean that if you decide to institute government auto in surance, private insurance companies would be out?" and the Premier replied: "Well, private auto insurance firms are operating in Saskatchewan providing supplementary coverage. I didn't specify exactly what form we would bring in auto insurance.

I have in mind public agency participation. I did not say, however, that we would preempt entirely the private in dustry. I, would hope that our auto insurance policy will be a composite of the Saskatchewan plan plus the Wootton Royal Commission of British Columbia. I'd like to see the private firms

4268 Augrist ·s; 19'16 (MR. SPIVAK cont'd.) • • • • • carrj on. After all, it could be dislocative 1f it were changed overnight. but I insist that according to the experts by whom I was briefed,. auto insurance premiums .in Manitoba could be at least 26 percent less than what they are now, and If the private industry can co-operate with us to this end, fine. " · Well, on this, Mr. Speaker, the question has to be asked: has there. been enough dis cussion with the private industry to determine whether in fact the savings suggested by the P.remier can be arrived at with the private industry?

Because we must now know, Mr. Speaker, that while the Premier referred to 20 percent a year ago, yesterday as a result of the new compensation plan we are now talking about 10 percent, and the question that now must be asked by all of us is can private industry, provided certain things are done and provided there is a meaniDgful discussion, can private industry now institute a 10 percent saving? Because 1f it can, Mr. Speaker; then we have brought cheaper and better auto insurance to Manitobans and that's our objective. Now secondly, Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to refer to an editorial in the Tribune of Tuesday, April 28th, and I do so in the interest of debate because I think it summarizes a basic position tJmt has been expressed by members on the Opposition, and I quote: ''Shortly after he was elected last June, Premier Schreyer outlined his political philosophy in a major interview with the Tribune. On one point he was most emphatic. He declared that his government had no in tention of following the doctrinaire socialist line of going into business for the sake of going into business.

He said, 'We would move for a public agency or public ownership only If it could be demonstrated that it would be more efficient. We wUl not move for it simply for the sake of having a nationalized corporation.' Mr. Schreyer added that the paramount considera tion would be the good of the ultimate consumer. It is in this context that the report of the Maniwba Automobile Insurance Committee must be considered. The report urges the Manitoba Government to enter the car insurance business. Mr.

Schreyer can honestly accept this rec ommendation only If it shown beyond any doubt that government car insurance would benefit the ordinary Manitoban through lower costs and better service. The report, as it stands, offers no such proof. Perhaps the advantage to the ultimate consumer can be established but the committee certainly has not done so. " And the question, Mr. Speaker, that we have to pose: has the government done anything, said anything, produced anything that would indicate at this point that a monopoly would provide and benefit the ordinary Manitoban through lower costs and better service?

Now the third item that I would like to refer to in this connection happens to be the cor respondence the Premier referred to yesterday, a copy of which I now have, which I believe was supposed to be tabled and may be tabled but was not made available to us yesterday, of the letters between the insurance agents and himself dealing with compensation, and it's important because of one particular paragraph in the Premier's reply. and in order to set the record - because I'm going to refer back to this in another context when I talk about compensation- I'd like to, If I may, read into the record the letter of July lOth sent to the Premier by the Insur ance Agents Association of Manitoba.

"May we at this time" (addressed to Premier Schreyer) ''May we at this time accept your offer made on the steps of the Legislative BuDding on April 29, 1970, to discuss BUl 56 and its effects on insurance agents. We suggest the date of July 20th at an hour acceptable to yourself. If this should not be convenient, then we would be avail able at any alternative you propose. We had hoped to have received a reply to the recommenda tions contained in our letter of AprU 29th and trust this wUl be forthcoming shortly." Now, Mr.

Speaker, I have a letter of April 29th and without in any way dealing in the specifics, there were four general questions asked of the Premier, one of which was: "Why do you not stand by your statements as recently as 10 days ago that the government would compete with private insurance companies?" MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, because that last sentence quoted from that letter, I have on previous occasions said to be a misstatement of fact. MR. SPIVAK: Mr.

Speaker, whether it's a misstatement of fact, that's not really the issue because the issue is involved in an answer which goes to the heart of the other matters I'm talking about - not that; because in the reply -- and I'd rather not read the reply; it might be and I think it wUl not contribute to the ltema that I want to discuss or the manner in which I want to approach it, except to refer to Page 2 of the Premier's reply which was dated on July 14th: "As regards your contention that I have stated that the government would compete with private insurance companies, I must point out to you in no uncertain terms that I at no time . .

August 6, 1970 4269 (MR. SPIVAK cont'd.) • • • • • indlcated that a publicly operated plan would be e8tabli.Bhed alongside the many private insurance companies now in operation. I did indicate that, if all ~ things were equal, if all things were equal I would prefer to have such an arrangement. Upon evidence brought to my attention that thi.B would not be as practical and would not result in any significant cost saving, I stated clearly and repeatedly that the program would have to be established on essentially the same basis as that of Saskatchewan. " And the Premier confirms this position. But again, Mr.

Speaker, I'd have to ask you the very basic question and the question that I think all of us are asking is, .really, do we have information that would prevent us from drawing a conclusion that private industry could not in fact bring about the 10 percent saving that the Premier announced yesterday he believed a government monopoly could in fact occur? Could we accept that there bas been at this point enough discussion with the government and the industry and the agents involved to have arrived at that determination ? Now, Mr.

Speaker, we have an example yesterday where the Premier stood up and said that the information that he now bas with respect to certain statistical facts would indicate that the Town of Wawanesa, or the claims about the Town of Wawanesa are not borne out by the facts - his facts. Now, the fact that he bas arrived at the conclusion based on information given to him, we all can accept.

The problem is, did he on any occasion in the last few weeks take the information that he had, armed with it, and sit down with the people from Wawanesa and determine with the people from Wawanesa whether the faOI;f! that he bad were complete, whether his judgment based on those facts was subject to some kind of criticism or open .to other alternative options, and whether in fact, in arriving at this conclusion, he bad really explored, truly explored the opportunity for a discussion that would without doubt produce information and facts for a judgment to be made that a government monopoly position is the oiily position.

And in this connection I would like to read into the record a wire that was sent to the Premier, a copy of which I now have that was sent to the Leader of the Opposition, from the Save Our Village Committee of Wawanesa, Manitoba, and I read this to only indicate the fact that there are people who do not hold the same views as the Premier and that really, before we in this House had been put in this position of discussing this Bill or having to agree with it, we should at least have had the opportunity to have known that there had been discussions with the people concerned, the industry concerned, Wawanesa, and the people of Wawanesa and the people of Portage, to in fact establish whether the representations and information- which may not be complete because I can't believe that the Premier can suggest to us that he has all the information - whether there are other facts, other bits of information that would alter .a judgment.

Now from the Town of Wawanesa of the Save Our Village Committee of Wawanesa the following: "To the Premier - We strenuously object to the misinformation and misleading statements. . • " Now, Mr.

Speaker, I don't know whether it's misinformed or misleading and I'm not try ing to get involved in that, but there are people who believe that, and we know that there was not the opportunity for this discussion to take place, and on that basis one has to be concerned because of the emotion and because of the just general way in which the bill has been presented and the whole tenor of the debate that bas taken place so far. "We strenuously object to the misinformation and misleading statements you have made in regard to Wawanesa not being hurt by government monopoly of automobile insurance.

Wawanesa Mutual staff consists of 67 employees; 55 work on processing of Manitoba automo bile insurance business; 40 jobs would become redundant." Not 9- 40. Well I don't know. Who's right? "Establishment of a government insurance office in Brandon may put one million dollara into Brandon's economy but there is no way locating the office in Brandon would do anything for the economy of Wawanesa. Persons who commute to Brandon would eventually relocate. We face bankruptcy. Please read our brief to the Honourable Howard Pawley on our request for compensation and other briefs from the village. " Now, Mr.

Speaker, my purpose in bringing this is only to point out that in my opinion, and I think the opinion of many, the kind of discussion that could have led to judgments being made, that this is the only way of doing it, that this was the way.in which it should be done, cannot be made because that kind of discussion has not taken place yet; because, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that the savings themselves, the 10 percent saving, could not be made -- 10 or 11 percent -- (Interjection) -- At least - well when we say "at least" we don't know what it

L 42'70 Augu&t 6, 11'10 (MR. SPIVAK cont'd.) ••••• wUl be. Well it's very interesting, Mr. Speaker, because in the interview in the Tribune there was a 20 percent saving expressed by the Premier. On the steps of the Leglalature before the mass rally, the Premier's prepared statement said 15 to 20 percent. Now we are saying at least 10 or 11 percent. Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to deal now on the basla of the 10 percent because it was my belief, Mr.

Speaker, that if a no fault system is put in, if a rate review board 1a put 1n, in which the selling price 1a controlled as we control the selling price of gas, the sale of gas, as we control the selling price of cab fares, as we control the selling price of mUk, as we control the selling price of freight rates, and if we include the investment income as part of the earnings of the insurance company and have to be paid back as part of the claims benefit, it 1a my belief, Mr.

Speaker.._ and I would have to have a lot of information on the opposite side to be able to dlaprove it, and it's not be cause I'm being rigid at th1a point - but it would seem to me, based on everything that I have read including the Wootton Commlasion and the Alberta Legislative Committee Report, and the Information that has been supplied, and the Pawley Report, and the briefs that have been pre sented, I would have to have a lot to prove to me that 10 percent would not be saved if those three things were done when regulation and leglalation was introduced, and certainly it would become very obvious, but if we are only talking about a 10 percent saving, then what we should be talking about 1a a government competing lecause obviously a government competing would be the beat way of insuring that the industry, that the industry itself in their terms would be honest and that there would not be a problem.

Because the other factor, Mr. Speaker, 1a that there has been no evidence brought before the Pawley Commlasion, there has been no evidence brought before the Public Utilities Com• mlttee, there has been no evidence brought in this Leglalature that states that the insurance companies in Manitoba have made an unconscionable profit.

Now untll we establlah that they have made an unconscionable profit, untll we have establlahed that in fact their operations are so repugnant to our style and way of life, then I think we have to question at th1a point in terms of our priority in thla province, whether taking over the insurance industry and wiping them out 1a really all we should be concerned about. Now let's talk about what we really mean as far as savings are concerned. Mr. Speaker, there are approximately $30 mlllion worth of premiums sold a year.

The Saskatchewan plan, the basic plan covers 80% of the total insurance coverage, and let's assume for the sake of argument that 80% of the plan in Manitoba would be covered by the basic plan. We are now talking $24 mlllion of premiums approximately. If we talk in terms of a 10% saving, we are talking $2, 400, 000. There are approximately 400, 000 cars in Manitoba, license plates, and if we take 400, 000 and divide $2, 400, 000 by 400, 000, it means that the actual saving per car owner of Manitoba, averaged out, wlll be $6. 00 if it wlll be that. Now, Mr. Speaker, that's all we are talking about in Manitoba.

This whole debate, the whole lasue, the dlalocation of the industry, 1a based on $6.00 and I must tell you ••• MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I find it difficult to hear the Hon ourable Member for River Heights because the Member for Lakeside 1a interjecting. MR. HARRY ENNS (Lakeside): On the point of order, why is the Mlnlater of Finance having difficulty in hearing the Honourable Member for River Heights ? MR. CHERNIACK: Because the Honourable Member for Lakeside keeps ralaing h1a voice in such a way that I can't hear. Ma. SPIVAK: Well, Mr.

Speaker, may I repeat for the Honourable Mlnlater of Finance, repeat it- $30 mllllon sold, 80% wlll be the basic government plan- $24 mlllion. Ten percent of that 1a $2,400, 000. There are 400, 000 cars; $6. 00 1a the saving, and that's all we are talking about in th1a whole lasue ••• MR. ENNS: And your name lan't Ralph Wllliams. MR. SPIVAK: And Mr. Speaker, the question 1a a very simple one. Could not the regu lation of the industry, the control of the selling price, the introduction of a no-fault system, have provided the people of Manitoba with $6.00 of saving? Well, Mr.

Speaker, that's all we're talking about. The Honourable Minlater of Mines and Natural Resources says no, but I want to tell you, how does he know? How does he know? Can I ask you something? Where are we -- where do we have evidence that would say that he 1a correct? Where was there any evidence presented before the members of the committee that would say it was correct? Where do we find any information, or are we dealing now with the question of judgments and not facts? Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to you that you cannot deal in this issue of what the saving

August 6, 1970 4271 (MR. SPIVAK cont'd.) ..... will be per person on the basis of judgment. They are based on fact, and all the facts that I have indicated support the position of $6.00, and when I say $6.00 it's a maximum, because there are members on the other side who -and I'm not neces..: sarily speaking of government members, I have to say party members -who believe that the saving will only be $4.00. Well, Mr. Speaker, then why do we have automobile insurance? Is it really a question of dollars and cents in saving for Manitoba or is it really a question of ideology?

And if it's a question of ideology, why ideology? What ideology? Is it so necessary that government must enter more into the enterprise system? Is that what's required? Now for some there may be some revenge on the profit system, and I think this does exist, but why is it necessary? Is this the social priority that we in Manitoba feel is the highest? Elbert Hubbard in his work .on the Philistines said, "The selfish wish to govern is often mistaken for the holy zeal in the cause of humanity." Now let me repeat·: "The selfish wish to govern is often mistaken for the holy zeal in the cause of humanity." Now, Mr.

Speaker, the Premier suggested that each government has its own priorities, but does anyone really believe that automobile insurance in Manitoba is a priority? It's not a great piece of social reform; it's not a progressive move at all; and because this legislation has evoked opposition, the fact that there is opposition does not make the legislation progressiye or even a reform in itself, because, Mr.

Speaker, if we're talking that $6.00 is worth this effort, I would believe, and I strongly believe, that a government involvement in the sale of milk and. bread would accomplish far more than $6.00 of a saving to the people of Manitoba. But I don't hear that from anybody. I don't hear that from anybody on the other side, and the questiOn. has to be asked, why? Mr. Speaker, the question of automobile insurance has not come down to an issue of dol lars and cents as much as those on the other side would like to argue about it. It is strictly now a case of ideology and it is a case of rigidity on their part.

There is no social relevance in the Manitoba context to the introduction of automobile insurance at this time. We have come down from 20% a year ago to 10% with a generous plan of compensation, but even though it's a gener ous plan of compensation one has to now start to become concerned about that and I!ll talk about it in a few minutes, . . . what it really means -- but obviously that has to be costed against those who are going to buy insurance.

Now it is obvious as well from what the Premier has said, while we do not have the regulations that the manner and the scheme in which the insur ance companies rated people are going to continue, and that the thought that those on the high level would come down and those on the lower level would come up, is mistaken. It's going to be the same. The only thing he can count is that there would be proportional reduction of $6.00 but that proportional reduction obviously isn't going to come next year because next year we know that rates are going to go up because labour costs are going to go up.

We know from the evidence that's been brought forward and the evidence that I have read, that 25% of the total amount paid out by way of claims is paid out toward labour costs, and so long as labour continues to increase, it's obvious that auto insurance premiums are going to rise, so that in effect even though we may talk in terms of a $6.00 saving, by the time anyone receives their insurance premium next year it is going to cost as much as this year, if not more. Now, statistical information was brought forward by the Premier from the SUperintendent of Insurance.

We didn't have that information before the committee. No one was able to scru tinize it -- we 11, the Minister of Labour says do we want it now. You know, we are- in the dying moments of the session, we are asked now to vote on a bill and we are going to be given informa tion that should have been made available to us -we asked for the Superintendent of Insurance to come forward.

We haven't had the opportunity to really examine the detailed industry, and I say this in a very real sense; we do not have the supporting statistical information; we do not know what the regulations are going to be; and we are being asked to actually give the govern ment blank cheques on the basis that somehow or other they are going to work it out and possibly make the $6.00 saving if they can. The Insurance agents today say that they can't. Well, you can say that insurance agents don't know, but do they really not know any better than the govern ment knows?

Has the government got that much more information, and if they have, where is it? - because we don't have it. _We simply don't know what it is, so why would the insurance agents, who are experienced and who say there will not be any saving, why should thelr position not be accepted just as well? Now the question of compensath:m. It's an interesting plan. One regrets that that plan was not introduced before we went into committee because I think that the work of the Honourable

4272 August 6, 1970 (MR. SPIVAK cont'd.) ••.•• Member for St. Boniface would have been much easier; I think that the briefs before the committee would have been much less; I think that the nature and tenor of briefs would have changed if there had been an indication of a more generous plan. That doesn't mean, Mr. Speaker, that the plan should now be rejected because that did not happen, but the problem here with the plan, like the problem with the bill, is that no one has discussed this with the people who are involved.

The agents who were involved have not had an opportunity of sitting down and expressing their views. They have not hadan opportunity of meeting and discussing it, and whether the Premier wants to stand on the letters or the cor respondence or not, the truth of the matter is that until there is this meaningful discussion we are not sure of the details. Let's talk about what we're talking about. Is it expected, as an example, Mr. Speaker, that the government -- well, I don't know, Art Carney over there is trying to play some tricks, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, let's talk in terms of the problems with compensation.

Are the insurance agents expected to finance the government? In other words, are they going to have to, as they do with the present insurance companies, pay immediately to the government and then they in turn can apply credit? I don't know, and I'm not interested at this point in finding out the spec ific question, because obviously, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to be able to ask it, ask all the questions, because what has to happen, Mr.

Speaker, before I would be satisfied about the compensation, is that the people who are involved had had the opportunity of sitting down in detail and working it out, and knowing full well every basis of information and every piece of information -- well Art Carney, I don't know what you want - MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Honourable Member for River Heights may continue. MR. SPIVAK: Well, I suggest that the matter of compensation, like the matter of insur ance, has to be wcrked out with those involved. They have not at this point, and I see no justifi cation for our accepting it at this point.

We have already heard, at least I have heard on the radio and I assume that there has been a letter communicated to the Premier, the insurance agents are not prepared to accept it, and I would think that before anything like this happens it would be very necessary, Mr. Speaker, for that kind of discussion to take place. Now the bill does not contain the information that the Premier expressed in his remarks yesterday. The specifics of his plan, the details, are not contained within the bill.

It's going to be to the good will of himself and his Minister of Labour, who sometimes has good will and sometimes does not show such good will. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Pawley Commission indicated on Page 38 -the younger Mr. Pawley -that the plan, the bill to be introduced will be designed to return 85% of the premiums collected from motorists in claims benefits paid to those who suffer loss. The rate structure and proposed financial operation of the plan will be based on this loss factor. In other words, the Pawley Commission said 85 percent. Well, Mr.

Speaker, there is nothing in the plan, there is nothing in the bill that says that there will be a guarantee of 85 percent. Now -- (Interjections) --there is nothing. I will sit down if the Premier can indicate in the bill specifically where it says that there will be 85% paid, and that's wjlat the Pawley Commission recommended. MR. PAULLEY: The first part of your statement might be a good idea, just to sit down. MR. SPIVAK: Then the Premier stands up and says it's a known fact that in Saskatchewan 85% was paid, but that does not complete the whole statement, Mr.

Speaker, because if you take the supplementary coverage with the basic plan, you find that in 20 years Saskatchewan paid back 76%, but in fact on the supplementary coverage where the government had to compete, they only paid back 58%, so that the truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the over-all effect will be, based on last year's payback by the insurance company, the total effect will be almost the same; if not, the government may even be less than the insurance companies have paid back in the past year. Now, Mr.

Speaker, you enter in no-fault, control the selling price, the investment income be included as part of the total income for payback on claims, and then, Mr. Speaker, I'm quite convinced that there will be a 10% saving. MR. ENNS: But it's worth it for six bucks. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, no one in Manitoba except the diehards on that side who are concerned about their position . . . MR. PAULLEY: Or the doughheads on that side. MR. SPIVAK: .... are going to object if the bill is withdrawn. No one is going to ob ject.

No one is going to object if the government decides to sit down with the industry and ac cept that they can by regulation save 10 percent. They will have accomplished everything that

August 6, 1970 4273 (ldR. SPIVAK cont 'd.) • . • •• they were attempting to accomplish now. Noone is going to object to that, Mr. Speaker, and, as a matter of fact, that would be

an act of statesmanship that we haven •t seen so far. No one is going to object to that because, Mr. Speaker, it has now come to a point that we •re talking about a small amount of money and we're talking about a low. priority item, because surely, Mr. Speaker, if we look at the problem of Greater Winnipeg and its urban renewal programs, if we look at the problem of the Indian-Metis people, if you look at the problem of senior citizens and our older people, if you look at the problem of housing, if you look at the problem, Mr.

Speaker, of the Health Services Program going into the pharma ceutical field or into the Denticare field, if you examine all those problems, Mr. Speaker, the time and energy and effort of government should be devoted to that because these are our priori ties today, and Mr. Speaker, when the First Minister said John Kennedy's words, "Let us be gin," it's not let us begin auto insurance, it's let us begin on those priorities of social reform in this province which will really advance our society and which will be a credit to a pioneering spirit of a reformed party.

Now they're not a reformed party and they've proved themselves so far as not to be a reformed party. -- (Interjection) -- Wal, you think you're a little bit reformed. As I've in dicated to the First Minister, I'll take the 11 years of Roblin and Weir reform in this province. and match it against his. And Mr. Speaker, I asked before and I hope that I'll be given the op portunity to complete my remarks and I'll answer any question, but I note that there are a few who are still not going to allow me that freedom. -- (Interjection) --Well, I'm assuming I'd be given leave • . . . MR.

SPEAKER: May I remind the honourable member he has five minutes. MR. ENNS: No arrogance on that side -two hours yesterday afternoon. MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order, please. MR. ENNS: You've got three minutes, Sid. Three minutes, Sid. MR. SPEAKER: Order. The Honourable Member for River Heights may continue. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of privilege ? On a point of pri_vt lege, if I may. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First.Minister. MR.

SCHREYER: The suggestion that was made by the Member for Lakeside that there is somehow something wrong when one member is asked to confine himself within the rules, and it is in the rules as to the amount of time, and the suggestion that I as leader was infringing the rules when I went beyond that period of time, is just incorrect. I try to respect the rules of this House and the rules show that the Leader of the Government side, the Leader of the Opposition and party leaders, recognized party leaders, do have under the rules the right to speak beyond the other specified time.

So any suggestion that I was allowed to violate the rules or go beyond them by leave is incorrect. MR. GORDON JOHNSTON (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, could I speak on the point or order ? Mr. Speaker, I think a matter of this importance, that the member is making a contribution that members of the House find of interest and a point is being developed that is of interest to the House, at that time when the member has run out of his 40 minutes he asks for leave then.

I would !!ay this, that would it be apparent that the parties in the House are going to stake out their position probably with one or two major speeches - I would hope that would be the case - and with some sort of an understanding like that I would hope that the Member for River Heights would be allowed to take all the. time he needs. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK; Mr. Speaker, I won't be very long. I would only hope that the arguments on privilege would not take away from my time, just to allow me the extra five minutes. -- (In terjection) -- Thank you. Well, Mr.

Speaker, there's one quotation I would like to refer to -I've referred to it in the House before -it's a statement of the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources made on March 24th, 1969. It's in reference to Medicare and I quote. "I am not one who would be completely satisfied with the regulation.

I would prefer to see it directly in the statute be causethat way we know that when we leave this House two months from now or a month from now, as the case may be, and that there's no arena where these things can be aired, that we know that the Minister can't change his mind without the pressure of the Legislature around him." Now Mr. Speaker, this was with respect to Medicare and the question of assignment. - (Interjection) --yes, but on question of assignment on Medicare -I'm not trying in any way to mislead the House or in anyway take this out of context, but the principle involved is a simple

4274 August 6, 1970 (MR. SPIVAK cont'd.) ..••• one. The principle was that government should not do things by regulation because he's not satisfied, and we can't be satisfied that regulations should be prom ulgated In which there is not going to be an arena where these things can be aired, particularly on this issue and particularly when we are talking about such a minimum saving to the people of Manitoba, because that's what we're talking about. And so, Mr.

Speaker, it would seem to me that there is merit and wisdom In the amend ment proposed by the Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party and that it should be supported. Mr. Speaker, there has been no evidence brought forward that I can accept that would Indicate that the government has completely exhausted all the discussion that must take place with the industry and the agents. Rather, all that has happened as a re suit of what has taken place with respect to the compensation would indicate to me that what is really needed is further discus sion. There is nothing that suggests, Mr.

Speaker, that the government cannot compete; There is absolutely nothing that suggests that the government can't compete; absolutely no reason why it can't compete; and Mr. Speaker, if the government is afraid of competing there is nothing that suggeststhataregulatory role of government, which is used in so many other areas of industrial and commercial activity In this province and In our country, could not be applied here correctly.

The selling price could be controlled, the Investments could be mar shaled in such a way that they will go out and be paid out by way of claims, and in turn the no fault system could be introduced, and the minimum saving of $6.00 - or the maximum saving, not the minimum, I'm sorry, I stand corrected in that- the maximum saving of $6.00, if it's a 10 percent saving because that's all we're talking about-- (Interjection) --well the First Minister laughs and if he thinks that my statistics and my arithmetic is wrong, then I'm really going to be prepared to listen, but at this point I think my arithmetic happens to be very cor rect.

Mr. Speaker, I must say to you that the maximum of $6.00 saving could In fact be achiev ed, and we go back to the three objectives of the whole exercise and the questions we must put: Will the government scheme give Manitoba as cheap and better auto Insurance and can it only be done through a government monopoly? Well, the savings I suggest are minimum amounts of money In terms of the auto insurance. I suggest that those savings can be made by regulatory exercise of the government role.

I say that the government plan of compensation is a plan that we've just met, we've just had to deal with very quickly, it has not been worked out with the agents, and I think there's an obligation on them to sit dawn with them. I also think there's an obligation on them to sit down with the industry and if they can't work it out with the industry for 10 percent, let them go in and com pete, and let's see whether in fact government can be as efficient as private enterprise. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Speaker, one hates to follow a speaker who accuses one of being not logical and then one has to try awfully hard to follow the logic of the person who has just spoken. It is also a little difficult to follow a person who In this case only infringed slightly on my sense of propriety by his reference to Art Carney, to the sense of bringing in a bit of clownishness into his address, and I'll try to ignore that, as I have tried, Mr. Speaker, to ignore the gesture of the honourable member of some days ago. A MEMBER: He knows what you're talking about, too. MR. CHERNIACK: He must. Mr.

Speaker, we've had the usual display of the Member for River Heights, whose great contribution in this last session, which has continued for so long, has been to come in and make his usual speech with slight variations and to pop out as soon as he has made his speech, and I suppose I should acknowledge the fact, which is not too common, that he is still In his seat having delivered himself of a 40-minute oration; and to tell us about the priorities of our government and by implication to accuse the government, of which he was part, of not recognizing the very priorities of which he speaks; his talk abo~t Indian and Metis, his talk about the need for health services, his talk about the need to recogn"tze the problems of the aged, his talk about recognizing the need for housing, his talk about the need for recog nizing the problems,of farmers, is laughable, if it weren't for the fact that he had the effrontery to deal with it in the way he does.

Mr. Speaker, the honourable member participated in Committee of Public Utilities which lasted some 70 hours. I would guess he was there -it's a guess; I may be wrong- 10 hours, 15 hours of the time. He was there --I'm told my guess is generous but-- although I must say I still find it difficult to be generous to the honourable member; I guess I err in that respect. His. contributions were involved in the wranglings at the beginning of almost every day

Augilst 6, 1970 (MR. CHERNIACK cont'd.) ••... on procedural questions. He would pop in every so often to listen to an agent's protestations and to add a little to the question period, but I give him credit - and that credit I give only to one other member of this party - of having sat through' tJ• discussions on the bill

section by section. Of course, that followed the statement made by one of his colleagues that the Conservative Party was not prepared to bring any of its own sugges-. · tions to the committee which was studying the bill

section by section.

And I give him another bit of credit and that is that· he was willing to sit in committee with the rest of us while there was a football game going on which was being televised and which attracted other members ·of his party, and during that period of time he was one of those who had every opportunity to ask questions which were related to the bill and which could have been answered by me with the assistance or support of Mr, Swaine, the Superintendent of Insurance, who I announced earlier and, I say again, was available throughout the meeting to come at a moment's notice to deal with matters relevent to questions being raised or discussions carried on.

He sat, and he dH:l sit. through that portion of the meeting, when Mr. Blackburn was present and W!lS a~le to the Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs to be able to deal with any questions::tbat the Minister called on him to deal with in the event that such questions were raised~ MR. SPIVAK: Onapointofprivilege, Mr. Speaker. Tomyknowledge, Mr. Blackburn was never introduced to the committee. To my knowledge, it was not indicated that he was . available. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker. You know, Mr.

Speaker, I really don't have too much respect for the honourable member's knowledge, but aside from that I had.siated much earlier, when a motion had been discussed brought by the Honourable the Member for Portage la Prairie, that the government would have with it and the Ministers would have available to them the assis tance of those people who they thought would be necessary to deal with questions that were raised, and we had a vote - and Mr.

Speaker, I'll never forget that vote and the Honourable Member for River Heights knows why -when it was decided that the people named would not be called at that time on the witness stand to be cross-examined. But I stated on that occasion - I'm quite sure it was on that occasion - that we would have with ns the people that we felt were needed for that purpose, and the fact is that throughout the dealing of the bill

section by section, had a question arisen which needed the technical answers which could be supplied by Mr. Blackburn, he was sitting right behind the Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and the Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs could have dealt with it with the assistance of Mr. Blackburn, and the member says, ''I didn't know." The fact is he didn't ask one question which was relevant in any way to the kind of information that could be provided to the Honour able the Minister by Mr.

Blackburn, and he did not ask one question there which could have been asked of me as the Minister reporting on insurance, or actually • . . MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege, on a point of privilege because there are certain representations being made about me and concerning me. So far as I know, Mr. Blackburn was never introduced to the committee. -- (Interjection) -- Well, he may have been there and maybe Mr. Pawley may have known and maybe others may have known but I didn't know, and I again say that he was not introduced to the committee.

I'm not sure that the Chairman knew that he was there or that the Chairman said that he was there, and the Chairman surely can answer for himself in that, but insofar as I'm concer:ned I don't know what Mr. Blackburn looks like and I didn't even know that he was there, and this is the first time I am aware of it. And if he was there and if he was available, I must say, Mr. Speaker, I would have thought it was in order for to so indicate it on the record. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on a point of privilege since my name has been mentioned in this debate.

My point of privilege is this, that I think the Minister of Finance has inadvertently represented what I was trying to do by presenting a motion to have the members of the Pawley Commission and the Superintendent of Insurance appear before the Committee. My intention was to question them on why certain amendments could not be made to the bill, which we might work out some sort of a compromise or at least any member would be able to ask them the reasons for some inclusions on the bill. Now the Minister is inferring that Mr.

Blackburn - and I'm not sure that I know him to see him or not; I've seen one or the other, I can't tell Mr. Blackburn from Mr. Randall - this is the first I knew that we could question them on any matters that we had in our mind with respect to Bill 56. When we come to consider a bill clause by clause, it is not for explanations at that time, it's only for clarifi cation, and to say now that we had this opportunity is not true at all. It is not true at all.

4276 MR. SPEAKER: The Hmourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, of course we recognize that according to the rules both the Honourable the Leader of the Liberal Party and the Honourable the Member for River Heights know that Mr. Blackburn was there because I said be was there.

Now that they know he was there -- (Interjection) -- Well I say that - I'm just dealing with other statements that have been made in the last couple of days, and I'm saying that having now said be was there, then r they can no longer say that they don't know now that be was there • I don •t want to play with [- words but I just want to make it clear. I've stated clearly and succinctly, Mr. Blackburn was there and Mr. Swaine was available. Now the Honourable the Member for Portage • • • MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, Mr. Blackburn was not there. MR. CHERNIACK: Well now, Mr.

Speaker; you're faced with a problem. You're faced with a problem . • • MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order. Order. MR. ENNS •.•• ascertained whether Mr. Blackburn was there. They must know him by face. If be was not introduced to me, be was not there. MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order, please. It was just stated a moment ago by the Honour able Minister of Finance that the gentleman referred to was present during a portion of the committee bearings, and may I suggest to the honourable member that his comments are most inappropriate at this time. The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. JACOB FROESE (Rhineland): Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order. I think the Member for River Heights mentioned that be was never formally introduced and I'm sure that be never was because I was present at the meeting as well. He was not formally introduced. • • . • . Continued on next page

4277• MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: I certainly don't ne~ the help {)f the H~nourable the Member for Lakeside or indeed the help of God to confirm the fact that Mr. Blackburn was there. MR. ENNS: But I do. . .. ·MR. CHERNIACK: Now he does, Mr. Speaker, and you notice that he's not accePting' my statement. He says he does need that kind of help, and, Mr. Speaker, I won't pre;ss the issue on my statement. But, Mr. Speaker, I'm informed and I don't say it with certainty for · myself, but I'm informed just as we're standing here that it was statsd that Mr.

Blackburn_ Was at the commjttee, that he was present. I am not one to say that I heard that said but i am qUite sure ·that he was there.

But the Honourable the House Leader of the Liberal Party's quite cor' rect in saying that he was not Informed that he was there in order to stand up and answer ques' tions of the members of the committee, and I don't think there was ever an wdertaklng that they would be there for that purpose. . :i\ · · . · I recall that l said - and I ·made it clear - that we would have with us such [ieople as· w6 felt were necessary to give us) the political members ~f the committee, such suppOM i!:S 'we· ·. needed, and I think I indicated- the record would show it; I don't think it'slmpor&nt- I think I indicated that Mr.

Swaine would be .available- and indeed he was. -- (Interjection)-- }'!lo, not for questioning, but in order to give me the answers which I could not answer in thtl eveit .. that they were asked and I did not have the information to supply. And that's the way the pr~ tlce has been, in legislation, in committee, that the people presenting a blU and arguing abilf have to be able to answer for the bill, and that they are the ones responsible and this govern·: ment has not shirked its responsibility in that respect. MR. G. JOHNSTON: ... permit a question? . MR.

CHERNIACK: Well, I'm kind of jealous of my time too but if you can keep it · short . . . · . MR. G. JOHNSTON: When the debate came on my motion as to whether or. not they had these gentlemen available for questioning, did not the Minister of Finance say that this is now political and we want the rest of the debate on the bill on that level- we don't want these people before the committee? MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, now I rise on a point of privilege. I know you said the Minister of Finance but that was an error; you are referring to me.

I indicated on your motion that even if we had all the questioning in the world, that there would still be a subjective divl-' sion between· my honourable friend the Member for River Heights and myself which would have to be decided on political grounds, but I diq not say that the people would not be there; and Mr. Speaker, as I stand here, and I hope I am saying the right thing, I recall the Attorney-General advising the committee that Mr. Blackburn was there to advise his Minister. The transcript will show whether I'm right or wrong. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Speaker, please don't charge me with this last few min1,1tes of time and let me continue. I was really commenting on the Honourable Member for River Heights more than I wanted to and more than he deserves, but I should deal with some of the points that were raised by him on behalf of his party, because to his party this bill is a matter of great importance; it is to our party, too. To his party it is a matter of doctrinaire position; to our party it is npt.

Now we can enter Into. great debate about who is doctrinaire and who is not; but the fact is that I heard, and this the Honourable Member for River Heights missed, I heard most of the speeches that were made by the members on his side of the House throughout second readlng and there were two big points that were made: one is that they were opposed to a public auto insurance scheme, compulsory, although they were not opposed to compulsory insurance, and the other is the dangers to the llvellhoods of the insurance agents, and of course in Public Utilities Committee we dealt nialnly with the latter aspect.

So that we are aware of the fact that the members of the party opposite were not really paying attention to what we had to say, and certainly the Member for River Heights dismissed completely the address of the First Leader of yesterday by saying it was illogical, and then he decided not to pay any attention to the important points that were made there which indicated what our position was and how we felt one could go about it. Now, let me go into some of the more important aspects of what we're talking about.

4278 August 6, 197 0 (MR. CHERNIACK cont'd .) . . . . • The honourable the. member spoke of unsupported facts.

Had he paid attention to what was sald by the First Leader yesterday, he would have heard oplnlons of recognized authorities, people who had been studying this matter at great length, people who had made comments and people - and I now think of the Honourable the Minister , Mr. :Poldt of Saskatchewan, who was speaking from a great deal of experience , and who used the figure of - was it $ 5 mll lion or $6 mlllion - (Interjection) -- $5 milli on sa vlng for the people of Saskatchewan based on many years of working with this plan.

And the honourable member says, "Give us figu res" and I say to the honourable the member that he as a business man - and I believe a successful one in his time - knows full well -- (Interjection) -- not on his own ? Well, I'm not aware of the extent of his busine ss ability but the impressi on I had was that he was a succe.ssful business person - knows very well that the volume that one can control and_the reduction in administration itself is and can be substantial, and that is proven by the Saskatchewan plan and there are figures to back it up but you don't have to look at them if you don't want to see .

As the Honourable Minister of Labour said, "There are none so blind as those who will not see ," and I think that that is the impression that is left clearly by the mem bers of the Conservative Party. Now the honourable member asked, will a government scheme give Manitoba cheaper and better insurance ? Well, we do have the statement of Mr. Boldt and of Otto Lang and of the Wootton Commissi on; we have these statements. I have others; I'm prepared to deal with them.

But just doesn't ·it make sense - and now the honourable member says there's no logic in what was said yesterday- doesn't it make sense that if you can cut out the competition, lf you can cut out the duplication in administration, lf you can cut out afl the aspects involved in competition as between the companies in the sales for something which must be purchased and that is the important point which must be purchased, and that is exactly why we say we are not doctrinaire, and the honourable member ay si t down because . . . MR. ENNS: Will the Honourable Minister permit a question ? MR .

CHERNIACK: I will not permit a question at this time -- that it is the point, the compulsion which is promoted by the honourable members on the other side which makes this so unnecessary for competition to be involved , because you have a ready-made market; you have a customer who must buy the product; and therefore competition can only be a question of . service , but competition and service is something I v.1ll deal with when I talk about agents , but when you talk about the compulsory aspects you are now sayl.ng you must buy insurance , and you go further - and this was promoted by the Honourable the Leader of the Official Opposi tion when he spoke about n<rfault effect, of the fact, and he suggested compulsory collisi on at $30 0. 00 deductible , I believ e - he's shaking his head so I'm taking that away. -- (Interject ion) -- Immunity.

Immunity. And the whole problem there is the fact that one can eliminate the cost of double adjusting and all that goes v.1th it, double appraising and all that goes with it, litigation and all that goes with it. And now may I take a moment, Mr.

Speaker, and refer to the poor lawyer , the poor lawyer, of whom it always interests me to know that this party has more lawyers in Cabinet than I be lieve any of the previous governments for some time, which speaks well for the legal profes sio n - the poor lawyer who back in 1926 was cut out of Workmen's Compensation, who now is being cut out of a very lucrative field - and can we admit publicly that it is a lucrative field ? %en one becomes invol ved in litigating accidents, torts , the damages re�:u.lting for torts , and in this province it is legal for lawyers to enter into a contingency arrangement with their cli ents whereby they get a percentl!.ge of the total benefits, where you find that a person injured and who ls awarded damages based on the suffering of that person injured, and every body in the court room knows that that person isn't recei ving the full damage because costs have to be paid to the lawyer, and that kind of litigation is one which I don't believe that the legal professio n is anxious to promote; I do n't believ e the legal professio n is trying to get busin ess and to make money in that way; but the legal professi on has been needed in order to litigate diff erences as to fault and in order to litigate difference s as to extent of damage, and it is well-known - if it isn't I think I can make it known - that it is not uncommon for lawyers to charge 25 percent, 30 percent, 50 percent -- I hear cries of shame.

Yes, but nevertheless, they've been doing it, they've been doing it iegaiiy, because every contingency arrangement carries with it the requirement that the court shall approve of the final settlement and the final fee, and there's been money made by lawyers. And do I now - can it be interpreted that I am now protesting against a public auto insurance bill because my livel ihood may be affected ?

August 6, 1970 42'79 (MR. CHERNIACK cont'd) . . . . . .Well, lt is true that v.hen I return to the practice Of law In 10 ar 15 ar 20 years, I will flDd -- (Interjection) - I cannot promlse my colleagues . . . . MR. GREEN: .The honourable member is surely referring to voluntary retirement. MR.

CHERNIACK: I cannot promlse my colleagues that I am prepared to serve our party and our government for as- long as I live, and since I hope to live more than 10 ar 20 years I look forward to a period of semi-retirement that could well be in the law profession, although when I get back to that profession I wlll find that a part of my livelihood wlll have been affected by the carrying out of this bilL But let's be a little more serious. MR. ENNS: What do the agents have to look forward to when they retire? MR.

CHERNIACK: Now, the agents are people v.ho earn a livelihood out of the sale of auto insurance and they are those who, along with all members of the House, want compul sory Insurance. It's a great thing to be able to sell a package that must be purchased, am we did deal with that, and the fact ls we listened.

Unlike z;ome honourable members on the other side, the members of thls caucus, the members of the Public Utilities Committee who are representative of the caucus of the New Democratic Party can state wlth pride that they ·-we~ there and that they were listening, and they were well aware of v.hat was being said In the 70 hours that went on, and that does not stand up quite as well with some of the members opposite.

Ami they were there v.hen they were called the names that they were called, and they stood by and they were around, and same of them reacted more violently to others and I think no oue can fault the reaction of some of the members of the committee am the disgust which I beJJeve I saw In the eyes, In the faces, in the expressions of some of the members Qf the Opposltlon parties \\hen they heard the references to us In committee.

But we listened and we heard and we knew that we were studying thls very problem; we were studying it in order to try and assess the extent to v.hlch the emotlo_nallsm involved In the presentations exaggerated the claims by the agents- and some were exaggerated and some were straightforward, and we recognized, we all recognized those v.ho spoke with real sincerity and conviction, those v.ho were complimented by members on our side for makiJig a straightforward presentation, and we also recognized on both sides those \\ito Were so carried away as to be able to talk, talk about this government acting like the Nazis in the extermlnatlon of Jews.

That's one of the things I'll never forget. That's one of them. I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I don't recall having faltered in the past; I'll try not to In the future. We were talking about savings and we were talking about the arithmetic of the Honour able Member for River Heights and we were talking about his - dld you notice he said - well, one of the last things he said, "at most $6. 00." The Honourable the Leader of our party said yesterday at least 10 to 12 percent and the honourable member grabbed that figure, 10 percent, he did his arithmetic, he came out with a figure and he said, "at most 10 percent.

" Mr. Speaker, that's typical of his manner of debate; it's his debate style; It's hls privilege to use it.

But \\hen the Honourable the First Leader said that the recognition of dislocation needs of the agents was such as would involve them In the sale of insurance for the CroWn public utility to be operated for auto insurance, he sal!l yes, this might in some way reduce oUr previous estimate of 15 perceJlt to- I thought he. said 12 percent, maybe 12 percent, but I'll give the Honourable Member for River Heights credit, v.hich he knows I don't like to do too much, but I' 11 give him credit for quoting the Honourable First Leader as saying 10 to 12 percent- "at least" - that's what he seems to have ignored.

Let me te 11 you, Mr. Speaker, that all of the sugge stlons made by the honourable the · members on the other side, and by some and very few of the agents and the company represen tatives \\ito appeared before the committee, did include the clear-cut posslblllty of greater reductions, and we've not lgnared those.

Compulsory Insurance, no-fault, collision, .which would. eliminate the need for two adjusters scrapping about v.ho's at fault, because v.hen one company writes a policy- and I've had this experience as a lawyer, maybe others haven't- but I have found as a lawyer that when two vehicles come into colllsion and by the fortunate circumstance that they are both insured by the same company one is able to have a speedy settlement, -an adequate settlement, and for the company an economical settlement. And doesn't that stand to reason am isn't that logic and do we ignore logic?

Do you want statistics, and how can I produce statistics of the occasions \\hen a company happens to have Insured the two adversaries in a colllsion? There, there is the elimination of the adversary aspect that the Honourable the First Leader talked about. There ls the opportwlity for the company to

4280 AugUst 6, 19'70 (MR. CBERNIACK cont'd) . . . . . know' that they're not getting involved into adjusters, each of v.hom: is employed ln order to beat down the cost for his company and build up the cost for the otb.el'; v.here one adjuster honestly makes an appraisal of what the damage was; not whose fault it was- v.hat was the damage?

And then there's no reason to have a couple of la~rs scrapping about who is more at fault, v.bo is 40 percent at fault and Who 60 or who was 50 or whatever, because the one company insiirlng both hasn't the slightest interest at that stage lf there is colllsion; hasn't the slightest interest ln v.ho was at fault, because they know that they are responsible to pay the damages regardless of fault.

These factors are factors which the honourable members on the other side have promoted as being right, and we agree they're right; and they have said it will reduce costs and we have said they wlll reduce costs, and some of the agents and some of the company people who appeared before Public Utllltles afs6 agreed it would reduce cost. · The montes that we are talking about when the Honourable the First Leader was speak Ing, W.s the ·adm.lnistrati ve expense costs· which are automatically reduced by the fact that there's no duplication and that there is one system of operation.

This previous government went 1hrough an exercise of self study' which, I may be corrected, l bellere it cost half a million dollais and I'm not faulting the colrts, in order to study how the administrative aspects of government could be 'improved am cost reduced.

And when'we came into goVei-lilnent we foUDd ready waiting for us a White Paper which had not been distributed but which was available til order to indicate the reductions that could be carried out by having the computer centre used for all departments as it is n:ow being used~ · This previous goverJ1ment recognized the tremendous savings that could t&.ke plaee in consolidating admlnlstratlon, in attempting to in one system look for savings. And they started to carry those out. MR. JACOB M. FROESE (Rhineland): Mr. Speaker, would the H<>nourable Minister table the White Paper you just referred to? MR.

CBERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I wlll not be sidetracked at this stage in the proceed ings. Mr. Speaker, the savings that were talked about by the Honourable the First Leadet were these kinds of admlnlstratlve savings v.bich have been proven out in Saskatchewan. I say there'll be additional savings. And you know, the ludicrous thing about the Honourable Member for River Heights ls that he is suggesting that the blll has to say so. It has to say there wlli. be a saving. I've never seen a bill like that yet, but with hls experience he may have seen such a blll that says, "Section 27·.

There shall be a saving of X percent," and he ls the one who told us today rates are going up next year, and he said rates are going up because labour costs are going up, and he said labour costs are 25 percent of the total package; and, you know, he may be right; So how can he· relate that 12 percent or whatever percent he wants to write into the bill, to what, Mr.

Speaker? ,All we can say ls that there must be a saving, and to produ~ the fignres of what will hap~n neX!,r'ar is someth~,~it we are ~~epa:red to do/~x£ year, JUSt as we present figures ln Hydro, on Telephone, on Workmen's Compensation when we know thEf figures. I notice by the papers that it has been announced that Manitoba Hydro is making money. MR. G. JOHNSTON: When the bill was first introduced in Saskatchewan, is it not a fact · 1hat the regulations were tabled with the bill so members could study the regnlations - and the rates? MR. CBERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I was not there. I honestly don't know. MR. G.

JOHNSTON: Perhaps you should ask the ... MR. CBERNIACK: Well perhaps you should ask him when you niake your next speech. Well, I understand some benefits were lri the bill. I don't know. In the Act were some benefits, rm told 1hat, but Mr. Speaker, I don't know what happened ln Saskatchewan. All I know is that we are firmly convinced, based on- (Interjections) -- dld I say something funny? -- (Inter jection)-- Oh I see. Well now, now we're bandying some words and if the Honourable Member from Souris-Klllarney wants to make a joke of me . . . MR. E NNS: Will you permit a question? MR. CHERNIACK: By all means.

If you want to make a joke of me, go 'ahead.· MR. ENNS: No, I just want to know whether you'll permit a question. \Vell, Mr. Speaker, Is lt not a fact 1hat the experts called in to draw, draft and consult with the gover~ ment and advise the government and the PawleyCommission, all come from Saskatchewan? MR. CBERNIACK: I believe that is not a fact, Mr. SpeakEr, and I don't know the extent to vmich that question has any relevance to the fact that I do know, I am firmly convinced that

August 6, 1970 4281 (MR. CBERNIACK cont'd.) . there Ia bound to be savings in this plan; there ts bouDd. to be - and I say savings in adml.illstratlon, savings in litigation, savings in adjuste.rs. I know. that; this government believes it, and we want the opportunity to prove it. I don't know how I'm doing with time, Mr. Speaker, and I suppose I won't get it ... MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister has five minutes remaining. MR. CBERNIACK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, I don't intend to transgress. There are times v.hen one asks for a few extra mimxtes but not unlimited time, and Mr.

Speaker, I feel it is rather important that we have indicated something which is obvious, and that is we would not bring in this plan until we felt that we had full preparation for it and we have said that we do not conceive that we would bring in the plan earlier, proclaim the blll before June 3oth, 1971. Now we've done that for several reasons. One of them obviously is that we feel we need the authority of thla Legislature in order to be able to make proper preparations for. a proper development of a properly run scheme, and we don't want to rush into it nor, may I say, Mr.

Speaker, did we wish to spend a great deal of money in the preparation, in the study, in the development of the scheme without knowing that we had the support of the Legislature in doing so. And you'll recall that we were criticized about a figure of$100, 000 that was involved in the estimates. Mr. Speaker , we feel that it is necessary to do so.

The other thing we have said is that we would hope to bring in - I don't want to use the word hope - we would plan to bring in the regulations dealing with the type of scheme, spelling them out, with the questions of di~ location by way of regulation so that they could be debated in this Hmse, and they would.be .debated in thls House as was pointed out by the Leader, and we've done that to indicate our faith in the plan but at the same.time our desire to spend the necessary time to develOp the plan. And I say to you, Mr.

Speaker, and I've only dealt with part of what was said by the Honourable Member for River Heights, that there are savings involved. They are clear to me; I believe they are clear to the potential consumer of the product; I think they would be clear to member.s on the other side if they were not blinded by their doctrlnaire approach to the fact that govern- . ment must not enter into such a field. I want to touch only briefly on compensation. We recognize that there are many people in Manitoba who sell insurance as a sort of a sideline.

There are many people who sell insur ance full-time, of whom there are a number who sell a major part of their business in the field of auto insurance, and we have recognized that these people will have a problem 1f we just ellmlnate them completely, but we see a role that they can play. They are people who can contribute to the development and to the good workings of this plan.: So we need them; we think they need us; because their expertise is such that would lend itself to working for the benefit of the people of Manitoba.

And let me now take a mlmxte to mention a discussion I had with one of the agents who appeared before the committee \\ho was one of those that I think everybody recognized was· giving a full and honest portrayal of thls problem, and I asked him what he felt he was accom pllshlng in his work, and he said, "I am satisfying my clients," and I said, ''How many calls do· you get that you feel were unnecessary calls where you're really appeasing the client rather than satisfying them?" He said, ''The vast majority of calls I get are the kind that relate to explalnlng to them the need for delay, to explaining certain aspects of problems that have arisen," and he said, ''but I am keeping them satisfied, and the reason I'm keeping them sa~ fled is that I am thus able to support my wife and my children and to have a decent home." And I said to him, ''Now, wmld y011 not feel that if we had a public auto insurance scheme that you could be doing more by making a greater contribution to providing a service to all Manitobans, including those \\ho don't buy insurance because they are the pedestrians that get hurt?" And he said, ''I've never thought of that aspect." I'm not sayi~ that he said, "By all means I'll come to work for the government" but he said, ''I never thought of that aspect.

I want to consider it. " And I would like us all to consider that, becauAe I believe that we wlll make proper provision, as indeed we must, so that agents whose livelihood, basic livelihood is dependent on the sale of auto insurance will not be mt of work, \\ho wlll be able to contlmxe to do the work they have done with those customers \\ho wish them to continue to do so at a fee relative to the contribution they make.

I wish I had before me the speech of the Honourable the Leader of the Official Opposi tion \\ho quite clearly to me indicated that when it comes to the sale of compulsory insurance for the private industry he feels .there would have to be regulation including a review of the

4282 August 6, i~'io (MR~ CBERNIACK eont'd.) . commissions payable to the agents for that jJortlon of the insurance which they sell which is compulsory. I'm sure those aren't his words but I believe that that ls \\ohat he said in import. And that makes sense~ and it also makes sense to know that you won't have a person working for you \\oho doesn't feel that he is adequately paid for his services.

And I think we want the opportunity to deal on that basis, not on the basis of· name-calling, not on the· basis of an announcement by the Insurance Agents Association - DOt the agents; their Association- rejecting out of hand any proposal that we would have to make or any delineation of our proposal before they saw it, and that's exactly \\ohat :Mr. 'l'iltlock did and he was not speaking for a large number of agents, I am sure. lam· sure that a targe munber of the agents see a role that they can play and wlll want to play it, and all we want is the opPortunity to present it to them and to present to the people of Manitoba, the co& sumer of the article, those aspects Milch we hope to develop over the next number of months so that by June 30th at the earliest we will proelalm the Act and be able to carry out a · utility which will be for the benefit of Manitobans.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. BON. HOWARD R. PAWLEY (Minister of Municipal Affairs)(Seiklrk): Mr. Speaker, there are just a few comments that I would like to make and I feel should be placed on the record· of this House. I think the first area of concern should be that which pertains to insur ing that every motorist on the highway has sufficient financial responslblllty,that that motorist, in the event of an accident, safeguards others that may be injured or may in fact lose their lives due to that motorist's negligence.

I think we all agree in respect to this important principle. I think that ou,r main concern has to be in this House the motorists in the Province of Manitoba. Mter we have accepted that principle, and I think all members in this House have accepted it in general in agreement that there should be the enactment of some form of coinpulsory insurance in the province , then we have to determine what is the form that com pulsory insurance can be best implemented in order to protect those motorists.

And I know that this has been a great problem insofar as every member in this House is concerned because the actions of us today is certainly going to affect in the future the people in the Province of Manitoba, and I think we're all very much concerned, Mr. Speaker, that those actions today be such that when history \\Tltes abOut those actions they will in fact declare them to be righ~ to be human.

In the submission by the Insurance Burean of Canada in October 1969, on Page 13, in Alberta, there was a clear recognition in that submission- and might I say that throughout the years there has been repeated submissions by the insurance industry- that compulsory insurance within the present framework is very questionable.

In Page 13 of that report the Insurance Bureau of Canada had this to say in respect to the experiences in other jurisdictions that imposed compulsory insurance within the private system: "Apparently the spread"·- quoting from their brief- "Apparently the spread of com pulsory insurance to other jurisdictions has been deterred by the admlnlstrative and policing difficulties in costs involved: Government officials in Massachusetts have been trying for years to repeal compulsory insurance and there has been pressure in the same direction in New York.

The cost and expenses to the government of New York has reached millions of dollars per annum. Even so, there's evidence to suggest that the percentage of insured motor ists has actually dropped since the introduction of compulsory insurance." And I think that is the nub of the problem, Mr. Speaker.

I think we are all very very concerned in this House that Mien we introduce a far-ranging policy that that policy be such that will have measured up by the experiences in other jurisdictions, and certainly, as I've mentioned here, the experience in other jurisdictions has not been favourable insofar as compulsory insurance is concerned within the framework of the private insurers. Now the Honourable Member for River Heights would lead us to believe in his speech that the main concern of this government in respect to the introduction of public insurance was savings.

It ls only one of the considerations, and in listening to the Honourable Member for Rlver Heights I could not help but gain the impression that he was suggesting that this gover& ment was only concerned about that aspect. Now I regret if anything that I have said in the past number of weeks or months has led the honourable member to think that the only reason that I have supporte!i public insurance has been because of savings; but leaving this aslde, I do feel that the statistics used by the Honourable Member for River Heights here this afternoon

August 6, 1970 4283 (ME. PAWLEY cont'd.) ..... should be answered, a.nd I know this will be rather dull, Mr. Speaker, because they are going to be statistics, but I feel that at this point it's important for honourable members to decide the direction in which they are going to undertake, that they should have these statistics available to them. First, I would like to take the Manitoba experience.

In 1969 in Manitoba- and these figures from the Superintendent of Insurance, and let me say here as an addendum, especially to the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie, that you cannot establish a proper criteria by picking out one car and one driver in the Province of Manitoba and making some premium comparison with a similar driver and car in the Province of Saskatchewan. The only proper criteria that can be utilized is the one that will determine on each dollar that is invested by the motorist, in his insurance premiums, how much of that dollar is in fact being returned.

It's the only fair and decent way of making a comparison.

In 1969 in the Province of Manitoba, the total amount of premiums written was approxi mately $34 1/2 million; premiums earned were $32 1/2 million; claims incurred a little over $22 million; for a loss ratio last year of 67. 76. 1968, net premiums ea~ned in the province of Manitoba were a little over $29 million; net losses incurred- this again is the value attached to the benefits paid out- was $18.3 million for a loss ratio of 62. 63. 1967, $27.2 million; net losses incurred 17. 8; loss ratio 65. 34; and this is on all the business written in automobile insurance in the province. 1966, $23.7 million; net losses incurred a little over$14 million for a loss ratio of 58.76%.

In 1965, $20. 1 million in net premiums earned; net losses incurred were $12.6 million; percentage of ratio 62. 9. 1964, $17.1 million; net losses incurred $11: 7; ratio 68. 4. 1963, $15. 1, net losses incurred $10.3 million; ratio 68. 22. 1962, $14.4 million premiums earned; net losses incurred $9. 3; loss ratio percentage 64. 92. 1961, a little over $14 million net premiums earned; net losses incurred $8 million; loss ratio return to motorists 57.14. In 1960, net premiums earned $13.8 mlllion; net losses incurred $7.8 million; loss ratio return 57. 27.

Now the Honourable Member for River Heights in his address made a statement that in Saskatchewan, including all the supplementary coverage, the return had only been 76 percent on the dollar. Going back over these figures that I have read out to you, and even if we accept the figures as outlined by the Honourable Member for River Heights, we will find that in no year in the Province of Manitoba, in respect to all the automoblle insurance written in this province, did the loss ratio come near to being 76 percent even if we accepted his figures.

Let us now turn to Saskatchewan, and this is the area that the Honourable Member for River Heights decided to deal with in his address, and let's look at the figures there. I have with me the figures for the past four years in the Province of Saskatchewan, and prior to that the loss ratio was even better. In 1969, the compulsory program in Saskatchewan, the net premiums earned 24. 3; net claims incurred 21. 1; loss ratio 86. 7.

In respect to the supple mentary public automobile insurance supplied by the government, there was a total written in premiums of 3. 8 million; net claims incurred 2. 6; the loss ratio there was 67. 8; and taking the two together last year, the loss ratio was 84. 1.

Now, in 1968 the figure was, the compulsory aspect of the plan, 23.8 million; net claims incurred 19. 1 million; loss ratio 82. 5; adding to it the supplementary coverage that year in Saskatchewan, we looked at 3. 6 million - this is the government supplementary only that I am dealing with, the public total- 3. 6 million; net claims incurred a little over 2 mil lion; loss ratio 57. 3; averaging out to 77. 3. 1967 Saskatchewan, the compulsory insurance net premiums earned 20. 7 million; net claims incurred 17. 3 million; loss ratio percentage 83. 6; the public plan, the supplementary part written by the government was 3. 7 that year; net claims incurred was 2. 1; loss ratio was 57. 5; the average was 79. 6.

In 1966 - this is the last year that I will deal with in this aspect - the compulsory was a little over $17 million; net claims incurred were $15. 7 million; the loss ratio return was 92. 4. Now I pause there, because statements had been made by honourable members that the statement in the report that referred to an arbitrary figure of 13.75 was very questionable.

I, I i I L 4284 (MR. PAWLEY cont'd.) • . . . . The figure that I am givlDg you for 1966 on lo~s.ratio, and in a year in which there was, might I add, in the neighborhood of $50, 000 total profit that year so there was not a loss factor involved in that year, was 92. 4, so when we are speaklDg about a 15 percent admlnlstratlve factor based on Saskatchewan experience, if we had wanted to go back to 1966 and previous before the arbitrary figure was imposed, then we would, in fact, I think in f&l.rness have to acknowledge that the admlnlstrative figure that we have been using has been a very liberal one.

The supplementary insurance. In 1966 the Saskatchewan Government was 3. 2; net claims incurred was 1. 9; the loss ratio percentage was 60. 3; and this averaged out in that year - it was a very good year - taking the two together in Saskatchewan, of 87. 4 before the arbitrary figure was imposed. Now I think that when we are dealing with these figures that we should attempt to restrict ourselves, as closely as we can, to the actual calculations and figures at hand.

I have here before me the figures for the first six months in the state of Puerto Rica, which bears out the administrative cost factor in the Province of Saskatchewan based on the first six months. Their loss ratio was in the same neighborhood. I think, Mr. Speaker, that one of the problems that we have been involvedwith here, is trying to find a solution by which the motorists in the province can receive the benefits of a public plan and at the same time there be as little dislocation and effect. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, on a point of privilege, if the honourable member would permit me, my point of privilege being that several times honourable members, particularly one honourable member, has asked for the figures relating to the proof that the government is presenting, and I would just like the record to show that they are not here, that the members who asked for that information are not here. MR. GlLDAS MOLGAT (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege, because the member who has just spoken, although he is the Leader of the House, had no point of privilege, none whatever.

He may be making an interesting point but it is not a point of privilege. Mr. Speaker, this is a constant action by the Leader of the House, and his being Leader of the House does not give him the privileges of having different rules than other people in the House. He may have had an interesting point but not a point of privilege. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I don't agree with my honourable friend and I rose because I- yes, but you have said that I didn't, I have sald that! dld. That doesn't make you right and me wrong. The Speaker can then make a ruling. I am making the point of privilege ... MR. MOLGAT: Mr.

Speaker, I am getting fed up in this House with having only one man who is right all the time, the Mlnlster of Mines and Natural Resources, he is eternally right. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I really can't apologize if my honourable friend says that I am right all the time. I don't make any such claims . . . MR. MOLGAT: In your mind. MR. GREEN: . . . but if ha claims that, then I wlll have to accept it.

I rose on a point of privilege because the Member for River Heights had repeatedly asked for information, and I wanted to make the point of privilege that the man who asked for the information was not here when it was being given. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, then I think maybe we should have a ruling from the Speaker whether or not that was a point of privilege. MR. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Mr.

Speaker, on the point of privilege that has been raised by the House Leader, there are a sufficient number here to take record of \\bat the Minister of Municipal Affairs is adding at this point, a great deal of \\bich is exactly \\bat was presented before, and I would ask before he is finished that rather than repeat \\bat has been given to us before, that he add in such factors as the cost of carrying credit and other topics that were brought up at Public Utllities. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I believe the Honourable House Leader did raise an interesting point.

The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs may continue. MR. GORDON W. BEARD (Churchill): I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. It is in Hansard- if anybody ever cares to read Hansard and I doubt whether they do. It is on record; you don't have to be in the House to have this. It's on written record. MR. SPEAKER: Order. The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. PAWLEY: Now there are some other interesting developments that I think should

August 6, .1970 4285 (MR. PAWLEY cont'd) ..... also be recorded insofar as the agents are concerned, in respect to the present trends and directions of insurance all across Canada, and I would refer honourable members to Insurance Agents and Brokers in Canada magazine, May issue, and there is quite a large amount of reference in that journal to trends that are now taking place across Canada, and on page 46 of that magaziJJe there is an

article dealing with the $10,000,000 portfolio to be dumped by London and Midland General Insurance Company of London, Ontario a company that has removed itself from the use of the agency force and has gone into direct underwriting, and I would read into the record, Mr. Speaker, a comment by Walter Frain who is the president of the Ontario IIIJIUrance Agents Association in respect to this development. "This dumping of a $10,000,000 portfolio could have serious repercussions is the general feeling of officers and directors of the Ontario Insurance Agents Association. Mr.

O'Brien replied that he does not feel that the Company's action should have serious effect on the market. This remains to be seen. " This is from the

article in the magazine-- (Interjection)-- No, there was no area of compensation to my knowledge involved in respect to this move. I think that it would be fair and I would read from the magazine too. There is a number of references to this development in the agency force and I might say that I think there is geDBral recognition.

I think at times it has been acknowledged in this province by some members of the insurance industry that the trend is towards direct underwriting in respect to insurance, so when we are looking at the question of agents and their livelihood we have to consider the trends that are also in play all across Canada, not just in respect to our attitude and approach in respect to these developing trends in the Province of Manitoba.

In that same magazine on page 11 there is reference to the DeW Brltish Columbia legi& lation and I would read from that article: "The new rate-setting formula for that compulsory minimum portion is apparently going to be 75. 25. This is the ratio that has been established by the British Columbia government. "It seems obvious this move has got to have a direct effect on agents' commissions.

" So there is anticipation and I think honourable members have heard other indications of anticipation from the province of British Columbia that there would be a very substantial interference in respect to the commissions being offered to agents in that province. Now these trends have to be kept in mind with the speech that was presented yesterday by the First Minister.

Unlike the trends that are beglnnlng to occur in other parts of Canada, the agency force is going to be ensured that their basic livelihood is protected, and, in the Honourable First Minister's words, "to the extent of 75 percent during the first year." There is no assurance, Mr. Speaker, offered by any of the other insurance companies in respect to the trends all across Canada, and let me say to you, Mr.

Speaker, that if an alternative program was accepted to reduce insurance costs in the Province of Manitoba, something in the neighborhood of 75 to 25, the agents in the Province of Manitoba would undoubtedly, just as they are beglnnlng to realize in the Province of B. C., find themselves faced with a substan: tialslashand a reduction in respect to their premiums, and thls would be a situation that would develop, not because of public insurance, but because of the trend v.hich is beginning to develop in the industry all across the North American continent.

And unlike \\hat some members feel and say, and the harshJJess that some members feel towards members of this government at least there is recognition on the part of this govern ment that if we do proceed with a public plan in view of these trends, that there should be maintenance in respect to the income to a reasonable standard.

A number of other -- and I'm not going to repeat statements because I think that the Minister of Finance dealt with these points, but the most important thing insofar as I am con cerned in respect to the proposing of this legislation, and I do wish that the honourable mem bers would some time along the way of debate on this legislation deal with this, because v.e have heard constant references to savings as though that was the only reason for us introducf.Dg this legislation, or to the plight of the agent or of industry or of investment, that somewhere along the line we would hear some emphasis in respe~t to the human quality, because Mr.

Speaker, my concern for seeing to it that this bill is passed in this House ls because I am concerned about the victims and the agony and the pain of the victims of automobile insurance accidents on the highway. That's my important concern and worry, that we do something substantial in this regard. I'm concerned that thls action be doJJe quickly. You know, Mr. Speaker, it's easy to

L_ 4286 August 8, l&fO (MR. PAWLEY cont'd) . . . . . say hoist it; have further study; have a fur1her six months' study or one year's study; but Mr. Speaker, how many people- and I hope I don't sound dogmatic or doctrinaire as I've been accused in this regard- but how inany people, how many motorists to be Involved in accidents over the next number of months will suffer because we should have determined, because of pressures or because of other influences, to holst or to postpone this blll? And I know, Mr.

Speaker, this would be, I suppose, the smart thing maybe to do politically, to get ourselves out of a tough political issue in the province, I suppose this would be the easy road to follow, but I think that our first duty in this House is not to take the easy polltlcal way out; our first duty is to people; and Mr. Speaker, I'm saylng this with all the sincerity that I can muster. MR. BILTON: You have no monopoly. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to_ assure the Honourable Member for Swan River that I've never suggested that anybody has a monopoly on concern for human beings in this Hw.se. and I'm saying this because I feel that honourable members across the way are just as concerned about this problem as I am, and I feel that It may be still possible that they wlll respond to the question of the human aspect in this matter because I do feel that they are just as concerned, and I know some of them are very much concerned about the motorist and place this as the lDlmber one priority in their concern.

Many of the members have mentioned this ln their addresses, but I feel that it is very important at this point in the debate that we refocus our attention to those that are injured or those who have dear ones left them_ because of accidents on the highways and may be facing undue cost factors, undue litigation, undue settle ment of claims, and I don't have to go into detall in respect to this because these areas of inequities in respect to the settlement of claims is very well researched and dealt with !n the Wootton Commission report. I think It's important that we have no-fault insurance now, Mr.

Speaker, and I know honourable members wlll say, well, go ahead with no-fault insurance but dump- the rest of the bill. But I'm afraid at this polnt, Mr. Speaker, it is not feasible to do that type of thing. It's not wise or humane to postpone this type of legislation over the next few months. It would probably be longer than a few months; it would probably Involve our selves ln several years of delay. I think any of us that have been involved in the settlement of these claims realize just how important and how serious a matter this is at the present time in the Province of Manitoba.

A number of other comments have been made and I just want to very briefly deal with some statements that were made ln respect to my committee, and you know, Mr. Speaker, I hesitated to get involved ln harshness of debate in respect to committee; the commlt18e's been accused of being a kangaroo court many times in this House. It's been criticized very sharply and I never felt that the important thing in this House was to get involved in a defensive debate 1n respect to this committee because I felt that generally we all wanted to get to the same object and why get involved in side issues.

But there are two items that I feel should be made straight for the record. There has been constant statement that some people only were invited to appear before the committee; others were ignored or not given the opportunity to appear, and some agents that appeared before Public Utilities Commit18e - I can think of one or tWo - made the state ment they had supplied submissions and were not called to the committee Last fall to deal with their mat18r. This isn't true, Mr. Speaker.

The original notice invited SU.bmisslons to be presented to the commit18e and the committee was basically a committee that was established to study, to involve itself in a detailed analysis of the present insurance field ln Manitoba, to, among other things, to study the feasibillty of a public plan. We received communications, Mr. Speaker- and I say "communications"- I want to make it very clear that those communications were of different sorts, and I'm not going to be naive enough to suggest that all these communi cations were spontaneous.

Some of the communications simply stated ''I'm opposed to govern- ment Insurance".

Other communications said 1'1 favour government insurance," so I think that all of us 1n this House, being reasonable people, cannot help but obwarve that much of this communication was of an organized nature in respect to those that either support or oppose the public lnsut"ance scheme, and there's nothing wrong with that because that's part of the democratic process; but would honourable members suggest that 2,920 people, each of whom had sent in a communication one way or another, often with a few sentences or words attached to their submissions, that it would have been feasible to have invited each and every one of those members to the commit18e?

Auguat 6, 19'1 0 4287 (MR. PAWLEY cont'd.) I feel, Mr. Speaker, and I make no apology for it, that the groups that were invited tQ appear before the committee were representative, and all you need do is refer to the back of the report and go over the names of those appearing and the preponderance of submissions that were invited to appear were by insurance agents and insurance companies, and I suppose, Kr.

Speaker, if we wanted to be biased in this political - as honourable members have suggested 1hat I was, and others in that committee- I suppose the political thing would have been to have insisted that each of the 2, 900 and some people come before the committee to give whatever ' tale of woe or grief they might have in respect to automobile insurance in the province. That could have been done. Well, we would have been still sitting, Mr. Speaker, in committee dealing with each of these individual briefs. In fact, the Business Journal of Manitoba wrote an

article shortly after the committee hearings were completed and, despite their critlclsms of the committee's public insurance, they did acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, that the committee had been more than fair in its attempt to give the industry an opportunity to be heard. In ·fact~ Mr. Vannan, the head of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, before the Public Utlllties Committee acknowledged that he had flown in from Toronto his solicitor, hls actuary- in fact, if I recall. correctly, not only the solicitor from Toronto, Mr.

Piper, but also a lawyer from the City of Wlnnlpeg- and they appeared before the committee and there was a seven-hour period of involvement with these gentlemen, and it was a worthwhile involvement, Mr. Speaker. - (In terjection) -- Well, I don't know lf the honourable member feels that seven weeks would have got better results; that's a matter of oplnlon. Many, many hours were also spent with other members of the industry- agents, lnsur- ' ance associations, the Wawanesa Mutual Insurance, Co-op Insurance Service, all the other companies. There was lengthy involvement.

Now, you know, some members have said, well, --and members coming before the committee have said, "We object to the fact that we didn't read our briefs before the committee. Well, you know, Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that more was gained from receiving the brief, and I think more would have been gained from Public Utlllties Committee, quite frankly, if we · had had that brief of each person a couple of days before they came to the committee, read it ourselves, decided what questions we wanted to ask and had a proper dialogue there and then with the people that were coming to the committee.

There would have been better preparation, there would have been better involvement with question and answer, and Mr. Speaker, the dialogue that took place with the Automobile Insurance Committee last fall was a detailed d~ logue and I have given to the Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party, I believe he has it, and the Honourable Member for River Heights, copies of the transcripts of the various inter views that took place with industry, citizens and other organizations, and they were detailed and it involved -- (Interjection) - Well, yes, I don't see any reason I should be rlgld . . MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, I'll give my copy to the Member for Rhineland because I have no time to read it; I got it three days ago. MR. PAWLEY: Well, I would be prepared to give the honourable member a copy of it. I would hope that the House Leader of the Liberal Party would wish to - and I know the time is short- but would wish to spend a little time reading some of the transcripts; he need not read them all but there are some that I'm sure he would appreciate reading. So that I will see to it that the Honourable Member for Rhineland does receive this. I say this because, Mr.

Speaker, because I do not want to inject- because I've sat here over the weeks and I've heard these accusations levelled repeatedly, I have refrained ac

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-2-165
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 2nd hansardpdf 165.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e93ad18c5253161db69a4e7c6242089678dcd7b6

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