LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Friday, December 11,
1992
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Lisa Fournier, Michael Dyck, Tom Fagan and others urging the government of
Mr. Speaker: I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for The Maples (Mr.
Cheema). It complies with the privileges
and the practices of the House and complies with the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
The petition of the undersigned
residents of the
WHEREAS the principles of health
care, namely the universality and comprehensiveness, should apply to the
Pharmacare program; and
WHEREAS the Pharmacare program's
effectiveness is being eroded; and
WHEREAS in the most recent round of
delisting of pharmaceuticals, approximately 200 have been delisted by the
government of
WHEREAS the strict submission
deadline for Pharmacare receipts does not take into consideration extenuating
circumstances which may have affected some people; and
WHEREAS pharmaceutical refunds often
take six weeks to reach people; and
WHEREAS a health "smart
card" would provide information to reduce the risk of ordering drugs which
interact or are ineffective, could eliminate "double prescribing,"
and could also be used to purchase pharmaceuticals on the Pharmacare program,
thereby easing the cash burden on purchasers.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly
pray that the Legislative Assembly urge the government of
* * *
I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable Leader of the second opposition party (Mrs. Carstairs). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
To the Legislature of the
WHEREAS each year smoke from stubble
burning descends upon the
WHEREAS the Parents Support Group of
Children with Asthma has long criticized the harmful effects of stubble
burning; and
WHEREAS the smoke caused from
stubble burning is not healthy for the general public and tends to aggravate
the problems of asthma sufferers and people with chronic lung problems; and
WHEREAS alternative practices to
stubble burning are necessitated by the fact that the smoke can place some
people in life‑threatening situations; and
WHEREAS the 1987 Clean Environment
Commission Report on Public Hearings, "Investigation of Smoke Problems
from Agriculture Crop Residue and Peatland Burning," contained the recommendation
that a review of the crop residue burning situation be conducted in five years'
time, including a re‑examination of the necessity for legislated
regulatory control.
THEREFORE your petitioners humbly
pray that the Legislative Assembly will urge the government of
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. James Downey (Minister responsible for the
Mr. Speaker, I am, as well, pleased
to table A Benchmark Report for
* (1005)
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the 1991‑92
Annual Report of the Farm Lands Ownership Board.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the Second and
Third Quarterly Reports of the Manitoba Telephone System.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and
Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, I have a statement for the House today.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise
today to inform the House of a very important announcement which I will be
making this afternoon.
Over the past few years, we have
added another very important tradition, our antidrinking‑and‑driving
campaign. This afternoon I will be joined
by members of Citizens Against Impaired Driving, Teens Against Drinking and
Driving, the RCMP and the Winnipeg Police Department in the launch of our
yellow ribbon campaign.
These yellow ribbons serve as a
visible reminder of our commitment not to drink and drive. My office will be distributing ribbons to
each of the caucus offices this afternoon.
I ask honourable members of the Legislature and all Manitobans to join
us in tying these ribbons on their car door handles, antennas, anywhere they
might be seen.
The message is clear: If you drink, do not drive. That message is getting through to
Manitobans.
From the statistics gathered over
the past few years, we are seeing a gradual decrease in the number of drinking
and driving incidents. Our tough
drinking‑and‑driving legislation, the toughest in the country, and
the efforts of such groups as CAID and TADD to educate
Drunk drivers kill and hurt innocent
people. We must continue to work hard to
deliver the message that drinking and driving is wrong and very dangerous.
Thank you.
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the minister,
and I am sure all members of the House in commenting on this issue,
particularly as we move into the festive season, when there has in the past and
unfortunately there will continue to be a tendency on the part of some people
to perhaps overindulge and engage in driving.
I am very pleased that the minister
is moving towards association and co‑ordination between all agencies and
all groups to attack this very, very serious problem.
None of us in this Chamber will rest
until‑‑we will continue to do our duty and continue to look for new
and innovative ways of approaching this problem. There are changes that can be made. I am sure the minister has had representation
made to him, as well as representation has been made to myself by some of the
organizations for some additional improvements in legislation in the area to
prevent the continuation of any undue tragedies from occurring.
We support all initiatives in order
to prevent drinking and driving. If this
effort and any efforts that we engage in can prevent one tragedy this season
and over the next year, we are in full support of it.
* (1010)
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my caucus to
also thank the government for this announcement today.
I am delighted that the ribbons are
going to be yellow this year, because I think that it is significant that they
not be perceived to be a decoration, but that they are perceived to be giving a
very clear message about the effects of drinking and driving.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased also that
the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) has begun a
policy within the sale of alcohol and the liquor stores to warn people of the
dangers of alcohol for pregnant women.
Those signs, which have recently been distributed, are also giving a
clear message that not only does alcohol kill, when it can be a factor in an
accident, but it also can damage fetuses in ways that we still do not know the
full magnitude of.
I have to say that I am very
disappointed that the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) did not pick up on the
same positive venture of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and not
promote the publication on all bottles of alcohol of the concerns that many of
us have about drinking while pregnant that could have easily been brought to
everybody's attention by printing that, quite frankly, on liquor bottles
throughout the country.
The national Minister of Health has
indicated that they have not done it, because they did not have the support of
provincial Health ministers in this nation, and that indeed is a tragedy.
I am glad to see that two out of
three of the ministers of this Crown are working in positive ways about alcohol
and its effect on our society, and I hope that the Minister of Health will
learn from them.
* * *
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism): Mr.
Speaker, I have a ministerial statement.
On July 16, 1991, I outlined to the
House six conditions that this government indicated must be satisfied before we
would support the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Since October 7 of this year, when
NAFTA was officially initialled by the federal government, we have continued
our analysis of NAFTA and resumed our consultations across the province to
access how, in the view of Manitobans, the final agreement will impact on
businesses and workers in
Our consultations with
representatives of various economic sectors in the province revealed that many
groups favour
Other sectors such as the clothing
manufacturers told us that specific, complementary action was needed for them
to remain competitive in the face of new competition from
Some industries, notably energy and
electronics, did not expect NAFTA to affect them in a major way but predicted
negative impacts if
Representatives of labour and
environmental groups told us of their concerns that NAFTA may serve to lower labour
and environmental standards in
I would like now to review
* (1015)
The first condition was
The Auto Pact is intact and
Regarding textiles and clothing,
NAFTA has tightened the FTA rules of origin to ensure substantial clothing
manufacturing is done within
In addition,
Federal Finance Minister Don
Mazankowski announced last week that
NAFTA will also reflect changes to
As
With new rules established in NAFTA
for trade in textiles and clothing, it is clear that
We called upon the federal
government to join in any parallel talks on labour or other issues. It has done so and, after bilateral
discussions with
We will continue to urge the federal
government to press for an additional agreement in this area with the new
Third,
The agreement provides that the
terms of certain international environmental treaties would override NAFTA
obligations. As well, it allows dispute
settlement panels to set up scientific review boards to consider certain
environmental issues and make public these boards' findings along with the
panel's report.
But, despite the significant
advances that these provisions represent, our government believes that these
provisions are meaningless without proper enforcement of environmental
standards. We need an additional
agreement with
As our fourth condition,
In the key area of training, federal
financial commitments to
*
(1020)
Our fifth condition stressed the
need for consistent federal policies to reinforce the efforts and needs of
We believe these monetary conditions,
combined with the changes that
Our sixth and final condition was
that the federal government involve the provinces in setting objectives for
these negotiations and in the actual negotiations themselves. To date, we feel the federal government has
done a good job in this area. Federal Trade Minister Michael Wilson and his
officials kept provinces fully apprised of the issues under discussion and
provided for our input to
In short, the federal government has
met this condition. However,
Next Thursday, December 17, Prime
Minister Mulroney intends to sign the North American Free Trade Agreement in
*
(1025)
So we will continue to work with the
federal government to address the areas that concern us. We will press for further negotiations
leading to separate trilateral agreements to ensure adequate enforcement of
labour and environmental standards. In
addition, we will continue to urge the federal government to commit greater
resources towards the training of Manitobans so we can acquire and develop the
skills needed to prosper under trade liberalization.
Moreover, we will insist that these
issues be addressed before
At this time, I would like to table
a more detailed analysis of these issues in a
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the ministerial
statement on the proposed NAFTA agreement.
I believe it was August of 1992 when
the minister promised that after three weeks of consultation he would make the
position known of the provincial Conservative government on the Conservative
trade agreement with George Bush and President Salinas.
Of course, we now have this belated
position. I know
There are Premiers right across this
country, Premiers who have been taking positions on NAFTA about whether it is
good or bad for their work force, for their children, for their industries over
the last three months. Of course, this
Premier has refused to answer any questions in the House on this issue. I guess
this is part of the public relations strategy of the government. It was the Premier who gave us the initial
promise that he was opposed to NAFTA and, of course, the Premier has not
answered questions on this issue week after week. He has left it to his minister.
Mr. Speaker, the government some
time ago stated that their six conditions were "a bottom line," and
we have watched them try to change that so-called bottom line through their
deliberations and their ideological relationship with the federal Conservative
government over the last three or four months.
I would have expected a much
stronger statement from the minister here today because, if he looked at his
own so-called bottom line, almost all six conditions have been breached with
the proposed NAFTA agreement.
In fact, the only one that I will
have to take the minister's word for is the great relationship he had with
Michael Wilson in the input of these negotiations. I assume that that is correct, that he and
Michael Wilson had a good relationship in discussing this issue and we accept
that as one of the six conditions, but if one looks at all the other conditions
that are the so‑called bottom lines, where is the beef? Where is the substance?
The word "jobs" is not
even used, Mr. Speaker, in the statement from the government in terms of what
it means for
The apparel industry‑‑and
we raised this question in the House to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and then later
to the minister responsible on the triple transformation clause in the NAFTA
agreement.
It was clear to us from workers,
from owners of business, from people in the industry that some 35 percent of
the jobs in the apparel industry of
So why this province is the last one
out commenting on that issue is beyond me.
I mean, the parliamentary committee was here last week. It has come and gone. The minister did not present
The overriding legislation in
Parliament passed in 1989 says that all international trade agreements, when
they are in conflict with laws of Parliament, the international trade agreement
will take precedence.
So, to watch the Minister of Health
feign indignation last week about generic drugs when it was initialled off in
Dealing with labour standards, Mr.
Speaker, again no reference to jobs in terms of the manufacturing sector.
* (1030)
Dealing with the environment, here
again wishy‑washy comments from the wishy‑washy government opposite
in terms of this issue.
Mr. Speaker,
In terms of the adjustment
strategies, we have some wishy‑washy statements from the provincial
government again. The federal
Conservative government has decimated the labour training and labour adjustment
provisions in
Mr. Speaker, we believe that this
agreement clearly should not be signed on behalf of
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I note that the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) just called across the floor, this is a recorded announcement. It seems that there are recorded
announcements on both sides.
I would like to ask the Premier and
the government some very simple questions.
The first one is: How many times
do you have to get kicked in the head before you realize you are being hurt?
Mr. Speaker, the first condition this government laid out was that the FTA not
be altered, and they offer some solace‑‑at least to their own
feelings‑‑that this has been achieved in the NAFTA.
Let us just stop and look at what
has happened to date, Mr. Speaker. Prior
to 1985, the OECD set up an industrial production index for the G‑7
countries. They standardized it in 1985,
and in 1985, 1986, 1987 and in 1988,
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the FTA
has failed
What I do not understand is why this
government is rushing to support Brian Mulroney in signing this agreement when,
in another six weeks or so, we are going to have a president in the
In the area of training‑‑remember
training. Remember that the federal
government with the FTA said: Do not
worry about the labour force adjustment; we will take care of that. They delivered nothing, so that all of the
objective experience of the government of
So my question is: Why are they not standing up and screaming and
insisting that our federal government not sign this agreement, that we wait
until we get a new administration in the
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker:
Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable
members to the gallery, where we have with us this morning from the
On behalf of all members, I would
like to welcome you here this morning.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
North American Free
Trade Agreement
Employment Creation
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.
The Premier in 1990 took a
definitive position, an unequivocal position on the proposed NAFTA
agreement. The Premier has also taken
positions in this House before on the benefits of free trade with the
Mr. Speaker, can the Premier
indicate today: How many jobs does their
empirical study indicate will be created or lost with the proposed NAFTA
agreement?
We see some general analysis in this
agreement, but we do not see a sector‑by‑sector tally, and we do
not see the "empirical" study that the Premier allegedly had when he
agreed to the Mulroney‑Bush trade agreement of 1989.
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism): Mr.
Speaker, in terms of the impact on
In terms of empirical data, there is
not, to the best of my knowledge, a province that has any defined empirical
data on job creation or job losses. Even
the federal government's analysis is on a broad, sectoral basis.
So without empirical data available
from any available sources, Mr. Speaker, we did the best thing possible. We went right to Manitobans and talked to
individual businesses, individual workers and people who have to live with any
NAFTA to find out from them what the impact is.
I have already outlined some of the
areas of Sector C opportunities that I outlined in my ministerial statement,
some of the areas that do have some concerns.
That is why we came out with a position.
I should clarify for the member from
Osborne (Mr. Alcock) that we oppose NAFTA, that at least a minimum of three of
our six conditions have not been met.
One of the most fundamental of those is a proper adjustment assistant
system to meet the needs of any workers that might be negatively affected.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, one would have assumed with the
empirical work one did to go in and support the Canada‑U.S. Trade
Agreement with the 12,000 to 15,000 jobs that the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
highlighted in his ideological support of the Mulroney government that their
trade agreement would have been a product that we would have seen in this House
today. Given you were the last province
out, we would have expected some specific numbers in terms of jobs and
opportunities in
North American Free
Trade Agreement
Government Position
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I have a second question to the Premier.
Last week, the Premier met with the
Prime Minister on a number of "federal‑provincial" issues. Given the fact that the province today has
said, and I am sure they had this analysis long ago, that they are opposed to
the NAFTA agreement as it presently stands, what did the Premier say to the
Prime Minister about this? It was
missing from his list of items that he released to the media on federal‑provincial
discussions. What did he say to the
Prime Minister?
How is he going to oppose the
existing proposal of NAFTA so that all the alleged six conditions can be met?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I was very public about the
issues that were raised. We were in the
process of putting together the official response of the government of
Mr. Doer: Mr.
Speaker, I assume from that answer that the Premier did not raise it with the
Prime Minister, so this so‑called opposition to some of the conditions
that were not met were just really again public relations statements by this
government.
Point of Order
Mr. Filmon: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer)
obviously did not understand what I said.
I said that our official position is put forward in a letter‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. Is the honourable
the First Minister up on a point of order?
Okay.
Mr. Doer: The Premier is not the dictator of this
Chamber yet. If he is going to rise on a point of order he should point out to
the Speaker it is a point of order. He
should not just assume he is the only one in this House who does not have to
follow the rules of all democratically elected members of this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. On the point of
order raised, I was trying to ascertain whether indeed he was up on a point of
order.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Now, the honourable Leader of the Opposition,
with his question.
* (1040)
Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry the Premier is so touchy about his
relationship with the Prime Minister.
North American Free
Trade Agreement
Textile Industry
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): When we meet with the textile workers and
indeed when we talk to owners of companies in the apparel industry of
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and
Attorney General): You
are just trying to cheer them up, right?
Mr. Doer: You guys certainly are not. What are you doing? You know there are 7,000 people working in
the textile industry and we get cheap shots from the Minister of Justice across
the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a
question of the Premier (Mr. Filmon), if I might, on behalf of the 7,000
textile workers.
There are 7,000 people working in
the textile industry in
I would like to ask the Premier
directly: Are the workers in the apparel
industry in
Is this industry safe with this
proposed NAFTA agreement? What are you going to do about getting the changes
that you say are the absolute bottom line or opposing fully this NAFTA
agreement, because it can put thousands of clothing workers out of work in the
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism): I would encourage the honourable Leader of
the Opposition to read his question on Monday.
He seems not to be able to understand the difference between the textile
industry and the apparel industry. He
interchanges the word. He refers to job
losses in the textile industry. He shows
his lack of understanding of the issue that is before
We are talking about the importance
to the apparel industry in
They also talked about issues such
as research and development and employee assistance and adjustment, which we
are working on with the conditions that we have put forth here today.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly encourage
the honourable Leader to clearly get a grasp of that issue, because he
obviously confuses it and does not understand the difference between the
sectors, and the ultimate hypocrisy, he sits across the way and he talks about
ideology‑‑a group of people who are not prepared to look at any
trade agreement on balance in terms of what is good for Manitoba, what we
should be addressing, what we should not be‑‑pure, blind ideology
across the way on this particular issue.
We look at it in the total context.
North American Free
Trade Agreement
Labour Standards
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): The only ones who are blind are this
government who waited so long, Mr. Speaker, till it is too late on NAFTA to be
able to fight for the people of
I want to specifically focus in, in
terms of labour adjustment, Mr. Speaker, because while the federal government
has been very clear in its intentions of pushing through the NAFTA deal, it has
been very obvious to anyone that one of the major flaws with NAFTA is indeed in
terms of labour standards and labour adjustment.
I want to ask the Premier directly,
since we have this recent new innovation of the Premier's, this weekly sort of
World Wrestling Federation, the Premier against the Prime Minister‑‑I
want to ask him when he first raised the question of labour standards with the
Prime Minister and specifically what he asked the Prime Minister in terms of
labour standards in the context of NAFTA.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows full well,
we put forward the issue of labour standards as one of our six conditions that
must be met as part of the evaluation of NAFTA, and that goes back now more
than a year.
Mr. Ashton:
Mr. Speaker, I asked the Premier, in terms of his contacts with the
Prime Minister, and I would like to ask him again, not only when he raised this
matter but specifically what the Premier has done in terms of this condition.
We almost have the NAFTA deal as a
fait accompli. It is simply not good
enough now. Only a few months to go in
terms of the NAFTA being put in place by these governments, for the Premier now
saying‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Mr. Filmon:
Mr. Speaker, if the member for Thompson cannot ask his question
correctly and when he asks the question cannot remember what he asked, that
should not be a problem that I have to deal with. He should get his act together before he asks
the question.
Mr. Speaker, I answered very
specifically. That issue was raised a
year ago‑‑more than a year ago when we put forward the six conditions. Those six conditions were discussed at First
Ministers' meetings on the economy during the past year in which we had
discussions about NAFTA among other issues, and those issues were indeed raised
and put before the federal government and the Prime Minister.
Labour Adjustment
Strategy
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): My final question, Mr. Speaker, once again to
the Premier is: How can anyone believe
this government on labour adjustment, and how does the Premier expect anyone to
believe that anybody can trust this government, when in this document it says
that the government of Manitoba's own adjustment mechanisms are adequate, when
we know this government has been cutting back in terms of labour force training
adjustments in this province? How can
anyone believe‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the reality is that this
government has demonstrated by its actions, not by empty, foolish rhetoric, as
the opposition party puts forward, that it keeps its commitments.
Manitobans look to us for keeping
our commitments. That is why when we
indicated that we would not raise personal income taxes that we have kept that
commitment. In fact, we have gone beyond
that. We lowered the personal income tax
rate by 2 percent in this province.
As the New Democrats did, we did not
raise corporate taxes, we did not raise the sales tax, and we have not raised
personal.
Those are the kinds of commitments
that we make. Those are the kinds of
commitments we keep.
Social Assistance
Recipients
Child-Tax Benefit
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, earlier in the week, when I
asked the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) about the impact that
would be imposed by this government on the federal proposed child tax benefit,
which comes into effect on January 1, the minister replied that he was getting
additional information from the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, not only has the
National Welfare Council done a report which indicates that there will not be
one single penny more received by social assistance recipients as a result of
this agreement, but so too has the Caledon Institute of Social Policy indicated
that social assistance recipients will receive not one single penny more.
Can the minister tell the House
today what information he has from the federal government which would lead him
to believe that social assistance recipients are going to receive more money as
a result of this change in the federal system?
* (1050)
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family
Services): Mr. Speaker, when the member raised this
issue before, I indicated that we were still in discussion with the federal
government on a new program and that we were still at the stage where we were
analyzing some of the information that was coming forward.
The answer is the same today. Before we make a decision, we want to be able
to make an informed decision and have all of the factors before us, and we will
be making that decision in due course.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, since it is clear that there is
no additional money for social assistance recipients as a result of this
program, what is the minister considering, other than a cut to social
assistance recipients?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, the child tax benefit is a new
way of the federal government doing business with individual families.
Across this country and in every
province, every provincial government is faced with the task of analyzing this
new program to see how it impacts on the citizens of that province and, at this
time, we are still at the stage where we are analyzing these data.
I am sure that the member would want
us to make an informed decision and to take a thorough look at this new
program.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the analysis has been done, and
the analysis shows very clearly that there is no additional money to be
received by social assistance recipients.
Is it this government's decision
that they are going to take the leadership of
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, certainly groups outside of
government are doing their own analysis of this new child tax benefit. I have met with a number of groups within
The government of
Labour Force Development
Government Strategy
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): My question is for the Minister of Education.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier has assured
us in recent speeches that this government is preparing for and coping with
change, but the only evidence of labour force planning from this government is
to be found in their employment projections for the decade 1990 to 2000, which
predicts an 8.3 percent growth in employment.
In the two years since the last
election, Manitobans have seen a 4.5 percent decline in employment and a labour
force decline of 2.2 percent, which translates as 12,000 fewer Manitobans
looking for work.
I want to ask the minister: Given this trend as we enter 1993, will the
minister table her revised labour force predictions and explain how she is
preparing for and coping with this change?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, I think the member should be
well aware of the fact that there have been difficulties across Canada in terms
of employment, but Manitoba has been working very hard in terms of its labour
force strategy to assist Manitobans, and I can tell the member that one of the
very important parts of our strategy is for Education and Training to work very
closely with my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) in terms of
labour and apprenticeship, with colleagues in government in terms of developing
a labour force strategy most appropriate and collaboratively in government for
Manitobans.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Education then tell the House what
plans she has in place to retrain the thousands of workers from the 11 specific
industries which Statistics Canada predicts will face substantial decline in
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.
Speaker, again our plans in the Department of Education and Training and as a
government are collaborative plans, and we are working through a number of
methods available to us.
One of those methods is through our
community colleges. Our community colleges
as they move to governance are being much more able to be responsive to the
regional needs. In fact, there are
currently programs in place that are dealing very specifically with agriculture
and with telecommunications, and I point to
Ms. Friesen:
Will the minister explain why, in the absence of her inability to
present any plans for labour force training in Manitoba, she specifically
omitted the education and equity groups from her so‑called made‑in‑Manitoba,
so‑called co‑operative approach to labour force development
boards? How does she expect to develop a
training plan in
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Speaker, by way of example, I wanted the member to know that there
is co‑operation within government.
We also tell her there is most certainly co‑operation within the
community and with discussion with Manitobans.
Personally, I have had discussion with many of the equity groups in
I will point specifically to
programs: the programs of New Careers,
sponsored through Education and Training, which very specifically look at some
of the Manitobans who have found it difficult to engage in training programs in
the past; college programs in Education and Training; and the co‑operation
of our business and industry and labour through Workforce 2000.
Sunday Shopping Impact
Small Business
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, this government is continually
asking Manitobans to read between the lines when it makes public announcements,
whether it is on NAFTA or rural economic development. A number of groups in
My question is to the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism. Today he
acknowledged that there was no objective study of the impacts of NAFTA, no
empirical evidence.
My question is: Will the minister now commit the government
of Manitoba to doing an empirical study on the impact of Sunday shopping on
small businesses and rural communities in Manitoba so that we know how many
jobs we are going to lose, how many communities are going to be closing or
reducing, losing population as a result of this initiative?
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism): Mr.
Speaker, I indicated in the House the other day when we introduced this
particular piece of legislation and obviously during this trial period‑‑and
I want to make it perfectly clear for the honourable member for Flin Flon that
this is a trial period, and it will provide us with the opportunity to assess
all aspects of Sunday shopping in terms of Manitoba's economy, the economic
impact in terms of the reaction of consumers and individual Manitobans, not
dissimilar from what other provinces have done.
The
Clearly, it is a reasonable way to
assess, because the polling that we have done indicates that the concern that
he expresses about rural Manitobans, the polling that has been done is that 97
percent of rural Manitobans suggest that they will do the same or more shopping
in their own community as they currently do.
A trial period will determine a lot
of that but, clearly, I have the confidence that rural Manitobans will continue
to support their communities as they have in the past and will do so in the
future, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking for polling
information. If the government wants to
run the province by polling, they are entitled to do that. I am asking for empirical evidence, as is the
Manitoba Chamber of Commerce and many others.
Sunday Shopping
Rural Development
Institute Study
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, my subsequent question is to the
Minister of Rural Development.
On Wednesday, I met with the Rural
Development Institute, which is attached to
My question is: Will the Minister of Rural Development
provide the Rural Development Institute with the necessary funds to carry out
the objective studies that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.
Stefanson) now said are going to happen? Will he give this independent body the
resources to do the study that we need to have to know how many jobs are going
to be lost in rural
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, the Rural Development Institute
at
Let me say that the projects that
the Rural Development Institute carries out are ones which come to them from communities
and ones which they feel are important for them to work on in the benefit of
rural
It is not an institution whereby we
dictate exactly what kinds of research need to be done by the Rural Development
Institute, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Storie:
That is the lamest answer I have ever heard in this House.
Mr. Speaker, my further question is
to the Minister of Rural Development.
Will the minister undertake to
contract with the Rural Development Institute to do the necessary studies? Will the minister use some of the millions of
dollars additional revenue that is flowing out of rural Manitoba because of the
video lottery terminals to invest that money in contracting the Rural
Development Institute to study in an independent way the impact of this
senseless and foolish initiative called Sunday shopping?
* (1100)
Mr. Derkach:
Well, Mr. Speaker, now the member for Flin Flon suggests that, without
tender, we should be contracting with somebody and just dictating that they do
a particular study. That is not the approach this government takes.
We have embarked on an initiative
which is going to be a trial one. During
that trial period, indeed, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism will be
keeping a careful eye, as will our government‑‑indeed, as Rural
Development minister, I will be keeping a careful eye on what this trial period
is going to result in.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that to
date, if you walk into the stores, there are many people who are shopping on
Sunday, and they are finding it a very positive experience.
Medicare
Eye Examinations
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Health.
Mr. Speaker, the government has
departed from its own reform action plan when it decided to cut medical
coverage for eye examinations from one per year to one exam every two
years. That is as of January 1 of 1993.
Mr. Speaker, eye‑‑[interjection]
They have not heard the full question yet.
Eye examinations are good
preventative care. They are especially
important for those under the age 19 and over the age of 64. Mr. Speaker, these groups are most likely to
have problems, and they can be corrected with a regular examination. We do not
want an extreme solution as the NDP in
We will ask the minister to consider
the
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I consider that to be a positive
suggestion from my honourable friend, particularly the caution not to emulate
the government confreres of the official opposition in a province next to us in
the direction westerly.
I also, Sir, will not bring in
measures that are currently in place in some of the
Sir, what we are intending to do‑‑and
I have gotten my jesting with the opposition parties out of the way now. We are following some recommendations that we
accepted in terms of eye examinations that are not different significantly from
a number of other provinces that have recently made changes.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the
changes proposed in Manitoba will probably meet all of the concerns my
honourable friend has and better the changes that have been put in place in
Alberta, because we are attempting to provide a routine eye examination every
two years with the exception that if medical need dictates a more frequent eye
examination that will be available regardless of age. It will not be restricted to under 19 or
above 64, but for all Manitobans who are guided by medical need for an eye
examination.
Mr. Cheema:
Mr. Speaker, between the period of January '90 and December 31st of '91,
only 42 percent of Manitobans had access to eye examinations. Out of that, between the ages of 0 and 19,
there were 1.3 exams per year. This is
not going to save any money. It will
cause more hardships.
My question is to the minister. He should simply have a look at this and that
will solve some of the questions he is raising to us today.
Mr. Orchard:
We did undertake some national review of availability of eye
examination, and it does vary significantly from some provinces not offering
any insured service provision under eye examinations because, particularly with
optometry, one must remember that there is no requirement under the Canada
Health Act that the services of optometry and optometrists be provided with any
assistance from the taxpayers.
We have chosen in Manitoba over a
number of years to provide that service outside of the Canada Health Act, entirely
at the cost of Manitoba taxpayers, and we attempted to create an environment of
providing adequate service which left us with the general rule of an eye
examination at taxpayers' support every two years with exceptions for medical
condition to apply across all ages of Manitobans.
Mr. Cheema:
Can the minister tell us when we will have the list of medical
conditions that will allow the patient to have an eye examination at any time?
Mr. Orchard: I
just want to caution my honourable friend, it will not be eye examinations at
any time. It will be eye examinations
according to medical need.
We intend to have the regulation in
place for January 1. Within the next couple of weeks we hope to have those
regulations available and distributed.
Immigration
Statistics
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the
While
My question is for the Minister
responsible for Citizenship, and I emphasize the word
"responsible." What is her
explanation for
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture,
Heritage and Citizenship): I am glad that my
honourable friend across the way did quote me in her question, because I have
been saying for the last two years that
Mr. Speaker, since I have had the
responsibility, we have reorganized the Citizenship Division in fact so that we
could very quickly move towards an immigration agreement with the federal
government.
We are getting very close to the
point now where we believe that we have everything in place to encourage the
federal government to give us in
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister was
for an explanation of why this is happening in
I would ask the minister for an
explanation. Maybe she could tell us
what her government is going to do in the area of recruitment, since she said
on Wednesday they are moving aggressively on this area for an agreement.
* (1110)
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I wish my honourable friend would
listen to the answers from the first questions and not repeat the same question
the second time.
I will repeat for all members of the
House that we are moving towards an immigration agreement. Presently,
Mr. Speaker, we need an agreement
with the federal government to have that control. It is unfortunate that she does not
understand that or know the system or know how immigration happens in
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, I recently read that 80 percent
of the refugees in the world are women and children.
I would ask the minister: Can the minister ensure the House that not
only will Manitoba's new immigration policy ensure that our proportion of
refugees represents the needs in the world but, also, that the numbers will be
reflected in gender and in age?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that we are
having trouble getting the facts and the information through to the critic from
the New Democratic opposition.
We are working towards obtaining
some of that control from the federal government with our immigration
agreement. When we get that in place,
Mr. Speaker, then she can ask the questions about what
Susan Fingold
Birth Parent Search
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
The Minister of Family Services will
be familiar with the situation facing Susan Fingold, a constituent of mine, who
has been devastated by the knowledge about mistaken identity when she was
adopted and that somewhere in the system a mistake was made, files were
switched and she and the adopting parents were wrongfully told that her birth
mother was Jewish.
The redress that Susan Fingold seeks
is reasonable, and I would like to put her request to the minister. Will the Minister of Family Services correct
this error, rectify the situation, however it was made, and ensure that her
search for her identity and her real birth mother is put at the top of the
list, at the top of the adoption registry?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family
Services): Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of adoption and
the search for birth parents and the circumstances surrounding adoption is
handled by the Post Adoption Registry.
There is a process in place whereby citizens can make representation to
the Post Adoption Registry and work with that unit within our department to
find those details.
The whole issue of adoption is one
which is very sensitive. It involves three stakeholders in the ability to
search and find details, and all of those people must be taken into
consideration.
The Post Adoption Registry has been
set up to work with individuals, whether they be the birth parents or the
adopting parents or the adoptee, to assist them in finding that information.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with the
particular situation of Susan Fingold, where a mistake was made. I am not trying
to suggest the minister made the mistake or his department. Somebody made a mistake in the system, and I
am asking the minister if he would intervene in the situation and work with the
Post Adoption Registry in his department to ensure that Susan's name is put at
the top of the list to rectify the wrong that was done to her and ensure that
she can get on with correcting the mistake and finding her true identity.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, there probably have been close
to 90,000 adoptions over the last couple of decades, three decades, and at this
time we have some 6,000 cases before the Post Adoption Registry. All of them bring forward individual
circumstances which to them are the most significant and would like to have
that service come forward as quickly as possible. We ask individuals to work
with the staff at the Post Adoption Registry and try and bring forward the
circumstances and the details as quickly as possible.
The member is advocating for a
particular individual who I think has already approached the Post Adoption
Registry. I will review this with staff
and see that fair treatment is given to the specific case that the member
references.
CN Rail
Employment Decline
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, we see in the press reports
coming out today where the chief executive officer of CN Rail has indicated
that CN is going to be losing 11,000 jobs in the country.
My question is for the Minister of
Highways and Transportation. Can the
minister indicate to the House and to those who are employed in the railway
industry what discussions he has had with the president of CN Rail and what
impact we can expect on the rail employment in the
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and
Transportation): Mr.
Speaker, I believe the member is probably as well aware as I am of the
discussions that are taking place between the executive of CN and the unions in
terms of rationalizing some of the operations.
In my conversations with CN, they have indicated that their credit
rating is in dire jeopardy at the present time, that unless they take some
tough measures that they are in financial difficulty.
I just want to indicate, Mr.
Speaker, that in all the dealings that basically CN has had with their
employees and their unions over the years, it has always been a pretty
reasonable arrangement that has been worked out for the employees. My understanding is that these negotiations
are taking place. Once we have the
details, I think it will become public information.
Mr. Speaker:
Time for Oral Questions has expired.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call second reading,
adjourned debate, Bill 4.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 4‑The Retail Businesses
Sunday Shopping (Temporary Amendments) Act
Mr. Speaker: On
the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism
(Mr. Stefanson), Bill 4, The Retail Businesses Sunday Shopping (Temporary
Amendments) Act; Loi sur l'ouverture des commerces de detail les jours feries‑‑modifications
temporaires.
* (1120)
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I rise with the opportunity of
discussing this government's initiative, this government's venture, into the
area of Sunday shopping and the government's expansion of the legislation to
include effectively wide‑open Sunday shopping in the
Mr. Speaker, I want to divide my
remarks into several areas and deal with each of them specifically as they
relate to Sunday shopping based on some of the arguments that I have heard
forwarded to our attention from members opposite, as well as some of the
discussion surrounding the logic and the principle of the issue of Sunday
shopping.
Mr. Speaker, at the onset I can indicate
that I am not in support of the government's initiative for expansion of Sunday
shopping. Through the course of my
remarks I hope to demonstrate my reasons why I am adopting this particular
position, as well as an attempt to deal with some of the issues that have been
forwarded by the government for the advancement of wide‑open Sunday
shopping in the
Mr. Speaker, several years ago, in
this Chamber, a compromise was reached with the concurrence of the members
opposite dealing with Sunday shopping, which, I think, was a reasonable
compromise under the circumstances dealing with an issue that has been a long‑standing
issue in this province. I dare say and I
suggest that if in fact the tables were reversed and if we were the government
of the day and if we proposed a measure of this kind, the members opposite now
would be self‑righteously standing up and attacking our position for that
particular position. I go back to the
fact that the present legislation is an effective compromise, compromising all
sides of the debate and dealing with the concerns raised by all Manitobans
concerning Sunday shopping.
I listened with amusement, Mr.
Speaker, to the arguments of the minister who used the greater proportion of
time during debate to talk about all of the studies that have been brought
forward, all of the public opinion polls that he had access to, that indicated
that Manitobans were in favour of Sunday shopping.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy
Speaker, in the Chair)
I have always been one of the‑‑well,
I do not want to single myself out as the only individual. We all attempt to gauge the opinions of our
constituents. We all attempt to try to
represent the viewpoints of our constituents in legislation and try to reflect,
in the way we vote in this Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, those opinions or
those viewpoints and try to best reconcile those opinions, those viewpoints,
together with the positions that are brought forward in this Chamber.
For the minister to rely solely on
polls, solely on public relations efforts of the government as the reason for
bringing in legislation seems to me to be setting a very, very dangerous
precedent. In fact, if you took the
logic to its fullest extreme, if the government‑‑and I know they do
weekly polls‑‑were to actually reflect the results of its weekly
polling, a vast majority of Manitobans would want to get rid of this
government. The majority of Manitobans would not want this government to be in
power. To take that logic to its full
extent, this government should resign, because easily 60 percent or more of the
Take their weekly polling, which
says the vast majority of Manitobans do not agree with the principles of this
government, and call an election, because that is the logical extension of the
minister's argument. In fact, that
formed the total basis of the minister's argument. He went through poll after poll after poll,
saying this is what Manitobans want and, therefore, we are delivering
this. Consequently, Manitobans, the vast
majority, do not want you as government.
Resign.
Now members opposite, Madam Deputy
Speaker, of course, are crying out in indignation at the suggestion that they
should resign. That argument is
illogical. I concur, but the government
is relying on that illogical argument to put forward the basis of its Sunday
shopping legislation. I propose that
members opposite cry out in indignation, and I agree. That is correct.
So do not give me a bunch of polls
and statistics as the justification and as the underpinnings for bringing in
your legislation, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In fact, I asked during the course of the minister's remarks and he
refused‑‑I would ask that, if the minister is going to cite all of
these polls and these statistics, perhaps the minister should table those so
that we can have a rational viewpoint of what those opinion polls are saying in
the first instance.
I would also like to comment on the
economic arguments that are voiced by the government as justification, which is
one of the other supporting arguments cited by the government for the
introduction of this particular legislation, Madam Deputy Speaker. The minister said‑‑and I am
roughly quoting him correctly. I am
going from memory‑‑that approximately $110 million was spent by
Manitobans on Sundays in North Dakota or Minnesota or some such environs or
some such areas, and that, therefore, is a justification for this Sunday
shopping.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there is no
doubt that there is a terrible problem in this country concerning cross‑border
shopping. We all recognize that there is
a terrible drain on the economy. What
the government fails to do in their approach to try to stem this flow of cross‑border
shopping is actually deal with the root problem. If the government actually listened to its
polling, it would find out that the root cause are things like Conservative
government fiscal policy and, most importantly, the twin peaks of their policy,
the GST and the Free Trade Agreement, something members opposite support.
They support the GST as they line up
together with their Prime Minister, and they support the Free Trade
Agreement. They line up and they support
those two key financial policies, which, in effect, are the major reasons as to
why we are having this terrible drain on our economy. If the government would spend more energy
trying to redirect the initiatives of the federal government, Madam Deputy
Speaker, we would get a lot further in stemming the drain and in dealing with
the flow of money out of this country, but they will not do that.
They will do that in word, and they
will do it when the Prime Minister comes to town, but a number of them will
dine with the Prime Minister and will attend the function and will pump money
into his re‑election campaign. But
the Premier (Mr. Filmon) will stand up and say, I am not going to go to dinner
with that individual. One does get the
impression that there is a bit of a public relations gesture in that, but that
is a topic of another speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if they would
spend their energies, if members opposite would spend their energies trying to
convince the federal government of the damaging effects that its fiscal
policies have had on the province of Manitoba and all the provinces, far more
can be accomplished in stemming cross‑border shopping than by the
introduction of their present legislation.
The other component that would stem
cross‑border shopping is if this government had any kind of plans for the
economy of
As a consequence, when problems
arise in the economy‑‑and, heaven knows, there are enough of them‑‑there
is a reaction on the part of the government.
The reaction is usually far too late, after the fact, and it is
generally just a band‑aid solution to the economic problems that we are
confronting. Hence, there is a drain on the economy, monies flowing out of the
province.
There is difficulty, and the
government says, okay, we are going to open Sunday shopping as if somehow
Sunday shopping will magically revive the economy. They have done the same things in a number of
areas. Somehow the expansion of rules
concerning video lotteries, or considering lotteries in general, is somehow
going to revive the economy, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is somehow going to miraculously pump new
money into the economy. That is not just
going to happen because this government has no plan.
* (1130)
This government has had no involvement
in the economy. They have let it
drift. They have let thousands and
thousands of people fall off the economic train, only to be picked up by
welfare or by other social programs, and, at the same time, that economic train
is shrinking. They do not realize, as
they stay out of the economy, as the economy continues in its spiral, what
happens is that tax base upon which we rely on for so many of our programs, our
initiatives, is becoming lesser and lesser.
Consequently, they have to do things
like offload taxes onto municipalities and school boards through the GFT, $79
million in the last year offloaded onto municipalities, and yesterday the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) had the gall to say, well, you know, if they had only had
the economic restraint that we had. I
say, that is the height of hypocrisy to state that when they forced and
offloaded many, many programs and many, many costs onto municipalities and
school boards and then forced them to raise their taxes and have made the claim
that somehow they have kept taxes down.
This government has no plan for the
economy. It is a reactionary plan, and
every move is reactionary. You saw it
this morning in terms of finally coming around to some kind of convoluted
position on the NAFTA deal. It is a total
reactive government to problems that occur.
I do not fault any government in the
present environment, in the present changing global economy, for having some
difficulty coming to grips with adjustment.
There is no question that all governments of all political stripes and
all ideologies are having the same kind of difficulty. But there is a difference between trying and
failing and perhaps trying and accomplishing something in the economy and doing
nothing, and then reacting to put band‑aids on when the problem is far
worse and cannot be simply accommodated by the band‑aid solutions that
are adopted over and over again by this government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I just
reiterate the fact that if the intention is to deal with cross‑border
shopping and the drain on the Manitoba economy, far more could be accomplished
by having a proper economic plan for reviving this dismal state of the Manitoba
economy, probably the worst in my memory, the worst certainly since the Walter
Weir regime, and by dealing with that and by dealing with a federal government
whose fiscal policies have done nothing more than to plunge us into the worst
economic straits probably since the 1930s, Madam Deputy Speaker.
So, if they dealt with the problem
head on‑‑and even if they failed, Madam Deputy Speaker, it would be
hard to criticize. But to put your head
in the sand, metaphorically speaking, and just to pop it up every so often when
a major calamity occurs, to put a band‑aid solution on it, is not the way
to go.
If they do not know, Madam Deputy
Speaker, what the public is saying out there, if they are spending all this
time polling on Sunday shopping, they ought to spend some time polling about
what Manitobans think of the economic performance of this government and the desire
on the part of Manitobans for this government to do something to help get us
out of this economic morass. Those are
my suggestions with respect to the economic arguments that have been put
forward by government members.
The other argument trotted out by
the government‑‑
An Honourable Member: Choices.
Mr. Chomiak: ‑‑trotted
out as choices, and I thank the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer). I had it down here, but I thank the member
for Niakwa for prompting me on that.
That is right; it is the choices argument, Madam Deputy Speaker. The argument about choices is often made by
members opposite when they are in trouble on an issue, and they generally trot
out the sort of PR line of choices.
I am prompted to repeat the oft‑quoted
phrase of the great French whomever‑‑who I cannot recall at this
moment‑‑who said that the rich of
An Honourable Member: I thought you were going to say, let them eat
cake.
Mr. Chomiak: The
member for Niakwa indicated some other great French quotes. I reserve those for specific ministers and
some of the initiatives.
The choices argument is an
interesting one, Madam Deputy Speaker.
On the surface the choices argument is appealing, and I know again in
the polling I am sure that it is. Why
not provide Manitobans with that choice?
The member for
On the surface the choices argument
makes sense, and I dare say that people have said to me the whole question of
choice‑‑if that were only the case, Madam Deputy Speaker, then
perhaps logic would dictate that would be the prevailing argument, but there
are some serious flaws in that. Not
everyone has the choice, and it is always the case of who gets a chance to make
the choice and who does not have a chance to make the choice.
A lot of people are going to be
forced to work on Sundays and have no choice.
Now, I know members opposite will say they have put protection into the
legislation that employees do not have to work and that they are not forced to
work; it is only volunteers. I will get
to that argument later, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I think there are serious
flaws in that argument.
The question is, who makes the
choice? Where are the forces that are
going to be put on individuals and families and people in society as a result
of wide‑open Sunday shopping?
There is no doubt that people will be forced to work. There is no doubt that people will be forced
to change their lifestyle. There is no
doubt that people will be forced to do things that they were not in the past,
by virtue of the competition‑‑I will agree‑‑and by the
pressures on them to stay open on Sunday and to do things on Sunday that they
otherwise would not have the opportunity of doing.
It will become a very major problem,
particularly in rural
I always thought that one of our
roles in this Legislature was to protect those, Madam Deputy Speaker, who may
not have a choice. It is an interesting
argument to see, when you reverse the tables, who will actually have a choice
in this situation. There will be many individuals, many businesses and many
people who will no longer have a choice who will be forced to be open, who will
be forced to do what goes against their principles and goes against their
better judgment by opening and by participating on Sunday. I have real difficulty with that choice
argument, because fundamentally it is a question of who gets to make that
choice. A lot of individuals will not
have that opportunity to make that choice as a result of this legislation that
has been put in.
I want to deal with the whole
question of the trial period. It is an interesting issue that the government
should choose to launch its trial period over the Christmas season, over into
the holiday season when retailers generally do the bulk of their trade, Madam
Deputy Speaker. I dare say that it has
been my experience, and I think members opposite will agree, that generally
when something is put on a trial period it has very rarely, if ever, been
eliminated.
I just look back to the trial period
of the lotteries that were brought in, I believe, to fund Manitoba Centennial
only, and I remind members of this House that income tax has also been put in
as a trial period on a temporary basis.
I recall Bill Vander Zalm, the then‑Premier of
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Why is that, David? Why is it that they become fixed in stone?
Mr. Chomiak:
The member for St. Norbert has suggested to me, why is that, and there
is no question that once the wheels move forward and once the legislation is in
place and once the lifestyles have adapted, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is very
hard to change and to go back on. There
is no question that will happen in this case.
I really think the trial period argument is strictly a public relations
gesture to try to assuage the rural opinion, the opinion of others who were
concerned about Sunday shopping. It is a
middle‑ground position taken by the government who either do not have the
courage of their convictions to come forward with it or they simply do not have
it, so they are bringing in trial period as a public relations gesture. So I do not think the trial period argument
amounts to much in terms of argument.
* (1140)
My strongest reason, Madam Deputy
Speaker, amongst many, but one of the arguments that I feel very strongly about
concerning Sunday shopping has to deal with business and has to deal with
competition. It seems to me that one of
the things that we are doing in our society is taking away the opportunities
and the rights of a small business, in particular, in favour of the rights of
large business and large enterprises that can do quite well in our society.
I cite the example of the small
corner store versus the large international chains that have come in or the
small gift shop versus the large department stores, Madam Deputy Speaker. The large department stores and the large
international chains can do very, very well on their own; they do not need the
benefit and protections afforded to many of the smaller operations in our society.
I fear for a lot of the small family‑run
operations who in the compromise‑‑and I indicated at the beginning
of my comments that the present legislation that is now being amended was a
compromise‑‑derive some benefit from the compromise position, and
that is they were allowed to gain some income and to gain some business on
Sunday when the large conglomerates were closed and previously sucked away that
particular business. They are going to
lose that particular competitive advantage now, and by virtue of losing that
competitive advantage, we are going to see them, many of them, probably go out
of business. That will seriously hurt an
economy that members opposite supposedly say they‑‑I should say the
members opposite always talk about being the protectors of small business. That is hopelessly wrong, and I disagree with
it, but that again is another discussion.
They do not do that. They do do that in their gestures and in
their economic policies, but that aside, Madam Deputy Speaker, this initiative
will hurt these small businesses and these family‑run operations that had
a competitive advantage and had an opportunity on Sunday to make up for a lot
of the business that has been lost increasingly to the large companies, to the
large malls and related enterprises, all of whom do quite well and do not need
that competitive advantage.
That has been a long‑held
concern of members on this side of the House and me, in particular, when I have
looked at the change in the way businesses are operating and the nature of
business and enterprise in our society.
These small‑run businesses and
operations who had the opportunity with the compromised legislation to make up
for what was lost in the past are no longer going to have that
opportunity. We will see the demise of
many more of them, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the loss again of many more jobs
and many more advantages in our economy.
That is a strongly held belief of ours.
I think it is something that the government has not considered. I have never heard those comments
considered. I mean it goes back to the
question of competition.
I noted the comments of the Minister
of Labour, the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik), when he talked about
market‑driven economy and how we have to compete. We do accept, in our society, limits on the
market‑driven economy. We do
accept that members of this Chamber and that governments have a right, that the
people have a right to set limits on the market‑driven economy, that
there are reasonable strictures that we put in place on market‑driven
economies so that they do not run rampant and roughshod over people.
One of the compromises of the
previous legislation was that it allowed these smaller businesses to have a bit
of an advantage versus the large multinationals, and the large corporations who
have been able to run roughshod over a lot of the small business and the small
operations, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was
a reasonable limit to put on. I mean if
we take the Minister of Labour, the member for Lac du Bonnet's (Mr. Praznik)
comments to a natural extreme, why do we have any laws on opening and closing
at all, why do we not just go 24 hours a day?
Why do we not just allow unlimited sale of liquor, et cetera, and other
items in the grocery stores like they do in other jurisdictions? Of course, we do not do that. That argument is absurd.
We do not allow that because we, as
a society, have said that we are going to put reasonable limitations and
reasonable restrictions on the free‑driven market economy for the benefit
of our society. Why is that?
Madam Deputy Speaker, we had the
interesting announcement this morning, which we support, of the Minister of
Justice (Mr. McCrae) and one of the members for
Well, if we take the market‑driven
economy, as brought forward by the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik), to a
national extreme, why do we not allow liquor sales 24 hours a day? We do not allow liquor sales 24 hours a day
because we do not want people who are intoxicated or otherwise going into a
liquor store at 2 a.m., purchasing liquor and perhaps driving and causing havoc
and destruction on the highway. That is
a reasonable limitation that is put on our citizens. I think most members of the public would
agree, Madam Deputy Speaker.
So the argument that somehow this
market‑driven economy should run it all and that is why we should allow
Sunday shopping just does not hold water with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I
think logically does not make any sense.
There are reasonable limits that should be put on. We had a reasonable compromise in our
previous legislation, and that reasonable compromise is being lost by virtue of
the government's move towards wide‑open Sunday shopping.
I generally, Madam Deputy Speaker,
try to keep personal anecdotes out of speeches, but I just want to relate an
experience of mine in Los Angeles several years ago when I was visiting and had
occasion on a Sunday afternoon to be wandering through a mall. I was just struck at how an American society
and societies outside of
To add to that anecdote, I recall
being in rural
There are these little things, Madam
Deputy Speaker, that we should really pay attention to in terms of where we are
going as a society and where we are going as a people. I think this is just one of those flagpoles
and one of those flags that raises and says, we should step back and say, is
this what we want, is this the direction we want to move in, because again the
logical extension of that would be, well, now that we have Sunday shopping and
we are stemming the flow of money from Canada, let us‑‑geez, liquor
is a problem, you can get booze anywhere in the United States, or many places
on a Sunday, maybe we should allow booze sales on Sundays in all of these
places, maybe we should allow it on a 24‑hour basis. You see where that argument takes us.
* (1150)
Members opposite may not agree, but
I sincerely believe that it really is the thin edge of the wedge, and that we
should take a very close look at where we are going as a society and what this
particular legislation will do to the fabric of our society and where we are
heading as a society in this regard.
Earlier in my comments, I alluded to
the fact of choice and the government's insistence that volunteerism will rule
the day with respect to working on Sunday.
I think that is hopelessly naive, and it is a hopelessly naive argument
on the part of the government to assume that somehow Sunday shopping and the
volunteers who will work on Sunday, that system will somehow not result in
undue pressure being placed on employees to have to work on Sunday because we
all know that in human relations‑‑and heaven knows, in labour relations,
subtle pressures and influences are placed on individuals and on employees
every single day.
Even if the argument can be made
that there will be no overt pressure and no overt insistence on the part of
employees to work on Sunday‑‑and I do not even know if that will be
the case, but if that is the case‑‑there will be all kinds of
subtle pressure and all kinds of subtle influence on the part of individuals
and on the part of employees to work on Sundays.
Its effect will be obvious, and
those individuals will have no choice.
Those individuals will be forced to work on Sunday with all of the
ramifications and all of the effects that working on Sunday and that those
factors will have on life and lifestyle.
I would also like to deal with the
issue of Sunday shopping from a perspective of many concerns that have been
raised to me by constituents, and that is, traditionally in this country we
have set aside one day. Many individuals
whom I represent set aside another day, Saturday, as a religious day of
observance and as a religious day of rest.
Many others observe Sunday as a religious day of rest and as a day for
religious experience, and other faiths and other religions reserve different
days.
I think that we can redress wrongs
in our society, and perhaps the unfairness that has been attributed to some of
those religions by not perhaps recognizing as strongly as we should their
opportunities for their religious observances, although I think we have gone
some way towards recognizing religious observances and experiences or other
members of other religions.
Nonetheless, Sunday has been
traditionally a day for a large number of Canadians of religious experience and
of rest. While this has been the case,
this legislation, no doubt, will be disruptive to that recognition.
I do not want to get into religious
arguments one way or the other because I am very wary of venturing into that
field. I have my fundamental spiritual
and religious beliefs, and I know members of this Chamber have theirs and hold
them as sincerely as I do. So I have no
right to impose my views on them or vice versa.
Nonetheless, I think that the effect on our society and on those
individuals who perhaps wish to practise their religion on Sunday, there will
be an effect on them. I think that is
something that has to be considered in this legislation and has to be
considered overall in terms of how we approach this issue.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I could
probably talk for a good deal of time on this particular issue on a whole series
of grounds and a whole series of arguments, but I also know that time is short
on this day and that members on this side of the House want to put some
comments in the record as well with respect to this. So I will wrap up my comments.
For the reasons cited, I will not be
supporting this legislation. I have
discussed it with many constituents on a continuing basis at the door. I will continue to do that. I think, in principle, the compromise that
was reached previously made good sense for the
The interesting thing about this is
that it does not create any more money.
There will be no one spending any more money on Sundays. There will be no more money created, no more
wealth created. All that will happen is
that what was previously spent in the
Clearly, there is an argument with
respect to stemming some of the money that flows out of the province on cross‑border
shopping. As I indicated earlier, Madam
Deputy Speaker, that problem can be addressed in a far superior way by a
concerted economic plan on the part of this government and by some initiatives
and, in particular, pressure on the federal government to deal with the matter
of the GST and to deal with the entire fiscal mess that the federal government
has put us in. So the economic argument
in terms of creation of wealth and somehow that this is going to give a boost
to the economy does not make a lot of sense to me and can certainly be
addressed in other ways and in other fashions.
For that reason and the reasons that
I cited earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, I certainly will not be supporting this
legislation. I hope that those members
opposite who have been kept in check and kept in tow by the government with
respect to this legislation will think through clearly what their position is
and will look at the illogic of many of the government's, in fact, of all of
the government's arguments, and will look to the advantages that have been
cited by many of us on this side of the House to the present compromise
situation that is in place and will take a stand. I am urging members opposite to take a stand
on this issue and to not give in under pressure from their colleagues and to do
what their consciences tell them to do, to do the right thing, and to not
support this legislation. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Madam Deputy Speaker, I feel that it is
important to speak on this topic.
I must admit, though, I have given
this a considerable amount of thought.
When I hear the members across the way‑‑although I may have
some hesitation in Sunday shopping and adapting to change, which I think is
something that everybody is having difficulty in dealing with, when I hear the
members across the way, it even convinces me more to support this legislation
that probably is long overdue.
We are in the '90s now. I think we have to consider the fact that
this is a time when we are all subject to change, and especially in the '90s
the winds of change are upon us, as we make reference to in the throne speech,
and I think that is ever so prevalent.
We always have to be examining our positions in life. If we do not do that, we are not going to be
able to deal with the responsibilities that are put on us as government and
members representing our constituents.
I think the legislation that is
proposed is visionary. It is something
that we as politicians have to examine from time to time, and through
consultation with our constituents we have to do the thing that is best for
them. One thing that is really prevalent
through this whole aspect of legislation is I think that we have to consider
the fact that the people are the government and we have to listen to what the
people are saying. The decision to allow Sunday shopping on a trial basis
responds to the public's demand. It
expands the choices that people are looking for.
* (1200)
People are looking for choices, and
the freedoms in government seem today‑‑if we follow the legislation
and the direction that the opposition speak of we would have more government,
more legislation that would actually curtail the efforts and the freedoms that
people are looking for today.
This flexibility of choice has been
available to Canadians in other provinces for some time. You know, when we consider the opposition in
terms of how they speak out against this, it seems that they want to build walls
around
We know what happened with the
The current legislation that we have
now restricts the retail operation to four employees. This restriction creates unnecessary
inconvenience. For anybody who has gone
into a shopping mall or to Safeway or any other place for that matter on a
Sunday, the inconvenience is unbelievable.
People are frustrated with that, and they are looking to government to
open up the options that are available to them.
When we consider the freedom that we have in this country, when we have
restricted Sunday shopping, I just really do not understand the mentality of
some people when they take that attitude.
With more and more two‑income families that we have out there
today, single‑parent families, the weekend is the only time for these
people to shop.
I think we also have to consider the
fact that this shopping can also be a family time. This is a time when families can share the
time with their children and go out and window shop.
We talk about disposable
incomes. We do not need to have more
incomes as far as we are concerned within
All aspects of our economy, particularly
the retail sector, such operational barriers that we have in existence today
with four employees just does nothing to encourage or improve the retail sales
business activity in the province.
The results of several economic
studies and opinion research weigh heavily in the favour of Sunday shopping,
but some people would choose to ignore that.
This government chooses to listen to these people because this is where
the research is being done. It is
talking to the people of
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting
Speaker, in the Chair)
Studies conducted in North Dakota
show that Sunday shopping has clearly had a positive impact on that state's
economy, and I do not understand how anybody could think that if it works in
North Dakota why it would not have an effect, and a positive effect, on our
economy here in Manitoba. Unfortunately,
How long are we going to continue to
do this? I mean, we have to get with the
'90s. We have to get with the times to
be able to provide the tax dollars and the services that we as Manitobans are
looking for and people are demanding more and more all the time.
Manitobans' spending in
Several members on this side have
made mention of tourism dollars coming into Manitoba‑‑North
Dakotans, Minnesotans. They come in on a
Friday night for a hockey game. They
come in to support the Winnipeg Blue Bombers.
They come in for the Folk Arts Council, the Folklorama. Sunday shopping is not available to them, and
they laugh at us. I mean, it is a real
joke. I am embarrassed in many cases
when I look at‑‑I get to hear the responses of these people coming
into
The combined spending by Manitobans
in
All you have to do is to drive down
Sunday shopping is not going to
solve the ills of all the economic conditions of this province, but anything
that we can do to enhance it is going to be of benefit to Manitobans. It is going to enhance the opportunities for
people to work more freely with the hours that are available to them in Sunday
shopping. It is going to add a lot of
opportunities to Manitobans and to the tourists that are coming in and spending
their money, and that, I think, is really first and foremost.
There have been attempts to identify
the volume of goods and services that would be purchased here rather than in
the
In addition to these findings, all
of which suggest potential economic gain for the
*
(1210)
There is some concern that Sunday
shopping will shift consumer spending in smaller towns to larger centres, and I
do not really believe that, because Manitobans, for the most part, are loyal to
their communities. I think they have to
examine, and I think they are also loyal to
I think they will identify with the
importance of maintaining those businesses, and they will understand that they
have to support those businesses, that only Sunday shopping is not going to
make the difference in keeping them in business. They are going to have to support them five
and six and seven days out of the week.
To say that people are going to not
support their rural communities is absurd.
You are not even examining the issues that are before us today. I think that for the most part the only thing
that I can do in listening to the members across the way is that they are
looking only at the political opportunities that are available, and all they
want to do is to oppose the government.
They want to ignore the fact the people‑‑this government is
listening to the people, but they want to ignore that.
The research supports Sunday
shopping. Ninety‑seven percent of
the rural Manitobans surveyed say Sunday shopping would not change their
shopping habits, and they say that they will continue to do the same volume of
shopping in their own communities. Only
3 percent indicated they might shop less in their own community, so when the
member for
The key findings of the
research: the studies conclude that over
three‑quarters of all respondents surveyed favoured Sunday shopping; and
over three‑quarters of those who work on Sundays favour Sunday
shopping. Further, the support is
highest among single parents, working women and those who work irregular hours.
Can you imagine how difficult it
would be for a single parent with a child, or a person who works irregular
hours to go out and be able to shop, do their Christmas shopping? It does not make sense. Why should we restrict those people? Are you trying to suggest that there is a law
for the rich and a law for the poor, because that is what you are suggesting?
A large majority indicated Sunday
shopping does not interfere with their family activities. I go to church on Sunday morning. I get out
at 12 or 12:30 p.m. There is still lots
of time for me to spend time with my family.
There is time for me to go and shop if I have to. There is nothing wrong with that.
Would you want to restrict the
freedoms of Manitobans in having the choice of whether or not they shop, or
whether they do not, or whether they go to a movie? What is the difference? They go to movies on
Sunday. I think if we were to take a
survey of this Chamber, we would find that most members in this Chamber do
something, either in their jobs or something other than go to church or spend
time with their families. I am sure that
every one of us do that. Why should we
not have those freedoms? If I wish to
spend time with my family, it does not necessarily have to be on a Sunday.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
God said that if we want to save
Sunday for the Sabbath‑‑God never said that Sunday was the only day
that we should have rest. What about the
Seventh Day Adventists? Do they look at
that? Are you going to restrict them of
their freedoms? They do not shop on
Saturday. So you are going to restrict
the Seventh Day Adventists from shopping on Sunday.
Since Sunday shopping hurts these
individuals more than any other in any other society, failure to introduce
Sunday shopping shows a lack of sensitivity to the needs of these groups and
the time pressures under which they must function and to point out that the
demographics continue to show increases in the number of Manitobans who belong
to these groups. We cannot live in the
past. We have to live in the
future. As I said in my speech in the
reply to the throne speech, you have to look at your future, because that is
where you are going to spend the rest of your lives.
If you do not address that issue, we
are going to be a have‑not province which is what the NDP or the
opposition are suggesting that they want us to be. They brought in the legislation in 1988 that
restricted Sunday shopping and that was passed unanimously. Why can the opposition not come forward and
say, listen, this is for the betterment of Manitobans?
An Honourable Member: Let us take the politics out of it.
Mr. McAlpine: Let us take the politics out, because that is
exactly what you are doing. This is a
political opportunity for you to stand in your seats and oppose the government.
[interjection] It is not enough today.
People are fed up with people who are opposing legislation just for the
sake of opposing legislation and trying to gain some points that would enable
them in some remote possibility, the pie in the sky, that they might be re‑elected
come the next election. I have news for
those people, because this government is listening to the people of
I want to stress that the
legislative amendments we are proposing in connection with Sunday shopping are
designed to provide choices to all groups affected by the change. While the amendments respond to
* (1220)
The amended legislation further
protects employees' rights. It prohibits employers from discharging staff based
solely on their refusal to work Sunday shifts or based on any employee efforts
to enforce these rights as defined under the amendment. For the opposition to
suggest that an employer is going to take unfair advantage of an employee who
chooses to exercise that right and give 14 days notice, that that employee is
going to be discharged some way or another, that to me is sheer speculation and
is unfounded. Employers are responsible
people. They want responsible employees,
and they are going to act accordingly when they are treating those employees.
I think we have to understand, and
maybe the opposition members across the way, very few of whom have had the
experience of operating a business of their own‑‑the employer is
only as good as the employees who are around him. So I feel that it is very important for the
employer to support the employee in every way that they possibly can. For them to say that the employer is going to
take unfair advantage of an employee because of an employee's choice not to
work on Sunday is unfounded.
Retailers too have their rights
protected under these proposed amendments.
They may or may not elect to open their doors to the public on
Sunday. The choice is theirs.
The commercial shopping centres that
try to exercise authority on the businesses in that mall, as an example, have
traditionally been required to open their doors because of lease
requirements. This amendment protects
those businesses so that the choice is theirs as to whether or not they want to
open.
With these amendments we are
proposing, these retailers will have the option to close on Sundays regardless
of the provisions in their lease or any other agreement. This provides a more level playing field for
all retail business owners and ensures that those who wish to remain closed on
Sundays can do so without any penalty.
You know it is interesting, my other
life in this world‑‑
An Honourable Member: You have another life?
Mr. McAlpine: I
have another life, and I have been in it for some 18 years. I really have not felt any pleasure in
working on Sunday but, if I wanted to survive in this world, it was a necessity. But it was my choice. I had the choice.
If I apply my business, my
profession as a real estate broker to all the members on the other side, if
they would give me the responsibility of marketing their homes and those homes
were on the market for months and months and months, which we have seen over
the last while, the last three or four years in this province, I dare say that
they would bring pressure upon me to have Sunday open houses. If I were to survey anyone across the way, I
am sure that that would be the case.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): If you believe in freedom, you believe in
free vote on this issue.
Mr. McAlpine: You know, the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer)
talks about freedoms, which I have addressed.
When you talk about restricting Sunday shopping, that is taking away the
freedoms of the people of
This is an opportunity for people to
exercise the choices that they want, and it is our hope that this move will
help to stimulate the economy in
Today we have to be looking at the
'90s. We cannot be looking back 20 years
ago when it was not uncommon for businesses to stay closed on Sunday.
When we talk about Sunday closures,
I think it is really important to address the real issue here: what it is going to do in terms of the
activity in generating interest as far as
Getting back to my experience as a
real estate broker, I said to my minister of my church, you know, sometimes I
go out of church and I rush home, I have lunch and then what I have to do is I
have to get ready for an open house. I
said, I feel almost a little bit like a heathen.
An Honourable Member: Sacrilegious.
Mr. McAlpine: It
is sacrilegious in the sense that if we follow what people are suggesting that
the religious aspect of this is first and foremost. My minister said to me, well, I preach on Sunday. You look around and you talk about the people
who have to work, people who are on shift work.
I have to work, and even though I felt some discomfort in going out and
doing that, I knew that I had to do it because it was my source of living.
Sometimes, with real estate people, the only time that the opportunity is to
work is after six o'clock at night, Saturdays and Sundays.
I think that we have to address that
issue. We have to accept the fact that
we are going through some changes, and if we do not‑‑but my
minister, it was interesting what his response was. He said, you know, you have to do what you
have to do, and it does not matter that I chose maybe that I had to work on
Sunday. I could rest on Monday. I could respect God's word to one day of
rest. There is nothing wrong with
that. Lots of people are faced with that
situation and that decision, but, if we want governments to make the decisions
for everybody, it is the wrong concept.
People want to make their own choices. People have to take responsibility
for themselves.
You cannot sit in your seats and
say, listen, we are going to do this for the people, we are going to make the
decisions for the people. We have to
give them the choices. The choice that
this government is giving is listening to the people and talking to our
constituents and hearing what they are saying.
Through this legislation, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is enabling the
people to make their own choices, to stand up and be heard. If they want to work on Sunday or if they want
to shop on Sunday, those choices are theirs.
Mr. Speaker, I see the time is
quickly running out. I want to thank you
for the opportunity of putting these few remarks on the record. I do have to say that I have had consultation
with my constituents. There are some
people who have been indifferent about this but, after having conversations
with them, they do see the point and the benefits of Sunday shopping.
So I have to stand in my place here
today and say that I will be supporting this amendment, and I look forward to
the comments from across the way. I hope
that some of the members there will see the light and be able to stand up and
take a free vote, because I do not believe that everybody across the way is
against Sunday shopping. I think that
maybe we should talk to the people across the way and say, listen, stand up if
you are in favour of Sunday shopping and say your piece and speak out on behalf
of your constituents. Do not just oppose
it just for the sake of opposing it.
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. When this matter
is again before the House, the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek will have
eight minutes remaining.
The hour being 12:30 p.m., this
House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday.
Erratum
On Monday, December 7,
1992, Hansard No. 8A, the following comments attributed to Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training) should be have been attributed to Mr. Reg
Alcock (Osborne).
On Page 273, left‑hand column,
third paragraph: "Mr. Speaker, that
is correct. The government has allowed
the students to pick up on their debt load with its inability to fund the
university."