LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Monday, December 14, 1992
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Lillian Mae Jones, Peter Ash
and Dolores Bestvater and others, requesting the government of
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present the petition of A.L. Armstrong, R. Puznak, P. Lowe and
others, requesting the government of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the
petition of the honourable member for
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
* (1335)
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
AND
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the House.
Mr. Speaker, I have risen twice to provide members in
this House and Manitobans with information concerning the Manitoba Centre for
Health Policy and Evaluation.
On April 4, 1991, it was my pleasure to announce the
official opening of the centre, which is a world‑class health research
institute. On February 18, 1992, I
tabled a report entitled Manitoba Health Care Studies and their Policy
Implications.
Today I have received and am tabling An Assessment of How
Efficiently
As its title indicates, the study compared the length of
stay for patients in eight
The data used in the study was obtained from the Manitoba
Health Services Commission database for the fiscal years 1989‑90 and 1990‑91.
We believe this report will help hospitals identify
specific areas where the efficiency with which they discharge patients can be
improved. This is in keeping with our
plans outlined in "Quality Health for Manitobans: the Action Plan," which was introduced
on May 14 of this year.
The centre's report illustrates the amount of money
provided to hospitals in
We recognize that achieving efficiency is not an easy
task, and it will require the co‑operation of physicians, hospital
administrators and staff. We also
recognize that government has a responsibility to Manitobans whose taxes pay
for services and equipment in our hospitals.
They expect an appropriate number of hospital beds will be available and
that the beds will be utilized to meet their needs.
I will leave it to the researchers to explain their use
of data, how they compared factors affecting the length of stay, what diagnoses
they compared and how they drew their conclusion.
They will be in Room 254 at 3:15 this afternoon to go
through the report for members of this House, members of the media and anyone
else who is interested. However, in
reading the report, I noted one area of comfort for patients. The literature includes studies which
indicate that shorter patient stays do not have any adverse effect on the
success of the patient's care. Dr.
Brownell and Dr. Roos found that this can be demonstrated in one of the
Patients with psychoses who were discharged from the
hospital with the shortest length of stay were not readmitted to hospital any
more frequently than patients who were discharged from two hospitals which kept
their patients much longer. The average was
28 days compared to 19 days in the most efficient hospital. This successful use of the hospital should be
implemented across the system.
It is important to note the report provides feedback that
hospital administrators, working with care providers, can use to identify
specific areas in which length‑of‑stay efficiency can be improved.
* (1340)
The report says that depending on the approach used, more
efficient hospital practices could yield approximately 150 to 200 acute care
beds which could either provide treatment for more patients or allow bed
closures.
Reducing how long patients stay in hospital could play an
important role in maintaining the availability of acute health care in
We will review the recommendations of the report and work
with a committee to oversee efforts to improve efficiency at hospitals.
I am pleased to note these initiatives could enable us to
carry out the same number of procedures utilizing fewer acute care beds while
maintaining quality and access to care.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am confident the centre's
latest study will be very useful in assuring that our health care system
continues to meet the needs of Manitobans.
Thank you, Sir.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by first congratulating the Manitoba
Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation for its ongoing work in health care and
research pertaining to this policy field and specifically to acknowledge the
release today of the report on discharge of patients in
We welcome the invitation from the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard) to take part in this afternoon's session, and we certainly intend
on being there so that we can learn more about this situation. We all recognize we have much to learn and
look forward to that opportunity.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to
acknowledge in this ministerial statement the reference to early discharge
being very much tied to alternatives in place, whether that be day surgery or
available chronic care, continuing care facilities and beds.
If there is one thing we have expressed concern about
continually over the last several weeks, and even before that, it is that in
fact this minister, this government is doing the opposite. Beds are being closed, beds are being
shuffled without those alternatives in place.
Here the minister has acted with great haste, put the system in
considerable chaos and confusion without relying on the benefit of such
valuable studies and such important research before making decisions.
It is important to note that while the minister is
willing to come forth in the House today and release this report, he is sitting
on a stack of studies, numbering well over 15 or 20, that were produced by his
advisory network on health care and his Urban Hospital Council.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have been raising these
numerous studies and are anxious to receive the reports so that we can be more
constructive in our opposition. However,
the minister continues to sit on those studies and, in some cases, actually
acts directly in opposite to the recommendations of those studies. I refer specifically to a study done by the
advisory network dealing with obstetrics, wherein it is clearly indicated that
the recommendations that they are advising this minister of do not include eliminating
one of our acute care facilities and moving beds to community hospitals at this
point. They make a number of important
recommendations that need to be addressed before the whole system of obstetrics
is thrown up in the air and people are left in confusion and bewilderment
wondering if care will be there when it is needed.
Mr. Speaker, we would urge the minister to get on with
providing us with those reports so that we can then help ensure that we are
informed and so that the public of
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that while we appreciate
the odd time that the minister comes forward with some information, we know
from experience that what is clearly lacking is this information getting to the
public and opportunities being provided to the public for dialogue, for
questioning, for expressing their concerns.
Mr. Speaker, our offices have been bombarded with phone
calls and letters over the last several months because of the big changes the
minister is announcing and the fear and uncertainty that is growing in the
public. It was because of that that we
organized a number of forums so that we could hear
Mr. Speaker, at two meetings last week, over three
hundred people attended, and they all had one thing in common. They want to know what is happening. Is this really reform, or are these cutbacks
and not reform? Are we getting the whole
story, and how can we get more information?
* (1345)
Mr. Speaker, I would urge the minister today, take these
studies, take all the other studies, take his thoughts, take his plans, take
them to the people, get their feedback, get their advice and then act on those
findings.
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):
Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to receive this report because, as the
history of this centre is, when the centre's first announcement was made in
this House, we supported a centre because we thought the centre has one of the
best people in this country and, more importantly,
Mr. Speaker, the question here is on the first page, that
it is very important for the people of
Mr. Speaker, I have not examined it fully, but we will
read this report, and if this report has to be used here, then the basic
fundamental question is, if we are going to use this report to provide more
services and then we can delay and we can cut the waiting period, then that
will help us in the long run. I would
certainly ask the minister to look at that aspect, which is a very positive
one.
The other issue I want to ask the minister, this centre,
as it has the reputation for the last number of years, we want him to expand
the role of the centre, to monitor what is happening to the health action
plan. Mr. Speaker, it is very
positive. We want the minister to be
very up front. I think, by releasing
this kind of statement, the government is showing a commitment, and we want him
to continue to move on that path.
Mr. Speaker, more importantly, we have to ensure in this
House and to the people of
So certainly we will ask the minister to follow with the
recommendations. Certainly we will be at
Room 254, and we will be asking some questions to the presenters. More importantly, people in
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we want our health action plan to
succeed. We want our health care to
survive, but we want the minister to continue to follow the direction they have
chosen for the last five years. Thank
you.
* * *
Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Government Services):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report l991‑92 for
Government Services.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the annual Financial Statements of
Boards, Commissions and Government Agencies ended March 31, 1991. This has been distributed previously.
Secondly, under Chapter P230 of the Continuing
Consolidation of the Statutes of Manitoba, a statement as to fidelity bonds.
* (1350)
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 13‑The Manitoba Employee
Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism): Mr. Speaker,
I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 13, The
Motion agreed to.
Bill 209‑The Public Health
Amendment Act
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton),
that Bill 209, The Public Health Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la
sante publique, be introduced and that the same be now received and read a
first time.
Motion presented.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, this
legislation is being reintroduced again this session, because the matter of
adverse reactions to vaccines remains an ongoing and serious concern for many
Manitobans. I want to say in this short
statement of principle that all of us in the New Democratic Party accept that
immunization has been a major factor leading to the reduction of many diseases
and benefits the population as a whole.
However, there is significant evidence that immunization causes
disability and death in some healthy individuals. This legislation is based on the principle
that the risk of adverse reactions to vaccines must be reduced or
eliminated. It does so by requiring
mandatory reporting of adverse reactions so that we may have a body of
information to work from. It does so by
requiring information to all parents prior to vaccination so that the risks of
vaccine are truly known and people can be fully informed about possible adverse
reactions.
Motion agreed to.
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 afternoon, from the
Also this afternoon, from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Repap Manitoba Inc.
Employment Creation
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Premier.
In 1989, in March, the government promised in the
divestiture announcement they made with Repap, quote, a billion dollars of new
investment and some 500 new jobs that would be created in the
We have been watching the government's veracity on the
initial announcement change, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the security we had in
terms of the promises that were made. We
have watched the government change from:
This is the greatest deal that we have ever seen in
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier (Mr.
* (1355)
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance):
Mr. Speaker, as the member is well aware‑‑and, of course,
the question comes as a little surprise because the NDP were always opposed to
the divestiture of Manfor‑‑let me say that the commitment the
government entered into, the commitment was made by Repap who, given the
conditions of the industry at the time, were prepared to make that significant
investment of a million dollars, causing the creation of several hundreds of
jobs.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, I am told and by what I read, I
believe, that because there have been losses in the industry of hundreds of
millions of dollars, a billion and a half over the last two years, because
financiers today will not lend to any forest products industry because of the
nature of the industry, there have been deferrals with respect to almost every
significant scaled operation, new operation within the industry.
Mr. Speaker, the member talks about the veracity of the
statement. It was a commitment made by
Repap, not a commitment that the government could guarantee, because indeed we
did not guarantee a billion dollars.
Some provinces may have, maybe the former government may have guaranteed
a significant financing, but this government would not enter into that type of
agreement.
Mr. Doer: The minister will note that
financial institutions are dealing with companies that were dealing with the
new technology and not dealing with the old technology that was signed off by
this Premier (Mr. Filmon) and by this Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness),
dealing with chlorine bleach, Mr. Speaker, something that we debated with the
minister some time ago in 1989 and 1990.
The minister will also know, Mr. Speaker, that his
statements in the Chamber, in the legislative committee, talking about the
ironclad guarantees that they had guaranteed in this contract, are somewhat
contradicted by the admissions of the minister here today.
Mr. Speaker, my further question to the minister is‑‑and
he says he is reading the media, et cetera, on this issue. I guess he also stated a couple of weeks ago
that he is going from being passive on his negotiations to aggressive in his
negotiations. The shares unfortunately for the Repap corporation have gone
below $2, something that I think will concern all of us. They had one of the largest declines of any stocks
on the Toronto Stock Exchange last week, I think the second greatest decline of
any stocks over a weekly basis.
What contingency plan does the government have on the
jobs and opportunities in
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I am
dismayed also with the fall of the value of the shares. I have been engaged in discussions as recently
as Thursday last with the principals of Repap trying to determine as to what
contingencies they have in place. I am
led to believe that there is some portion of short selling with respect to
their shares. I am led to believe, of
course, that there are some market analysts who are betting as to the demise of
the company, but let me say, this is all within the marketplace. This is between buyers and sellers of shares,
and ultimately the market will determine the value that is placed on the
shares.
The member talks about contingencies. I am not going to divulge all of those
contingencies to him, because indeed we have, in our view, a bona fide
agreement. The contract still is between
Repap and ourselves, and to begin to share with him what might be our
contingencies would be unfair to that contract, it would be unfair to the
people of the
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, given the fact
that this minister and this Premier (Mr. Filmon) told us he had ironclad
guarantees in the first contract, given the fact that even the Auditor has to
write up the fact of the $78 million allegedly that this government placed in
the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, you will understand why we have pointed
questions for a minister and a Premier who made all these "ironclad
guarantees." We can see no fruition
of those promises after the election that the government made before the
election.
I would like to further then ask‑‑and I do
not want the minister to divulge all the details of the contingency plan.
Obviously, I would not want to prejudice his bargaining position, especially
now that he has gone from passive to aggressive in his negotiations.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask: Do they have a contingency plan to deal with
the jobs and economic opportunities across northern
* (1400)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I
would like to address most of the preamble, but I am sure you will not give me
enough time. I would like to indicate to
the member, and to all those who are taking some interest in this discussion
that the government in its wisdom, and I would say wisely so, decided to
include the southern wood cutting area.
Thank goodness for that because today there are in place 50 or 60 jobs
as a result of that.
The member seems to forget that 90,000 jobs have been
lost in this industry. Of course, he
would try and pretend that is not happening‑‑90,000 jobs in the
forest products industry over the past two years. Mr. Speaker, you have an industry not an
awful lot different from the mining industry in
Mr. Speaker, the member asks what contingency plans are
in place. Again, I am not preaching the
demise of Repap Enterprises today. I
fully expect that company is going to survive its present difficulty. I can tell you right today that Repap
Mr. Speaker, there still are 800 people‑‑600
to 700 to 800 people being employed today as a result of the activity of Repap
and workers working together. So let the
member not say for one moment that we do not have a good operation in place,
that we do not have a good corporate citizen, that we do not have in place
activity that today is not costing the taxpayers in the
Shoal
Mining Exploration
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):
Mr. Speaker, the failure of this government's economic policy is most
evident in the environmental areas.
My question is for the Minister of Environment. I assume the minister is aware that Kenora
miners and prospectors will begin a mining exploration within the
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):
Mr. Speaker, we received information that a meeting was being held on
November 30, and staff attended that meeting.
Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, we do have
considerable concern that has been going on for quite some time with the
I had occasion to speak personally to Mr. Wildman, the
minister of mines for
I note as well, Mr. Speaker, that the concerns probably
are raised today because there was a press conference by the Winnipeg Water
Protection Group held in this building.
I hope they made it very clear that it was an initiative of my office
that they were notified that this action was in fact taking place.
Management Plan
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):
Mr. Speaker, given the commitment made by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) last
spring‑‑[interjection] The Premier of Manitoba is the Premier I am
referring to.
Mr. Speaker, given that the Premier of Manitoba has
committed to basin‑wide management last spring, when will the minister
bring in basin‑wide management prohibiting development on this side, on
the Manitoba side of Shoal Lake, across to the Ontario border?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):
Mr. Speaker, that is a good question, as a matter of fact, and one which
I think the people of
Mr. Speaker, in that deferral, I made it very clear that
if we were unable to see some results in terms of basin‑wide management
that would provide the protection that we needed, we would be quite prepared to
take unilateral action and put those regulations in place.
Mining Exploration
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):
Mr. Speaker, will the minister table correspondence he has had with the
government of
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):
Mr. Speaker, this particular mining proposal was brought forward in what
I have to refer to as unseemly haste. I
would assume that the
It has always been our view and we will continue to press
the position that, first of all, we do not want this type of development within
the region that would potentially impact on the drinking water. Secondly, if any proposals are brought
forward, they should in fact include information and hearings in this province.
Shoal
Mining Exploration
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment.
Mr. Speaker, whether it has been Rafferty‑Alameda
or Conawapa or
Mr. Speaker, what has happened or has not happened since
November 17, 1990‑‑[interjection] Well, I hear my friend saying
about research‑‑November 17, 1990, Premier Rae was the newly
elected Premier of Ontario.
Can the minister tell us what has or has not happened
since that time when Premier Filmon said after a meeting with him, quote,
Winnipeggers might never have to worry about commercial developments
endangering the quality of water from
Has this minister gone beyond Mr. Wildman and asked Mr.
Rae? What has happened to his word, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):
Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the people of the city of
Mr. Speaker, the Consolidated Professor proposal was the
issue on which most of this debate was originally predicated. It was the reason that the basin‑wide
management was contemplated, because we knew that this whole area lies within a
greenbelt, and there is a great deal of potential for development, development
such as is now being proposed in terms of this exploratory shaft. It is certainly our intention to make sure
that the
Mr. Edwards: I think the
minister has the wrong phone number. Again he has called the wrong party,
because we have represented that seat since 1986, Mr. Speaker, in Kenora, the
Liberal Party has.
Mr. Speaker, again for the same minister‑‑[interjection]
1986, we have represented it; Frank Miclash is the MPP.
Joint Public Hearings
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James):
Mr. Speaker, again for the same minister: On February 22, 1991, the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) told Manitobans that Premier Rae was, and I quote, very amenable to the
prospect of having a
What can the minister tell us about this order, this
permit that was issued last week, and in his discussions which he says started
November 30, was there ever any discussion about joint hearings, about
Manitobans being involved, about any hearings, Mr. Speaker?
* (1410)
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):
Mr. Speaker, this is one of the difficulties that we have experienced in
dealing with this issue. The
Mr. Speaker, my concern is that we were attempting to
work with the native population in the area when they said that they wanted to
be part of a larger co‑management basin‑management plan for the
area. I think we would be well served,
as the province of Ontario originally contemplated, that there would be a
larger agreement between the two provinces but would also include the
aboriginal interest in that area, because basin‑wide management includes
more than just the province of Manitoba and the province of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, those plans are slow in coming, and in the
interim, we will be dealing and dealing strongly with these types of proposals,
because the first line of defence is to make sure that these projects do not
proceed to a point where they can have any impact on the water.
Mr. Edwards: I will say they are
slow in coming, Mr. Speaker. This minister has been on this issue for over
three years. I will say they are slow in
coming.
Management Plan
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James):
My final question for the same minister:
Will he now acknowledge that his lying‑down‑and‑taking‑it‑on‑the‑chin
approach with
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member would not be proposing that we bring
in the United Nations to negotiate between Ontario and Manitoba, but the
concern that we need in putting in place water‑quality management and
basin‑wide management where if we can put in place a plan where we have
the two provinces agreeing to participate in management on alternate sides of
the boundary, between the two provinces, that would in fact be precedent
setting within this country.
Mr. Speaker, we are also making every effort to be sure
that the federal authorities, the federal Department of Environment, the federal
Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs are involved in these discussions. Because if the Province of Ontario is
unwilling to take the appropriate action to protect our drinking water, then it
seems to me that the federal government will have to become the regulatory
authority that will give the protection that we need and to support the
position that this province has taken from the start, that we cannot and have
not been shown that this is a potential area for development without having
some impact on the province of Manitoba's drinking water.
Health Care System
Obstetric Services Consolidation
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
I would like to ask the minister today if he can tell
this House and the people of
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):
No, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I will
table a document presented by his own department at recent stakeholder meetings
on health care reform indicating Phase III of the minister's plans.
My question to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)
is: Will he now confirm that his
government's long‑term plan is to consolidate all labour, delivery and
post partum services, all obstetrics, all neonatal care services into one centre,
and could he provide us with the rationale for such a plan?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my
honourable friend asks me to confirm something that is happening in the exact
opposite.
Now I know that logic confounds my honourable friend, but
my honourable friend the New Democratic Party critic must surely by now be
aware of the LDRP program‑‑labour, delivery, recovery, post partum
at Victoria General Hospital, wherein the 22 beds that were closed by the NDP
unilaterally, without consultation back in 1987, in the good old days when my
honourable friend planned health care and made decisions behind closed doors
without consultation, unilaterally and secretively, were reopened as a labour,
delivery, post partum unit at Victoria General Hospital.
They reopened that with a quarter of a million dollars
less budget and have increased the number of safe deliveries and happy babies
and mothers and fathers and parents by 20 percent, Sir.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, it is
the lack of logic in the minister's thinking and in this plan that is exactly
why we are asking the question.
Let me ask the Minister of Health, whether this
consolidation into one centre is finalized or in the planning stages, it still
begs the question, why is the minister moving 300 deliveries from tertiary
hospitals to community facilities now at questionable savings, and despite the
advice of his own advisory network, when the longer term plan‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I
guess maybe I have to take my honourable friend into my office and sit down and
have a nice, long fireside chat with her so she understands what is happening,
that health care is changing, that the old‑think that my honourable
friend is locked into is not appropriate.
It is not appropriate in
Mr. Speaker, part of that progressive reform is the
example I have given to my honourable friend, of
Social Assistance
Child-Tax Benefit
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows):
Mr. Speaker, in October of this year, Winnipeg Harvest provided food to
8,500 families, approximately 30,000 in total, up from 7,500 a year ago.
This morning, the Community Coalition on Unemployment
presented the deputy minister with 3,500 postcards saying, food banks are not
the solution to poverty, jobs are. The
Deputy Premier's response was to blame the problem on the world‑wide
recession, suggesting there is nothing that this government is willing to do.
Well, there is something that this government can
do. Will the Minister of Family Services
at the very least promise, give us a commitment now, before the House adjourns,
not to deduct the new child tax benefit from social assistance recipients?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, the member for Burrows has asked
a number of questions within there. I
want to tell you that the commitment from our department is to provide that
safety net for Manitobans who need that sort of assistance.
We have consistently increased the social allowance rates
far more than other provinces have. We
have the third lowest incidence of social allowance recipients across this
country. At the same time, our rates are
compatible, where
There are still other decisions that have to be made, and
the government will be making those decisions in due course.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, once
again the minister did not answer the question.
Will the minister, at the very least, do what
* (1420)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker,
I indicated to the member privately last week and in the
House last week, when this question was raised by the Leader of the Liberal
Party (Mrs. Carstairs), that there are certain aspects of changes with our
relationship with the federal government that are under review. Before we make a decision, we want to be sure
that we have sufficient time to analyze these.
Mr. Martindale: Will the Minister
of Family Services then follow the lead of the
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, what
the member is referencing is that all provinces are looking at this new child
tax benefit. Some provinces have made decisions, and others are in the process
of making that decision. I can assure
the member, once decisions have been made, they will be communicated
appropriately.
Social Assistance Food Allowance
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, my questions are to the Minister of Family Services, as
well.
Mr. Speaker, there is a group in this province which
calls itself the nutrition and food security network of
What these people have reported in this study is very
significant. They have indicated that
the province does not provide enough money in its social assistance budget for
a nutritionally balanced diet for the infants of the
In light of this new information provided by these
experts, some of whom are employed by this government, will the minister change
his policy with regard to the funding of social assistance of the City of
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services):
Mr. Speaker, when we brought in Bill 70 last year, we had an opportunity
to debate that legislation here in the Legislature. It was approved by this
Legislature to standardize the ability to access social allowances across this
province and also to give government the ability to standardize those
allowances. The member is well aware
that there were a number of jurisdictions across this province that paid social
allowances below the provincial rate.
About 60‑65 percent of the municipal corporations paid the social
allowances at the provincial rate, and we have implemented that legislation.
We will be going forward with that, come April 1, to have
one level of social allowance across Manitoba, but at the same time, municipal
corporations have the ability to increase that, if that is their wish, at their
cost.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the
City of
Can the minister tell this House why the province will
not recognize the needs of infants in their establishment of social assistance
rates?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, in
bringing forward the legislation that was encompassed in Bill 70, we had a
process in place where representatives of the City of Winnipeg, representatives
of UMM and MAUM came together on a committee called the SARC committee and held
a number of meetings and hearings, dialogued with the municipal councillors
across this province and brought forward to government the SARC report which
recommended that we go to one level of assistance.
The member is asking that we increase the social
allowances that are paid to individuals in
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the
minister knows full well that 89 percent of the social assistance recipients
live in
Child-Tax Benefit
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):
Can the minister tell this House today if he is going to at least guarantee
that social assistance recipients can keep all of their money that they will
receive on the new child tax benefit plan from the federal government without
having to pay and provide even less nutritional value for their infants than
they are presently providing?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services):
That is similar to the question asked by the member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale), and the answer is the same.
CP Rail Customer Service Operations
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker,
we have received word that CP Rail is moving to downsize their 360‑employee
Canadian customer service operations while centralizing the remaining 212
jobs.
My question is for the Minister of Highways and
Transportation. Has the Minister of
Transportation held discussions with CP Rail to determine what impact there
will be on the
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and
Transportation):
Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of having those meetings right now.
Mr. Reid: My question is for the same
minister, Mr. Speaker.
What action is the minister prepared to take to protect
the current 61 jobs while attracting the 151 new jobs that have a combined
payroll of $7.8 million.
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, that
is also part of the discussions that are taking place right now.
Transportation Industry Employment
Decline
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): It is very
clear, Mr. Speaker, judging by those comments and the throne speech itself,
that "jobs" is just a four‑letter word to this government.
My final supplementary to the same minister, Mr. Speaker:
What action plan does the minister have to stem the growing tide of transportation
jobs that are leaving our province?
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and
Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I could spend an hour answering that question; it
is such a broad question. I just want to
indicate that together with my colleagues, the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) and the Minister of I, T and T (Mr. Stefanson), we are in negotiations
and will be meeting with representatives from both CN and CP in terms of
looking at what they are doing, the impacts that it will have in the province
and how we can help alleviate some of the concerns that are there.
Social Assistance
Housing Allowance
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer).
Mr. Speaker, many people are facing tough times in
I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services a
very direct question: Will he review the
current guidelines for income assistance that are resulting in people, in
suites which have received increases of as much as 11 percent, being forced out
of their accommodation because Income Security will not fund the additional
increase?
* (1430)
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services):
Mr. Speaker, if the member has a specific case that he wants to bring
forward to me, we will certainly review it.
Mr. Ashton: Indeed, Mr. Speaker,
I do, and I would hope that the minister would look at the general situation,
because there are problems across this province in regard to this situation
happening.
Housing Conditions
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson):
I would like to ask a further question, Mr. Speaker, to the minister,
and that is, in view of the fact that Income Security indirectly pays a
significant amount of rent in this province for those on social assistance,
will he have his department take a proactive role in dealing with the
increasing problems of slum housing that many income security recipients are
faced with, whether it be in the city of Winnipeg, city of Thompson or many
other areas? Will his department
actively lobby on behalf of income security recipients to get them better
accommodation?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services):
Mr. Speaker, the provincial guideline for increases in shelter this year
was 1 percent, and I anticipate that other provinces‑‑Ontario, for
instance, have increased their housing by 6 percent. If there are specific cases that the member
wants to bring forward where landlords are in violation of provincial
guidelines, we would be pleased to review those.
Housing Allowance
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson):
My final question to the minister again, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister commit to sitting down with
the Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst) to ensure that those who are on social
assistance in this province receive a better deal in housing? As I said, people are either in substandard
conditions, or they are being faced in some cases, because of large rent
increases, with being forced to have to leave their current accommodation. Will he lobby on behalf of those individuals
with his own minister to change those regulations?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services):
Well, I suspect the honourable member had those questions ready for the
Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst) today.
We are certainly concerned with the circumstances in
which social allowance recipients find themselves in. We have worked actively with the groups such
as SACOM, MAPO and WORD to address a number of their issues as far as social
allowance regulations go, and we will continue to do so.
North American Free Trade Agreement
Government Action Plan
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for Industry, Trade and Tourism
announced the government's "new position" on the North American Free
Trade Agreement, and there seems to be considerable confusion about what the
government's position actually is.
In the press release, in the minister's statement, the
minister responsible said that in fact they had no problem now with the North
American Free Trade Agreement because there were parallel agreements to deal
with the concerns that this government continued to have, both with respect to
environmental issues and labour standards.
My question to the minister is: Has he now agreed with Mr. Mulroney and Mr.
Wilson that in fact the North American Free Trade Agreement will be going ahead
as initialled in
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism): The
answer, Mr. Speaker, is no.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, some
Manitobans will be comforted by that response.
My question to the minister is then: Can the minister then table his action plan
for getting the federal government to address the issues in some meaningful way
before the agreement is signed on Wednesday?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, at the
end of last week, I sent a letter to the Honourable Michael Wilson, the federal
Minister responsible for Trade, outlining the many concerns we have that were
addressed in some detail here in the House subsequent to the tabling of our
discussion paper that was provided to members of the opposition on Friday. That discussion paper was faxed to Mr.
Wilson's office on Friday as well. He
certainly has the position of our government.
It is not a new position, I should outline for the member
for Flin Flon. It is a consistent
position, addressing the six conditions that we put on the table back in July
of 1991, that we have continued to express on behalf of Manitobans. We have been consistent, unlike in many
respects what we hear from across the way.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral
Questions has expired.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader):
Mr. Speaker, would you call second reading, Bill 12, and we will follow
that with adjourned debate, Bill 4.
SECOND
Bill 12‑The International
Trusts Act
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by
the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 12, The
International Trusts Act (Loi sur les fiducies internationales), be now read a
second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, The
International Trusts Act, when enacted, would enable
The convention was adopted by the Hague Conference on
Private International Law in October 1984.
The principal objective of the convention is to provide for the
recognition of the essential characteristics of a trust in countries that are
members of the conference and whose legal systems do not recognize the concept
of a trust.
Here in
I sense, Mr. Speaker, from the slight buzzing sound in
this room, that a number of honourable members here have not yet grasped the
significance of the nature of international trusts and the importance thereof.
The convention describes the primary characteristics of a
trust. This is necessary because the
noncommon law jurisdictions require rules for determining when a trust
exists. The convention also sets out the
minimum extent to which the law of the forum will recognize a trust. The forum is the country in which a trust is
seeking to be recognized. The major
benefit of this convention is that it will relieve the numerous problems that
arise when common law trusts have international operations or connections.
The nonrecognition of trusts in civil law jurisdictions
is a real and increasingly common problem.
We all recognize that the concept of a global village is becoming a
reality and we are witnessing an increase in international trade and
investment.
Here in
The convention will be beneficial now and become
increasingly necessary in the future.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank all honourable members
for their close attention this afternoon and commit this bill to their support.
* (1440)
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson):
I move, seconded by the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman),
that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
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, standing in the name of the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek,
who has eight minutes remaining.
Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek):
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to complete my remarks, and I think that
I can start by suggesting to you that the legislation that we are dealing with
right now is legislation that was brought in in 1988, and this is now in place
in Manitoba. This legislation, I think, in
today's society is legislation that could be considered as restricting. It is
restricting on the businesses that are trying to carry out business in this
province, and it is restricting the people in
We as government should not be imposing legislation on
the choices of business, and we should not be imposing legislation or affecting
the choices of people in this province.
I can just say that if people want government to legislate, then we have
three choices. The first choice would be
shut down everything on Sunday shopping, or shut down for what people would not
normally make the choice themselves, and not allow even anybody to work on
Sunday. I think that would be the
extreme where policemen would not be allowed to work, or doctors would not be
allowed to work, or nurses. I think we
would shut down everything.
The second choice would be a compromise. That is where government would issue
guidelines in which people will have some restricted freedoms in terms of what
they can do as far as shopping on Sunday is concerned. I think that is what this legislation is
proposing to do, in providing the freedoms with some restrictions.
The other option is to open up Sunday shopping totally
like they have in some cities in the
I choose to believe the compromise this legislation is
imposing is timely and what the majority of Manitobans are looking for. However, I would suggest that if we are going
to be sensitive as legislators, which is what people are looking for us to
consider in view of the fact that we brought in legislation in 1988, and to be
compromising in the legislation, I think, that one thing that we could consider
if we were going to be sensitive to the church community, possibly we could
look at altering the hours of legislation from say 12 to six, say from one to
six.
One of the things that some of the people of the churches
are looking at are the church services run from 11 to 12 or 10:30 to 11:30, in
which case some people who are going to attend church are unable to meet the
requirement of going to work, to be there at twelve o'clock and to still attend
church services. The other alternative
would be for churches to consider the service and instead of having church
services at eleven o'clock, to moving those up to ten o'clock, which would
allow them to still attend church and to meet their requirements as far as
their work was concerned.
I think that the legislation in total does enable people
to make the choices. I think that there
are going to have to be some compromises made on all aspects, not only as far
as the government is concerned. I think
that people are going to have to make some choices which this legislation is
enabling people to do.
So, as I have indicated previously, Mr. Speaker, I will
be supporting this legislation as it is going to provide the freedom and the
choices that people are looking for and people are going to have to make some
adjustments with their lives. Saying
that, I would conclude my remarks. Thank
you for the opportunity of speaking.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson):
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this particular bill and
particularly appreciate the attentiveness of the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) and other members across the way, because I think this is the kind of
bill that we should have a considerable amount of debate on. In the past, we have had consensus in this
House. One of the rare occasions we had
consensus in the Pawley era from 1981 to 1988, was on Sunday shopping.
One only has to recall what had happened. We had legislation, Mr. Speaker, that had
been struck down by the Charter of Rights that dated back to the original
federal Lord's Day Amendment Act in 1905.
What we did in this Legislature at the time is we discussed amongst the
three parties in place at the time, a position that would reflect the consensus
of this Legislature. Indeed, we passed
legislation that was supported by every member of this House. As a result of that process, the legislation
I feel was a very excellent compromise, and I will get into some of the reasons
for that later on.
(Mr. Harold Neufeld, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, we are
here today debating this issue because this government has chosen not to follow
the consensus approach. I would say not
only have they chosen not to follow a consensus approach within this
Legislature, but I would say that they have chosen not to follow a consensus
approach within their own caucus.
In my comments today, what I want to do is talk about
some of the things that this debate, Mr. Acting Speaker, is not about and more
specifically what it is really all about, because I think that we are seeing
some very significant signals on some very important issues, some very
significant issues that are being raised by this government's actions rather
than indeed by its own words in this House.
The first thing, Mr. Acting Speaker, is, let us recognize
what this debate is about. This debate
is about Sunday working. It is about the degree to which the government is
sanctioning wide‑open Sunday work.
I want to state that, because it is not accurate to say this issue is
strictly one of Sunday openings.
Under the legislation we currently have, we have Sunday
openings that are allowed in certain cases.
People can buy groceries, or could before the government made unilateral
changes that have expanded upon that original legislation. They could go to restaurants. They had access to essential services. That was all part of the consensus approach
that was developed by all parties of this House, that reflected I think the
concern, at the time, of many people that there should be some reflection of
the concerns of rural Manitobans, of small‑business people and indeed of
many working people.
I hope that the member for
The bottom line, Mr. Acting Speaker, is, this issue is
about whether we are going to be sanctioning wide‑open Sunday working,
with all its various consequences, or not.
Let us deal with the second thing that this issue is not
about. It is not about cross‑border
shopping. Indeed, if it was about cross‑border
shopping a few weeks ago, I would suggest that if there are any members across
the way who are going to base their decision on the argument that we have a
problem with Sunday shopping, that the Sunday shopping problem is to do with
cross‑border shopping, that this is because of the availability of Sunday
shopping and of the pull, of the attraction of shopping in the United States, I
would suggest that members look at The Globe and Mail today, as I speak,
Monday, December 14, 1992, the current edition, which states very clearly, the
headline is: Cross‑border shopping is over.
* (1450)
Why, Mr. Acting Speaker, is that the case? Canadian and American retailers are citing a
number of reasons. The falling dollar has
reduced the price differential between
Mr. Acting Speaker, if the member for
The government is saying that it is introducing this
legislation by and large because of cross‑border shopper, when the facts
show that because of the lower dollar, because of the other reasons I outlined,
the problem is no longer as serious. In fact, people are saying now that cross‑border
shopping has returned to its traditional level. [interjection]
The member for
If he is not aware of the impact the GST has had, he
should look into his economics. If he is
not aware what has been happening with customs officers, he should look into
that fact, too, Mr. Acting Speaker, because I find it interesting that the
member, who is very vocal right now, has not been quite as active in the debate
on this.
We are anxiously awaiting the first speech of this member
on a substantive bill. I would like to
hear where he stands on this bill. I am
sure the residents of the city of
Mr. Acting Speaker, I would be quite willing, if I could
continue my remarks afterwards, to let the member for
We are dying to hear what he has to say on the issue of
Sunday shopping. We are dying to hear
how much he has talked to his constituents in the city of Portage and how he
can defend‑‑and how any Conservative member can defend the kind of
unilateral move they have made, a bill they have introduced after they have
already legalized it, a bill that probably will not even be passed until after
this trial period is finished, how anyone on that side can actually talk about
consultation with individuals in their constituencies when they are so
violating the democratic process by ramming through this bill. But it is not about cross‑border
shopping.
Mr. Acting Speaker, as I said, we are quite anxious to
hear from many of the Conservative members opposite, particularly members from
rural communities, what they have to say to the concerns that have been
expressed by many rural communities about this particular legislation.
As I said, Mr. Acting Speaker, the problem with cross‑border
shopping that this government, in fact the minister himself in his opening
comments, referenced so significantly as being a factor, by the very basis of
statistics that we are seeing now is no longer the great factor. The minister, by the way, on page 392 of
Hansard, said, it will help stem the flow of some spending by Manitobans to the
Well, let us talk about some other things that this issue
is not about, because I found it rather interesting that a number of members opposite,
in their speeches, said that they did not want to see politics on this issue
and then spent quite a great part of their speeches talking not only about
politics but bringing in the usual Conservative approach on issues such as
this, attacking labour leaders, attacking the NDP. I suppose that is to be expected. This government has, on this issue, broken
away from the nonpartisan approach that had been adopted previously.
I do find it rather unfortunate, Mr. Acting Speaker,
because I think what is happening essentially is that this government, in its
anxiousness to justify this bill, which has to probably be passed under the
normal course of events with which we deal with any legislation in this House,
not until after the trial period is over, that they are going to great lengths
to try and justify what is clearly a unilateral action on their part.
As I said, Mr. Acting Speaker, if they want to attack us
or attack the leadership of the labour movement on these issues, they had
better realize that it is not just the New Democrats in this House who have
spoken on this issue who are expressing the concerns on Sunday shopping. It is not just the labour movement. It is the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce. It is many people who are concerned in
society about the impact of this particular bill. There is a broad number of people who have
expressed concern over Sunday shopping.
Indeed, there are many Manitobans who support it, but it is a concern
that is broad‑based on those who do oppose it and have many concerns
which I do share.
I want to say, Mr. Acting Speaker, that the fourth thing
this bill is not about is all the buzzwords that the Conservative members seem
to have adopted as of late. They talk
about "new." They talk about "innovative." I notice they have spliced in now the word
"choice." It is interesting
how we are seeing Conservatives in this House so active proponents of
unfettered Sunday shopping that they used the word "choice," whereas
on other issues they do not seem to have the same affinity for the concept of
choice.
I was particularly struck by some of the references to
some of these buzzwords, Mr. Acting Speaker, that have been creeping into
speeches, in this case on Sunday shopping.
The member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), in trying to justify the
shift to Sunday shopping, talked about adapting to change, about the winds of
change are upon us. We are in the '90s
now. He even went so far as to suggest,
I think the legislation as proposed is visionary, people have the freedoms. He even talked about the Great Wall of China
and the
Is the member seriously comparing Sunday shopping
legislation in
* (1500)
I want to quote some of the other things that the member
said, because I think this is an interesting view of what the vision of the
government is. The member said in his
speech that, and this is a quote, this is the time‑‑we are talking
about Sunday‑‑when families can share the time with their children
and go out and window shop. Is this the
vision of the Conservative government, freedom to window shop? Is this keeping up with the change, that this
is a time when families can share the time with their children and go out and
window shop? Mr. Acting Speaker, if this
is what the government has in its own mind as a vision, I think we are seeing
just how shallow that vision is.
So it is not about a vision; it is not about change in
the '90s. What it is, is about a very
conscious policy decision that was made after some discussion in the
Conservative caucus and that reflects a number of factors that were made. It is not about that‑‑and I
referenced this already as the members opposite saying this is about choice‑‑this
is about unfettered choice.
We have regulations in regard to employment standards, a
number of issues, a wide variety of issues.
We are seeing greater pressure now, particularly in light of the
increasing number of two‑parent families in the work force, single
parents. We are seeing increasing pressure on analysis of employment standards
legislation, particularly for those who do not have the benefits of a union
contract, because many union contracts will have as part of the fabric, part of
the wording, part of the legality of those contracts, specific protection of
certain employment rights on behalf of the employees and certain clear
agreements between the employer and employee in terms of employment standards.
What we are talking about in the case of this bill is
something that particularly affects those who do not have the benefits of a
union contract. It is not just in terms
of Sunday shopping that we make these kind of decisions. We make them in a whole series of other
employment issues, whether it be in terms of vacations, for example. We have requirements that employees receive a
minimum of two weeks a year. If one runs
through The Employment Standards Act, we have requirements in terms of
employment standards, for example, with female employees working late. We have requirements in terms of working
alone. We have a whole series of
requirements.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting
Speaker, in the Chair)
This bill incidentally amends The
Employment Standards Act. It directly relates to employment standards. It is a bill that affects the employment
standards related to Sunday working. It
is a Sunday‑working bill, and to talk in that way of unfettered choice
that the members opposite have talked about, for example, the member for Niakwa
(Mr. Reimer)‑‑and I was reading his speech earlier‑‑thumbs
down to the old adage that the people and the market are dictating a choice,
Mr. Acting Speaker. We do not accept
that on many issues. [interjection] Well, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
says we are against. I will tell you what
we are against. The dictation of choice
in ways in this case are not really choice for the people who are forced to
work on a Sunday.
I will get to that one later in my remarks because this
is going to lead, no matter how this government phrases the debate on this
bill, no matter how they try and spin sections of this bill, this is going to
lead, in fact, has already led to people not having a real choice about whether
they work on Sunday.
So there are a lot of things that this is not about. It is not about whether there will be any
Sunday openings or not because we have a compromise in place already. It is not about cross‑border shopping,
or at least it should not be given the latest evidence. It is not about the kind of debates we often
have in this House where people tend to want to pit one group in society
against another in terms of the labour movement, for example. It is not about change, innovation, a vision,
and it is not about choice.
What is it about, Mr. Acting Speaker? What is this discussion, this debate, all
about? Let us look where the pressure
for Sunday shopping, Sunday working on a wide‑open basis is coming
from. We have heard many comments in
debate from members opposite talking about the great demand there was for
Sunday shopping, how they were responding to the public's demand, I think was
the word used by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine). There were references I note also in the
speech from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), the
Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) about this
great public demand.
I have regular office hours, I visit my constituents on a
regular basis, and do you know how many calls I have had on Sunday
shopping? You guessed it, I have had
exactly one in 11 years up to the introduction of this bill, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Mr. Harold Neufeld (Rossmere):
Which way did they go?
Mr. Ashton: For the member for
Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld), I got a call once from somebody who wanted wide‑open
Sunday shopping. I will be right up
front, Mr. Acting Speaker, one call, one phone call in 11 years on Sunday
shopping.
I look at other members in this House. The member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), how many
phone calls has he received in the two years he has been here? None.
The member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale)?
None. The member for Flin Flon
(Mr. Storie), how many calls have you received?
None. The member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman), how many calls did you receive on Sunday? Two.
Ah, wait a sec. The member for
Dauphin received 200 percent the number of calls that I have received. Double, and they are both against. Well, now it is running two to one against.
The member for
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Ashton: He wants to be left
out of this. Okay. The way the Liberals are going, Mr. Acting
Speaker, they do not have to ask to be left out of things; the people are
leaving them out on an increasing basis.
Mr. Lamoureux: I will let you know
by next week.
Mr. Ashton: Yes, well, we are
anxiously awaiting the member for
But, quite honestly, how many members opposite have had
any difference of experience from members on our side in terms of this being an
issue? How many calls have members
opposite received prior to this becoming an issue?
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs):
The same as afterwards.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Acting Speaker,
I think the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), tongue in cheek, with a large element
of truth there says, the same as afterwards.
The same as before, the same as after, we will see what happens in terms
of this issue, but I think if he goes a step further, he will also acknowledge
that he has not exactly received dozens of phone calls and letters and people
demanding that Sunday shopping be made wide open in Manitoba.
Indeed, that was the case. We had a compromise. We had a consensus. It was supported by the three parties in this
House, and while not everybody in the province was happy with that legislation,
by and large there were no significant demands for it to be changed so it was
not coming from the people.
I know the minister responsible for Industry, Trade and
Technology (Mr. Stefanson) will say, well, we ran a survey and it showed that
50 percent were in favour and 43 percent were against. Well, we know they are running surveys. We know they have probably done that on
NAFTA. We saw these great Tories oppose
NAFTA, to which I could just say, yeah, right, or in the terminology of a
recent movie, the Tories opposed NAFTA‑‑not. If the Conservatives want to trot out, they
have run a survey on this, and they have run a survey on that. What other surveys do they want to bring out?
An Honourable Member: They ran a survey
on trade and found out people do not like it.
Mr. Ashton: Well, in fact they
ran a survey on trade indeed, and they found out people do not like it. I am sure the next step for this government
is they are going to retroactively oppose the U.S‑Canada Free Trade
Agreement, which they supported, because now, since they have run a survey
showing people are against it, they are going to listen to the people of
Does anyone remember the referendum? I think most members in this House do. I seem to recall a poll showing the vast
majority of Canadians supporting the
Mr. Acting Speaker, when I look at this Conservative
government of Manitoba, the supposed heirs to the John Diefenbaker's, he had
some rather graphic descriptions of his use for polls, which I do not even know
if I can repeat in this House. In fact,
I know I cannot repeat it. He had some
very graphic descriptions of what he saw the only use for polls were. Indeed, I
already asked the government, is this how they make decisions now, they run a
poll? Is this how they decide issues
such as this, on polls? I suspect that
it is very much the case.
* (1510)
It obviously was not a poll that was run other than after
they decided they were going to look at this issue, so that is not even the
reason. It may be a rationale; it may be
an excuse, but it is not a reason. Why
would the Conservative government change legislation that has been in place for
a number of years, that was supported on a consensus basis by all the members
of this House? Well, they got lobbied
and who did they get lobbied by?
Let us look at who was concerned about the previous
legislation. I say, previous because it
is still in force, but it is being ignored by this provincial government. It was the large department stores; it was
the large grocery stores; it was from pressure from some of the malls in
Mr. Acting Speaker, was it the entire business community?
No. In fact, the Manitoba Chamber of
Commerce is overwhelmingly against the actions of this government. So when it came to looking, obviously‑‑[interjection]
What I am saying to the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) is that he and his
colleagues in government have ignored the rural communities in this particular
case and have listened to the lobbying from some of the major stores in
Well, was it from all the businesses in
So a very narrowly focused lobby put its pressure on the
government. The government had a
discussion over about a year. I imagine they probably had some heated and lengthy
discussions. When it came to making a decision, what did they decide? Well, they did two things. They decided to listen to the
Mr. Acting Speaker, something that this government is
particularly vulnerable to, and we have heard it on other issues, whether it be
this issue or Autopac, where we increasingly see who this government represents
in this House and how it makes its decisions.
It is based on those who can get to this government and, indeed, some
people did get and others did not.
There is another thing about the political process that
this is about as well, and you know, Mr. Acting Speaker, it has been raised by
a number of members in this House. It is
about the cynical way in which this bill has been introduced.
I cannot think of anything more cynical than introducing
a bill in what is a limited three‑week session‑‑and this is
something we have moved increasingly to is a fall and a winter sitting‑‑but
we had an agreement that said this sitting will go no longer than four weeks,
and the government chose to have a sitting of three weeks. So they introduce the bill which is a
dramatic change from the past, breaks not only from the kind of legislation we
have that may have been of support or opposed by different sides, but breaks
from a consensus from all parties in this House.
They introduce it, knowing full well that the throne
speech takes eight days worth of debate.
The end result is, how many days of debate do we end up having in this
House on this bill, maximum in this sitting, let alone the fact that we have
other bills that are before us? Seven
days.
Seven days, is that not interesting? Now what is likely to happen? Well, we are adjourning on the 16th. That is by the government's decision but
based on an original agreement. We are
going to be back sometime in March. The
final date has not been finalized. So
given the limited amount of time available, surprise, surprise, Mr. Acting
Speaker, it might appear that this bill was introduced with the full knowledge
that it certainly was not going to pass through second reading in this part of
the sitting.
I want to go a little bit further. I suspect that even members opposite know
there would be a considerable amount of public presentation on this bill, so I
think somehow along the way, somehow at the inkling, this bill might not pass
by the 16th, interestingly. Then there
is a gap. We are back in March sometime. This is a temporary measure.
Is it not interesting how immediately we take a chunk of
time off this trial period? Knowing the
way in which we proceed in this House with our compulsory hearings, I wonder if
someone across the way actually sat down and said, oh, is this not interesting? We can introduce this bill, and by the time it
ever really gets to a vote, the trial period is over. Oh, no.
Mr. Acting Speaker, why would they want to do that?
Might it be due to the fact that some members opposite
might not support this? Is it not
perhaps that those members who are not in support of this might have an easier
time not voting against it if the trial period had already happened? Is that not interesting? Talk about cynical politics.
Introduce a bill that has been brought in unilaterally,
no support from other sides of the House, and then have it come in retroactive
no matter when it is passed. Mr. Acting
Speaker, sounds awfully Machiavellian to me, and I would say when I look across
the way, no one is going to be fooled about the strategy of this government on
this bill. They knew this right from the
start.
There is no intention of seeing this bill passed before
the trial period is pretty close to over, if not completely over. The
Conservatives know that, we know that, and it is one thing that the people of
But, Mr. Acting Speaker, people will say we bring in
retroactive legislation on other matters.
We do on budgetary matters, but I want to paint the scenario for you
because I think this has all been thought through. It is no news to any members on the Tory
benches. What if when this bill finally
comes to a vote, it is voted down? [interjection] Good question, indeed.
Mr. Acting Speaker, what are we going to do? Are we going to retroactively enforce the
law? Are we going to charge those that
stayed open when it was under the old law?
Are we going to ask shoppers to return their merchandise? I mean, the absurdity of bringing in
retroactive legislation under the very cynical planning they have in terms of
the agenda. I mean, let us get serious‑‑cynicism
supreme.
Now, members opposite will say, well, this government
brought in retroactive legislation on this or that government brought in
retroactive legislation on that. Mr.
Acting Speaker, if they want me to say on the record that I believe this kind
of retroactive legislation, as cynically timetabled as it is, is wrong and it
does not matter who brings it in, what kind of government, I will do so. It is wrong.
It is cynical, and I find it is particularly distasteful
given the fact that on this particular legislation, we have had consensus in
the past. In fact, the Deputy Premier
(Mr. Downey) will remember well discussions that took place at the time and the
consensus that existed at the time the current legislation was brought in in
response to the court ruling on the Charter of Rights.
* (1520)
So this is cynical politics, Mr. Acting Speaker, and the
cynicism is not just a question of running opinion polls and making decisions. It is not just a question of deciding on
behalf of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce and the heck with everybody
else. It is bringing in a bill
retroactively that you know is probably not even going to be voted upon until
after the fact, so that you do not have to face the embarrassing prospect of
having some of your own members not only vote against this bill but potentially
defeat it as well. So it is cynical
politics of the worst kind.
Let us go a little bit further and look at what this
debate is all about. Let us talk about
the rural‑urban issue, because I find it interesting that sometimes
members opposite on this bill are getting into some rather twisted logic, to
say the least. [interjection]
Well, the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) is
commenting here, Mr. Acting Speaker. I
am glad he is doing that because it is interesting, he said two things in his
speech. He said that we need this bill
to deal with people going to the
Mr. Acting Speaker, you can argue it one way, you can
argue it the other, but you cannot argue it both ways. If people are loyal to their communities in
terms of this, I think you are going to see the illogic of what is going to
happen. In fact, I think if you look at
what the member opposite should reflect upon, it is the fact that in many
cases, if you look at the factors in terms of visits to the
Mr. Acting Speaker, the real concern in the rural
communities is in terms of communities that are far closer to the city of
You have to be very careful in terms of the arguments you
use, not just in terms of debate in this House, but because it is important in
terms of the policy decision that you make.
When you say no to the rural communities and the concerns expressed by
them and the rural chambers of commerce, Mr. Acting Speaker, you better have
your facts right. You better have your
arguments right, because I have yet to hear any persuasive evidence from
members opposite, any persuasive arguments in terms of the concerns being
expressed by rural businesses. I want to
point out in terms of the rural‑urban concerns that the concern is
expressed even in northern
I had the opportunity to attend an event this weekend
sponsored by many local businesses and the chamber of commerce. I can tell you,
Mr. Acting Speaker, many people in Thompson, many small business owners and
operators are opposed to Sunday shopping, because we have the same sort of
situation that develops. Woolco, the
major department store, opens up. There
is pressure on everybody to open up in the mall. If they do not open up‑‑we have
two malls in Thompson‑‑somebody else will open up in the other
mall. They will lose business. It puts pressure on people.
You know, the argument of many of those small communities
has been that it costs money, Mr. Acting Speaker, to open on that additional
day. It will not pay, whatever
additional business, if any will be received.
There is another issue, as well, and it is a question of
work and family. I will be continuing to
raise these concerns at committee and in terms of third reading.
What this bill is going to do is it is not going to
adequately protect those who do not want to work on a Sunday. Just talk to
people who work in stores where they are having to work now on Sunday. Most people I have talked to said they do not
trust, in any kind of legislation‑‑to stop an employer from saying,
well, you have reduced hours now, nothing to do with the fact you will not work
on a Sunday, but you have reduced hours. Indeed. Nothing to stop an employer from saying, we
are firing you for another reason, you are an unsuitable employee for this,
that or the other reason, nothing to do with the fact that you will not work on
Sunday. People do not believe that, Mr.
Acting Speaker.
That is what this issue is about. It is about listening to the concerns of
workers, because that is a real issue, Sunday working. I would ask how many people, really, if they
were asked a question, if they were going to have to work on a Sunday, how their
response would be in this House. It is a
question of work and family, about allowing greater family time and still
providing the essential services that people demand. It is about fairness for small businesses,
for businesses in rural northern communities, and I would say about economics,
too. It does not make sense.
Let not this government in its haste to justify its
cynical political moves fool anyone with the kind of arguments that it has
brought forward today. Let us see what
the members opposite have to say and let us see, Mr. Acting Speaker, when this
bill does come to vote how they will vote.
I will be voting no on this bill, and I will be fighting on behalf of
the many working people and the many small businesses in my community who also
are saying no.
Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Acting
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to put on the record a few remarks
regarding Bill 4, The Retail Businesses Sunday Shopping (Temporary Amendments)
Act. It really should not be called the
Sunday shopping act, because, although it is called that, all it does is change
the number of employees that a store can have on a Sunday.
The Sunday shopping act has been in effect since 1983
since the former government brought it in.
It really does not change the fact the stores can still be open.
[interjection] '77, was it? Okay. All the new amendments really say is that
these stores that are presently open or that could be open, they can open on
Sunday, and they can have as many employees as they want.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I think this is a step in the right
direction. Although I do respect the
calls and the letters I have had from some of my constituents from the
Stonewall area, I really believe that trying to limit the number of employees
that an employer has goes against everything we believe in. In no other business do we try to limit the
number of employees a business has. Why
should we do it in the retail sector?
Also, there are other reasons. By limiting the number to four you are
certainly going to encourage shoplifting.
I listened to the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) there. He did not really say much other than I guess
he really encourages shoplifting. I
think that is what they really are trying to encourage over there.
How can stores such as Safeway, SuperValu, Canadian Tire
operate with four employees? It is just
not reasonable. I realize that certainly
the large stores do seem to attract customers, but that is what they are there
for. They are there to serve the
people. If people want to come to their
stores on Sunday, they should be able to sell them something and not keep them
in line for an hour, or an hour and a half.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I think that is one of the reasons
why I support this bill, even though some of my constituents are against
it. I have had more calls from people in
my constituency, from the areas of Highways 8 and 9, from the Petersfield,
Clandeboye areas,
Just think of the number of jobs it is going to create‑‑even
in Dauphin. Safeway has a store in
Dauphin. I bet they have more than four
employees on Sunday‑‑[interjection] Because the business is
there. People want to spend their
money. They want to shop on a Sunday.
[interjection] Well, that is fine. That
is good, whatever.
I think there are some benefits, certainly the fact that
the larger stores will be hiring more employees for this part‑time help
or whatever. It will give university
students an opportunity to earn some extra money, to work on Sundays, to work
on holidays and things of that nature.
This has been the case for many years.
It is not something new. I think
it is probably a step in the right direction.
I did have a number of calls, Mr. Acting Speaker, and
some letters from some of the businesses in my communities closest to
In fact, a week after this came in they had a
meeting. They had 20 retailers
there. Out of those 20 retailers, 18
agreed that rather than opening their own stores such as the hardware stores
and things of that nature on Sunday, they would open on a Thursday and a Friday
evening until nine o'clock.
* (1530)
Mr. Acting Speaker, I think this certainly makes
sense. It makes sense to me, and it
makes sense to a lot of people who commute back and forth to work in
I think the Stonewall Chamber of Commerce and the
Stonewall merchants have acted very responsibly by opening on Thursday and
Friday evenings. I think that was a
positive move on their part, and I want to commend them for their actions.
Just one experience I had, my wife and I, a week last
Sunday, had company coming for supper.
We were, after church, on our way home and we stopped at the local
grocery store to buy some things, even though I do not necessarily go shopping
on a Sunday, but oftentimes we take advantage of the convenience of the store
if it is open, that we can do that. [interjection] Well, at least you can go in
and get out; you do not have to stand in line for an hour. They can have as many employees as they want
to.
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Oh, come on,
you are taking the business away from them.
You are going to end up closing those convenience stores that you are
talking about. Those are the ones that
are going to close.
Mr. Helwer: The member for
Dauphin is saying it is going to affect the small convenience stores. I do not believe so. The convenience stores are open probably from
seven in the morning until 11 at night seven days a week, and they are there
for people who want to buy things, bread, milk, cigarettes or whatever at any
time, so those are there.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I think there are many businesses and
many service industries‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau):
Order, please. Could I have the
honourable members wanting to carry on a conversation across the floor move
into the loge and continue there, so that we can hear the honourable member for
Gimli.
Mr. Helwer: Mr. Acting Speaker,
I was going to mention that there are many other businesses and many other
services that have to be open on a Sunday and people who have to work on
Sunday. The airports are an example. There
are planes flying seven days a week, 24 hours a day, the trucking industry,
many industries that have to be open seven days a week, 24 hours a day to offer
the services that people require.
I have been in business for about 29 years actually in
Manitoba and I know that when people want to buy something, you had better have
your doors open and be prepared to sell it and offer people a service and‑‑[interjection]
That is right. They do not want to stand
in line an hour and a half at Safeway stores or SuperValu or whatever the case
may be.
Even though I have some reservations, I certainly support
this and support the business community at Stonewall which has acted very
responsibly. I think the hours of
between noon and five on a Sunday of the bigger stores are not going to affect
the smaller stores surrounding
An Honourable Member: This is a very
temporary measure, a trial period.
Mr. Helwer: It is a trial
period, and we will see.
Many of the calls that I received from my constituents in
the areas of Clandeboye and Petersfield who do their shopping in Selkirk and
also in some of the large stores along McPhillips, the Highway No. 8 people who
drive back and forth every day, some of them do their shopping, they appreciate
the fact that they can now go into their place of business on a Sunday
afternoon and do not have to stand in line to wait for an hour and a half or
more. That was really a deterrent that
people were very unhappy with.
I think this government has taken a common‑sense
approach to this, Mr. Acting Speaker. I
think our Minister of I, T and T (Mr. Stefanson) has acted responsibly by
bringing in the bill, that is a retail businesses amendments act, to give the
hour business an opportunity to see whether the Sunday shopping is an option
which they want to continue. After the
five‑month period we should be able to tell whether we will continue with
this or not.
Mr. Acting Speaker, those are my remarks, and I
appreciate the opportunity to put them on the record.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):
Mr. Acting Speaker, I am delighted to rise at this particular moment and
speak on Bill 4.
First of all, I would like to begin by saying what this
bill is not, and then I will deal with what the bill is. First of all, Sunday shopping is not going to
do, with the greatest respect to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism
(Mr. Stefanson), some of the things that he and his colleagues would like to
say it is going to do.
First of all, it is not going to stop cross‑border
shopping. I think we have to recognize that cross‑border shopping is a
phenomena that we will live with each time the dollar value gets to such a
level that it becomes a means by which families can stretch their incomes. If they feel that they are getting bargains
south of the border because our dollar is higher or very high in comparison to
the American dollar, then they will go south of the border. They will also use it as a form of
recreation. This is a trip for a weekend
purpose or perhaps longer, and they will shop when they are off on this weekend
excursion. So it is not going to stop
cross‑border shopping.
The only way you are going to stop cross‑border
shopping is for Canadians to make a commitment to buy Canadian or for Canadians
to feel that the bargains are better here at home. Certainly, we have seen that
happen as the dollar has reduced in value from some 87 cents
There are also more and more Canadians, I think, who are
becoming concerned about the whole concept of buying Canadian. I hope so.
I hope they are recognizing that there is a need for Canadians to
stimulate their own economy and to shop here at home. The closer you are, of course, to the border,
as the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) pointed out, the more likely you are to
engage in cross‑border shopping.
If you get far enough away that the travel becomes ludicrous in terms of
saving any money, then you will not engage in cross‑border shopping.
If the minister wants to be truly honest with the people
of this province, I do not think that he should sell the whole concept of
Sunday shopping as a means by which he is going to prevent cross‑border
shopping.
The second argument which I think is a fallacy about this
particular piece of legislation is that it is somehow or other going to
stimulate the economy, that it is going to get people to spend more money than
they would spend in the stores at the present time. I think it is not a very realistic scenario,
Mr. Acting Speaker. Families have so
many dollars to spend and leaving the stores opened on a Sunday, I would
suggest to you, will mean that they will choose not to shop on the Wednesday
night or not to shop on the Monday morning or not to shop on the Saturday
afternoon, but they will not spend any more dollars, because they do not have
any more dollars to spend. So there is
another argument that I do not consider valid for the purposes of changing the
Sunday shopping legislation.
* (1540)
There is only one reason, in my opinion, to change the
legislation and that is because of lifestyle.
The reality is that lifestyles of Manitobans are changing. I do not shop on Sundays. I do not make any great deliberate choice
because the stores are open or not open, not to shop on Sundays. I do not shop on Sundays because Sundays are
one of the few days that, if I am not attending an event, I actually can spend
with my husband. The last thing that my
husband wants to do is to go shopping and I must admit I share that‑‑about
the last thing I want to do is go shopping.
When my housekeeper worked full time as the children were
small, I must admit that that was one of the things I was delighted that she
would do for me. So she went off every
Thursday and brought groceries. I
thought that was heaven, that somebody else would actually do the grocery
shopping. One of the disadvantages of my
announcing my retirement, I have to say, Mr. Acting Speaker, is that my husband
has been doing some of that grocery shopping lately and I think that when I
have more time, the finger is going to point at somebody else to do some of
that shopping every now and then. Darn
it all, I just about had it made in terms of not having to do this grocery
shopping.
The reality is that if I never had to enter a store, I
would be delighted, but I also recognize that I am not at a stage of life where
I am any longer a typical family. My
daughters are in their twenties. If they
want anything, not only are they capable of getting it for themselves, but they
are probably more interested in getting it for themselves because their tastes
are different from my taste.
I think of the small young family, the single‑parent
mother or the family with young children who may choose to shop on a Sunday
because it is a valid time for them. It
is also an opportunity for them to spend time together, because some families
do choose to spend time together in this particular way. I do not understand that, but I can accept
the fact that they choose to spend their family time that way.
Now there are those who will argue, look the stores are
open late at night. They are open all
day Saturday. There are plenty of hours
in the week in which people can shop.
Well, that is easier said than done.
I spoke with a few single‑parent moms over the last few weeks, and
I asked them about their days and why they found Sunday shopping appealing.
They are up at 6:30 in the morning on an average. By the time they have fed breakfast to the
children, they have them dressed, they have dropped them at child care centres
or they have made sure that they are at a before‑school centre, they go
off to work. They work all day. They pick the children up at five o'clock,
sometimes 5:30. They get the children
home. They prepare dinner. They make lunches for the next morning's
activities. They get clothes ready for
the children to wear. They do not have the time or the energy to go shopping in
the evenings. So for them, the Saturday
has become the only day of the week where it is realistic for them to shop, but
that is also often the day when their child or children are involved in a
myriad of activities, be they swimming lessons or perhaps they are taking
ballet lessons or perhaps there is a soccer practice or a hockey game, all of
which they want to share with their children.
So the Sunday becomes that afternoon when they can go and participate and
shop.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton)
raised the argument about the wonderful old legislation. Well, personally I thought the old
legislation was asinine. I mean, quite
frankly, how can you say that a piece of legislation which tells me that I can
go to Safeway on Sunday but I cannot go to SuperValu is a good piece of
legislation? How can you tell me that it
is perfectly acceptable to go to Shopper's and buy Christmas lights and
Christmas balls and tinsel and anything else I could possibly want, but I cannot
go and buy my children a pair of running shoes?
If that was a good piece of legislation, then, Mr. Speaker, I have to
tell you that I do not understand goodness in that kind of inequality of what
people can and cannot do.
Now there are other aspects, however, of Sunday shopping
that also have to be dealt with. There
are individuals‑‑[interjection] Yes, I do, and I raised some
comments about the fact that I thought it was better than what we had but still
was very unfair and iniquitous.
The reality of this situation, Mr. Speaker, is that there
is a good counterset of arguments to be made.
I think it is appropriate to make those counterarguments, because this
is really what we are doing in this case.
We are balancing a series of arguments.
Certainly, there is the argument of those who believe that Sunday should
be a day of worship, that it should be a day of family experiences. They obviously do not include shopping as one
of those family activities. They feel
passionately about this particular day of rest.
It is a valid argument from their perspective. However, I think it is true to say that
nobody is forcing those families to go and shop on Sunday, but they have a valid
argument.
It also has to be raised, however, that there are many religious
groups that, quite frankly, do not celebrate Sunday as their day of rest. They celebrate Friday or they celebrate
Saturday. They have had to cope for
decades with the fact that stores and businesses function on their so‑called
Sabbath or their day of rest. We are
becoming a far more multireligious society, and I think we have to recognize
that. Having said that, it is a valid
argument for people on that side of the case to make.
The other argument which, quite frankly, I am much more
sensitive to than that one is the issue of people who will be forced to work,
thereby putting unfair pressures on the family. There is no question that
individuals, despite what this legislation says, will be forced to work on
Sunday.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) has already
indicated to me that he has had some experiences and has called managers and
said, look, this is not what the legislation says, smarten up. Good for him to
try and enforce it as best he can; but there are far more subtle ways of insisting,
and the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) raised some of that with regard to the
imposition of people having to work on Sunday.
Certainly, managers and assistant managers are all going to succumb to
those kinds of pressures.
I also have an issue that I want to talk about today with
respect to pressure that I hope the government will seriously evaluate. When I first began teaching almost 30 years
ago, one of the things that I noticed was the direct correlation between the
number of hours a teenager worked and the marks that teenager got in high
school.
Studies have now verified what I had observed as a
teacher to say that there is a maximum number of hours at which point there is
real suffering that goes on within the academic life of a child. The young person who works 10 hours a week,
quite frankly, is not affected. It is
probably good for them, it probably stimulates their outside interests and it
gives them some spare cash, which is certainly a reduction in the burden upon
the family. When those hours, however,
get over 15, there is indeed a correlation.
Their marks, unless they are an exceptionally bright child, tend to go
down.
I would like the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism
(Mr. Stefanson) and the Ministers of Labour (Mr. Praznik) and Education and
Training (Mrs. Vodrey) to begin to do some evaluation as to whether or not we
should be limiting the number of hours that a full‑time high school
student would be allowed to work in the workplace, because my experience is
that employers will go up to the 22.5 hours because that is where they have to
start paying benefits. They will push
the youngsters into working those kinds of hours even if they have exams, even
if it is a tough time in their academic year.
If we are trying to give out a message that staying in
school and maximizing the learning potential is of serious nature to this
government, then I think we have to in all seriousness look at the downside of
these young people being forced to work more hours than is probably in their
academic advantage to do. The pressure
on young people to work longer hours is there by the employer saying if you do
not work these hours, then I will have to find another young person who will
work the additional hours of time. That
is something I would like the ministers to seriously consider, because it is
important for all of us that our youngsters have the best advantage of the
academic career that they are participating in.
* (1550)
I have to tell you that when my own teenagers wanted to
work, I said to them in no uncertain terms that they had a job during the
academic school year. Their job was to
get the best possible marks they possibly could get and their father and I
would provide them with the spare cash.
That is not an option that is open to all parents, but it could well be
an option that we could afford to offer children by just limiting the number of
hours that they are allowed to work under The Labour Standards Act.
The issue in terms of how I am going to vote in this
particular piece of legislation comes down, quite frankly, on the issue of the
desires of my constituency and that is why I told the caucus, in fact before we
had even met on the issue, that they were going to have a free vote on this
particular issue. I would like the
member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) to pay particular attention to this.
I want the free vote not because I want to embarrass
anybody in the Tory caucus. That is not
what I am calling for here. I believe
that there is something that we should have learned from the October 26
referendum and that is that the citizens of this province and this nation want
us as politicians to listen a little better.
They do not want to tell us how they should vote or they do not want us
to tell them how to vote. They want us
to listen to some degree to what they are saying to us. It appeared to me that this was a perfect
example of this kind of legislation. It
is not, I do not see, as a matter of Liberal philosophy to vote yes or no. It is not a moral issue. It is not an issue that I feel offends my
sense of religious or moral principles.
It is an issue upon which I think it is very much a lifestyle
choice. It is not a lifestyle choice I
particularly want to enjoy, but it is not a lifestyle choice that I think I
have the right to deny others to enjoy.
I know that there are Liberal caucus members who are
going to vote yes. I know there are
Liberal caucus members who are going to vote no. I think they should feel very comfortable in
the choice that they are making. I do
not think they should have to vote no because they are members of the NDP
caucus, and I do not think they should have to vote yes because they are
members of the Progressive Conservative caucus.
I think they should be able to vote as a matter of conscience.
Unless you think this is some newfound notion, let me
tell you, they have been doing this in the House of Commons in
I think if we do not start changing that, then we are
going to find even more disillusionment.
Consensus‑‑what is this wonderful consensus? Let us talk about consensus in caucuses for a
moment. Consensus means, thou shalt vote
with the party that thou shalt belong to or thou shalt find oneself disciplined
by that party. I mean, that is
consensus. For what? On an issue like this, what are we trying to
prove? Are we trying to prove that we
are doing something that we think is in the best interests of Manitobans, or
are we saying I will do what the majority of my caucus tells me to do because,
if I do not do what the majority of my caucus and my Leader tells me to do, I
am going to end up no longer having the critic position that I have or the
cabinet position I have or the back‑bench position I have, or whatever.
Is it not time that we said that there is an opportunity
for parliamentarians to listen to their constituents and to their own
consciences and a combination of the two and take the guidance of your
conscience and of your constituents without feeling the threat of the so‑called
caucus discipline? What for? Why can we not move on to a new stage in
political life and decide that there are some issues upon which the government
does not fall, that are not considered nonconfidence motions, that you are not
saying to your Premier or to your leader, gee, I do not value your opinion, I
do not agree with your opinion? [interjection] If the rest of you want to go
trotting off in that fashion it is fine.
I have told my party membership in this caucus that they
can vote as they please. I suspect that
it may come down pretty half and half, quite frankly, on one side of the bill
and on the other side of the bill, and so be it. Let me tell you again the decision was made
before we had caucused this particular issue. The decision was made in my
office to write them a note and to tell them right up front that they had a
free vote on this issue, which was exactly the position I took on the
referendum and exactly the position I took on the Meech Lake Accord, because I
honestly believe that we have to change the system. This was one way that I could signal that the
change was going to take place at least for this caucus because, for the next
few months anyway, I am still going to be the Leader.
Finally, I want to talk about the fallacy of this so‑called
trial period. Now, let us get real, as
the kids of today would say‑‑let us get real. A five‑month trial period? I mean, if we were serious about a trial
period, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that December, which is a good
economic month in terms of sales, would be a valid trial; January, which tends
to be a low retail sales month, would be the opposite; and at the end of that
two‑month period, we would have a reasonable trial.
But no, we are going to have a five‑month trial‑‑a
five‑month trial. I mean,
realistically, Mr. Speaker, it is going to be awfully hard at the end of five
months to tell all of those businesses out there, you have all geared up now to
Sunday shopping, and now, we are going to cut it off, it ain't going to exist
any longer. I mean, that is not a very realistic
trial.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting
Speaker, in the Chair)
Secondly, I have problems with the
whole way that this particular piece of legislation was introduced in this
particular short session. The government
of the day knew full well that the New Democratic Party was not going to
support this legislation. I do not think there is any question about that. They were not going to support this
legislation.
So they also knew that with the speech from the throne
and an adjournment date on the 16th of December, this legislation was not going
to pass this House by the 16th of December.
So we are going to be in December and January and February and March,
and lo and behold, the trial is going to come to an end before we have, in
fact, passed or defeated this particular piece of legislation.
That is not good lawmaking, Mr. Acting Speaker, not good
lawmaking at all, and the government of the day knew that it was not good
lawmaking. So why are we doing it in
this way? Well, because, of course, if
the popularity of the legislation grows and swells‑‑and I disagree
with the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
All one has to do is drive by shopping centres on Sundays to realize
that there is a lot of support, at least in this community, for Sunday shopping,
and I think there is, to some degree, a groundswell of support for what the
government is doing. So they are leading
by polls, and then they are leading by so‑called the action of
Winnipeggers who are going out in droves and participating in the Sunday
shopping.
* (1600)
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to
personally vote yes for this legislation, and I will be voting yes because I do
not believe that I have a right to impose my value system on other people. I am voting yes because my constituents to
date have told me that they want the opportunity to shop on Sundays. I am voting yes because I believe that it
recognizes that society in 1992‑93 is different from society 10 years
ago.
Sixty‑seven percent of all women who are of working
age are in the work force; only 84 percent of men are in the work force. So we
are getting closer and closer to that day where equal numbers of men and women
work.
It is women who consistently tell me they want Sunday
shopping, and they want it for a lifestyle reason. If that is what they want and that is how my
constituents are telling me they want to vote and because I do not have any
strong moral reasons to vote otherwise, I will support this piece of
legislation.
I must say, I wish that we had had a little bit more
openness about the real reasons for why we are making this change.
I want to reiterate that this is not going to stop cross‑border
shopping, this is not going to be a stimulation to the economy. This piece of legislation recognizes an
evolving and changing lifestyle, and that is what this piece of legislation is
about. So lets end this sophistry. Let us talk about what the real issues are.
If we could get the approval of the New Democratic Party,
I would like to see this go into committee by the 16th of December. This would give us the opportunity in January
and February to have an open, public process for legislation. I would support province‑wide hearings‑‑I
think that is a valid suggestion‑‑so that Manitobans can truly
speak to us. Unfortunately if we do not do that, if we do not pass it into
committee stage, then what we are going to do is end up in late night sessions
in May or June of next year for something that is going to be retroactive
anyway, and that too would be asinine.
Let us do it in a positive way. Let us let Manitobans speak eloquently. Let us give them the opportunity to address
this issue, as I know many of them do want to address the issue, and then let
us vote as our conscience and our constituents truly request that we vote. Let us stop the flimflam and sham that goes
on so often in this Legislature.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Ben Sveinson (La Verendrye):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on this bill with mixed feelings, because
I have in fact encountered a number of different opinions on Sunday shopping
throughout my constituency. I have also
listened to many presentations throughout this Assembly. I have seen many different opinions and ideas
coming from all parts of our province.
I represent a number of rural communities. I have heard people from in my community and
from other areas and from this Assembly saying that if we open Sunday shopping
in Winnipeg or in the province for that matter that the rural communities will
lose business to the city businesses.
So being the practical person that I think I am, I tried
to look at what business would be lost to the city. Indeed, we could look at things, for example,
like clothing possibly. Let us look at
this quite closely. Casual clothes, for
example‑‑we have a Saan store not too far from
So it is not the casual clothes so much that we are
looking at. Perhaps we could look a
little closer‑‑suits. Now,
if I look in St. Adolphe, which is in my constituency, in Ile des Chenes, in
Landmark, in Lorette, in Ste. Anne, I can go throughout my whole constituency,
we honestly do not have a business that produces suits. However, I could take a drive, which I do, to
Steinbach, for example, and that is where I do purchase my suits. It is close to me. It is my neighbouring constituency. In fact, that is where I do purchase suits.
However, what I am trying to point out here is what businesses will be affected
by this Sunday shopping.
I guess we could look a little closer. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that because we
open Sunday shopping that lawyers' offices would be open? Not likely.
Do we think that government offices might be open on Sunday if we open
Sunday shopping? Not likely. So what basic changes have we looked at
here? Hardware stores, for example, in
my communities that I know of, are closed on Sunday and Monday. They look at what days are best to them, and
it is very unlikely that they are going to want to open on Sunday. They have their two days that they use during
the week. In fact, I have noticed in
What I am trying to say here is that close to
After talking to a few businessmen in
When we look at this legislation, the fact is that it is
a trial period. Although there are many
people who say, trial, not likely, once it is in there, it is in there and that
is it. Well, I am sorry. I do not agree
with that. A trial period is a trial
period to gather facts and figures, to in fact give us a strong basis with
which to make a decision on. I really
think that this trial period will give us that information.
* (1610)
Mr. Speaker, I have other people within my community, or
many of the people within my community‑‑and that is looking at the
religious background of many of us. I
belong to a Roman Catholic church, but we have many different churches,
Mennonite communities and many others in my constituency.
Mr. Speaker, I have watched over many years now what
people have termed as the possible erosion of family life or family
setting. There have been many things
that I have been concerned about, but I also tried then to look at it again
practically and say well, okay, if we are looking at a family setting on
Sunday, I can lay out my agenda on Sunday.
In the mornings we get up and we go to church. We come home, we have dinner with our family.
In the afternoon we might do a little bit of skidooing or a little bit of
skiing, possibly watch a movie together or play some kind of games in the house
together. It is our day of being
together with my family.
Now I do not intend to change that, not a bit. However, do you think perhaps that even I who
love my family and want to see the family setting, as I would say most of us
here in this Assembly do want to see the family stay strong, perhaps even I and
my family might some Sunday afternoon say, well, why do we not go for a drive
into Winnipeg, and let us stroll the mall at the crossroads, and let us have a
look at whatever? Perhaps we will take
in a little movie, perhaps we will take in a show, and after the show perhaps
we will go into one of those areas where they have all those different‑‑it
is a place to eat where they have all these different hot dog stands and things
like that around, and maybe we will have a foot‑long hot dog or
something. Is that changing? Is that
really changing our family afternoon together?
I do not think so.
I think when we say changing our family afternoon or
Sunday as a day of rest and so on, I think we have to take it a little step
further and look at it a little closer.
Are people really going to change their Sunday? I think that the people within my
constituency, in a number of the communities in my constituency, although they
are strong family people, I think that they will take a closer look. I have talked to many of them. I think they will take a closer look and find
that perhaps this is not something that is against family or the family
setting. It is something, basically, to
give us information by which we can make a very strong decision.
It was said by our member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld), I
think very honestly, that this is permissive legislation, not compulsory. I think that is true. I think it is very true. I do not think it is going to hurt any
particular group in our labour force. I
have been in the labour force, I have been in union and so on; I think I can
speak on it honestly. There are many
people throughout all of our work forces who in fact would like to have as many
hours whenever they can get them as possible.
It is not saying that everybody does.
It is saying that there are those in our work force who would love to
work, literally, every day of the week.
Now that might sound hard to believe but, believe me, it is true.
I do not think that any employer‑‑or if there
are it would be very few that have to force people, or try to force people to
work. It has been said that in fact this
could happen. Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess
it could, but then there is a saying that anything is possible in this
world. I guess it is indeed possible,
but not impossible, to straighten it out.
We have also heard the argument that, how could it
possibly increase in any way the monies or the revenue taken in by any businesses? For example, we have got‑‑I will
just take a figure‑‑multimillions to spend on food, clothing, et
cetera, in this province. That is the
dollars that are going to be spent, and whether it is spent in the rural
community, in the city, or whether the shops are open on Sunday or whether they
are open only six days a week or not, there is not going to be any more dollars
spent.
Again, it brings me back to this thing of putting
something down on paper. That statement
sounds right; however, we will not know until we try it, because what you see
on paper, being practical and reasonable and that it might work, it does not
always work.
So I think that this trial period is a good thing to
try. It was argued, or the idea was put
forward, that five months is wrong. We
heard four months, we heard six months.
I guess you could just about pick any number you wish and probably argue
the point. Really, you could go anywhere
from three months to six months, as far as I am concerned, because you are
going to come up with figures that will give you a general idea of what has
happened.
Bringing back the idea of the possible influx of shoppers
from the United States‑‑like I said, I have talked to business
people from across the border who have said that with the reality of today's
dollar‑‑I do not know exactly what it is‑‑
An Honourable Member: Do you do cross‑border
shopping?
Mr. Sveinson: No, I do not. That is now on the record. I do not do cross‑border shopping.
I would like to read a letter that I wrote to a
constituent of mine just a short time ago, and I believe that what I have in
here will back up most everything that I have said just now. It starts off: Dear Ray and Ann, thank you for your letter
dated November 29 with respect to Sunday shopping. Your concerns and opinions are indeed
important, and I can assure you that they will be taken into consideration.
As a government and as concerned Manitobans, we must look
at ways in which other provinces and jurisdictions south of the border attract
our money from this province. One of the
ways in which they do it is through Sunday shopping. Therefore, we must put forward legislation on
a trial basis to allow Sunday shopping.
Based on the results of the trial period, a decision
whether to proceed on a permanent basis, and if so on what terms and
conditions, will be made. If you
consider the physical challenge that we as Manitobans are facing, I am sure you
will agree that solid information is needed on which to base a decision. Family values, quality time with our family
members, and a day of worship will continue to be considered when looking at
these problems also. These are and will
always be a part of my family's reasoning for a day of rest.
Incidentally, as information, no business is forced to
open. You may remain closed, and no employee will be forced to work. Employees
of firms which normally operate with more than four staff, which intend to open
with a full complement on Sundays, will have an absolute right of refusal to
work on Sunday if they exercise their right at the outset of the trial period
or 14 days prior to a work assignment on a Sunday.
* (1620)
I appreciate your letter and would ask that you feel free
to write or phone me if you have further concerns on this or any other matter.
I think that what I have said in this Assembly now on
this bill is backed up by that letter.
Mr. Speaker, I know the trial period has to be allowed in order that we
have as much concrete information as possible with which to make a decision on
Sunday shopping continuing or not, but I want my constituents, and I want all
Manitobans to know that as government we will consider all facts and reasoning
for and against Sunday shopping.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, at this time.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise on Bill 4 and add my comments to the record concerning
Sunday shopping, or Sunday working, as my colleague for Thompson (Mr. Ashton)
has referred to it. I too believe that
the intent of this bill is to put pressure on employees to work on
Sundays. I note that in the press
release that the government put out in announcement of this, the new policy
direction by this government to allow for full Sunday shopping, is in response
to "public demand." As the
member for Thompson has indicated, in his informal survey that he has done by
members of the House here‑‑and I must indicate too that in my short
time in office, I have not received one phone call, not one single phone call
nor letter calling for full Sunday shopping. [interjection] It may not be news
to members across the way, but I wish to reinforce that.
Now, I am sure that if they have the opportunity to add
their comments to the record, as I am sure they will, that they too will
probably come forward with facts similar to that, that they have not had the
overwhelming public demand for full Sunday shopping. I find it unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that this
government chooses to bring in legislation that is retroactive.
An Honourable Member: It is permissive
legislation.
Mr. Reid: The member for St. Norbert (Mr.
Laurendeau) says it is permissive legislation, Mr. Speaker. [interjection] We
will get to the other provinces of Canada as we go along in my comments, and I
am glad that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) is here to listen to that
because some of my comments will relate directly to comments that he has made
in this House with respect to this bill, and I am sure he will be interested to
hear those.
It may be permissive for the retailers to choose to open
on those days, but I can assure him that as I go along in my comments I will
indicate to the member for St. Norbert what I have found in my discussions with
the retail business community in Transcona and what they have told me about
what their concerns are, and the impact that it is going to have on them as
they try to eke out a living in the economic climate that this government has
created in this province.
It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the government chose
not to go to full public debate on this.
If there had been that overwhelming public demand for full Sunday
shopping, that we would have given the public the opportunity to come forward
to have some input into the process, some consultation about what is taking
place‑‑the government has not given any indication.
The Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Stefanson) has
not given any indication, neither has his Premier (Mr. Filmon), that we are
going to move into that process and that the only way the public will have the
opportunity, for the rural areas of our province, including the northern part
of the province, to have any input into this public process is if they come and
make presentation to the committee after second reading of this bill.
I do not see how the people in northern Manitoba are
going to drive those several hundred miles to Winnipeg on a specific day, and
who knows what time, what month that it is going to be held, that the public
will not have that opportunity because, quite often, as we saw in the last
session, there was very short notice for the public to come and make
representation.
The government arbitrarily started this full Sunday
shopping on November 29 with their decree or their press release without public
consultation, nor public debate. Now
they say, it is only for five months, a short time period to allow it to
include the Christmas shopping period and to move toward this next spring. I think that this is a very arrogant
government. It is a unilateral action of
an arrogant government in moving in this direction.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.
Stefanson) says that it is going to create an economic stimulus for the
province. He says there are economic
studies. In reading his comments in
Hansard, he talks about several economic studies and opinion research. I have never known a government‑‑I
do not think it is proper for a government to run its operations by opinion
polls. They should have public
consultation instead of going in this process.
The minister has not tabled these economic studies, nor
has he tabled the opinion research that will support the government's direction
on Sunday shopping. [interjection] It is interesting that the Deputy Premier
(Mr. Downey) is encouraging me to conclude my remarks now and to sit down to
allow a vote in the House.
Is the minister telling me that he wants to have closure
on this bill, that he wants to terminate debate? Is that what he is attempting to do, so that
I am not allowed the opportunity to represent the wishes of my
constituents? Is he trying to stymie
that debate? I am sure that if he was
that concerned about moving this to committee, he would have done the public consultation
process before his government introduced this bill to the House.
Going back to my comments about the Minister of Industry
and Trade, he indicated in his comments that the opinion research he had done
or his department had done, 54 percent favoured Sunday shopping and 41 percent
opposed Sunday shopping.
We have not seen the questions that were asked by those
research surveys. Now one has to assume,
I suppose, that the questions were not worded in the fashion that said that if
you are in favour of Sunday shopping, would you also be in favour of working on
Sunday? Did the research surveys that
the government had done for them by Prairie Research ask that question? I doubt that would have been done.
The minister also states that this is to give greater
flexibility when deciding to shop. I
have never known where we have not had a great amount of flexibility in when we
decide to shop in this province. Looking
at the number of hours that the malls and the shopping establishments of our
city and our province are open now, there seems to be a sufficient degree of
flexibility. I have not received any
complaints from my constituents in that regard.
We always seem to see a great number of people visiting and making their
purchases at these businesses.
The minister also indicated, Mr. Speaker, and I will
quote from Hansard: that support is the
highest among single parents and working women.
Now, I find it unusual that this government would be so
concerned about single parents and working women‑‑in other words,
the working poor as we have seen from statistics that have been introduced in
this House, coming from reliable sources including Statistics Canada‑‑that
this government is now concerned about these people and worrying about them and
their right to be able to spend their money, but will not go that extra step,
Mr. Speaker, to ensure that they will have sufficient incomes to live on, to
purchase the products that they need, by ensuring that this government does not
deduct the Child Tax Credit from the social assistance in our province. So they say they are worried about the
working poor in the province, which includes single parents and women, but they
will not go that one step further to ensure that they have the disposable
income that they need to sustain them and to allow them to purchase their
products.
It is also interesting to read, Mr. Speaker‑‑and
I refer to the government's fact sheet, and it talks about the rights of
retailers and the rights of employees. I
will quote from the document: Employees
will have the absolute right of refusal to work on the Sunday if they exercise
their right at the onset of the trial period or 14 days prior to their work
assignment.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have talked with people in my
constituency. I have talked to them in
an informal fashion. I have talked to
people who came to visit me here during the open house this past weekend, and I
asked them their thoughts, as well, on Sunday shopping. There is not one person whom I have
encountered to this point who thinks that this government and its policies will
protect the working people of this province if they decide to opt out of the
Sunday shopping program, the Sunday working program. Not one person whom I have encountered said
that they would trust the government to protect them. That is a sad commentary to make about a
government that is supposed to be elected to protect all of the people of the
province.
* (1630)
That was not a question that I posed to them. That was information that they had
volunteered to me. Now, why would they
say that if they thought that the government was going to fulfill that promise,
that legislation that is supposed to be there?
The question I did ask the employers‑‑and I did take the
opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to visit the business community of my constituency
last week once again and to talk to them about this specific issue of Sunday
shopping, because I wanted to see what impact it was going to have on them
specifically in their day‑to‑day operations. There were very interesting things that I
found out from them.
First off, if they have employees working for them, which
many of them do, not a large number of employees‑‑[interjection]
For the Minister of Health's (Mr. Orchard) information, I did my own survey,
Mr. Speaker.
I do not rely on a firm to go out. I trust my nose and I trust my judgment when
I talk to the people because they have the opportunity to have face‑to‑face
discussions with me and to ask questions of me, as I do of them. I find that this is a better way to
communicate with the people of your community, Mr. Speaker.
An Honourable Member: No preconceived
notions at all.
Mr. Reid: No preconceived notions, not
one, because if they had any doubts they were free to ask me those questions
right on the spot, and there is no way that I can manipulate that process, not
that I would in the first place.
What the employers of these small businesses told me,
that if they were forced to open their businesses for competitive reasons and
their employees decided, for whatever reasons, that they did not want to work
on Sunday, that those employers would find some way to reduce the hours of work
for those employees to the point where it was no longer feasible for those
employees to be employed there. Those
are not my words, those are the words of the employers themselves, Mr. Speaker.
I would not go to the point of causing embarrassment or
hardship for the business establishments in my community. They are having a difficult enough time right
now trying to eke out a living, living under the policies of this government,
Tory mismanagement in this province, taxed to the hilt by this government as
they offload onto the municipalities every cost imaginable. [interjection]
No, I would not do that.
I would not create more hardship than this government has already
created for the small businesses of my community. They create the jobs for this province. They are the economic stimulus of this
province, something that you failed to realize when you introduced this
legislation in the first place.
Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to understand how this
government is going to protect the employees when they decide to opt out. Now, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) has
said that there is legislation on the books to protect these employees, but it
will be interesting to see that when they do have these complaints coming
forward, and we will be watching very closely to see what action this
government is going to take and what sanctions they are willing to impose upon
the employers that unjustly penalize their employees who have opted out of working
on Sundays.
I hope the Minister of Labour takes and makes those
comments seriously when he said he is going to look after the employees who
have opted out of this program, but I can tell the minister right now it is
going to be very difficult for him and his department to prove that the
employer has, by reason of the employee opting out of the Sunday working
program, decreased the hours for these employees, to force them out of that
work site.
The Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Stefanson) has
said in his comments on this bill that the retailers may elect to open or not
to open. Well, in my discussions with
the retailers of my community, I have found, and they have indicated to me that
if their competitors in the larger facilities‑‑I am talking about
the shopping malls of the community or in the downtown business section of the
community here, and I am sure the same would apply to the rural areas as well‑‑that
if those competitors open their doors that these businesses in my community
would be forced to open their doors for Sunday shopping as well.
They do not want to do that. They would prefer to remain closed on Sundays
to give themselves the chance to rest and also to give their employees that day
off as well. They do it for several reasons,
not only for the humanitarian aspect, but also for the pure business sense,
because there is increased cost from the business sense. These retailers are then, if they are forced
to open, if they have employees who decide they do not want to work and they
exercise their option, these retailers are then going to have to hire new staff
to work on Sunday. That means they are
going to have to pay for that training period that is involved. [interjection]
He says there is going to be job creation, part‑time jobs.
I suppose there will be some job creation out of it, that
they will have jobs for some high school students who want to work. But the rural areas will be impacted. There is definitely no doubt of that.
An Honourable Member: Are you opposed to part‑time
jobs?
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
If they are taking them out of rural
Mr. Reid: Good point. My colleague for Flin Flon mentions that if
it is taking out of rural areas, but at the same time, I want to indicate to
the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) that all jobs are important in this
province, whether they be part time or full time.
What we do not want to do, Mr. Speaker, is we do not want
to have someone profit in the larger centres like Winnipeg at the expense of
the rural areas, because I think it is important that we give equal
opportunities to the businesses in all parts of our province, which is not the
climate that this is going to create. [interjection]
I cannot understand the member for Portage (Mr.
Pallister) when he is speaking from the loge, but I think it is important that
if he wanted to have his opportunity to stand up and speak on this, I would be
willing, Mr. Speaker, to give him the opportunity to make his comments for the
record. If he wants, he should have that
opportunity to comment.
I am interested to see how the people of
We are very concerned, Mr. Speaker. I know that the previous member for
The members of the retail business community also tell
me, Mr. Speaker, that their concern is staff safety, whether it be for
themselves as people who would have to work on Sunday or for the safety of any
staff who would come in. It would not be
just one person who would come in. There
would be extra costs involved by having to bring in a second staff person.
So if there is a reduced volume of shopping by members of
the community to these businesses that would only warrant having one person in
attendance to operate the store, then there are some concerns that through
whatever unfortunate circumstance, whether it be robbery or injury or any other
circumstance, the staff of these facilities could be put at risk.
* (1640)
So it is not just one person that should be there. It should be taken into consideration, as I
am sure these small businesses have already thought about, the extra cost that
it is going to be for them to have at least two members of their staff in
attendance for safety reasons. [interjection] In my discussions with the retail
industry.
The Ma and Pa businesses of my community have expressed
concern to me, because what the current legislation allows, Mr. Speaker, is for
the larger business establishments to have up to four employees working. What they are afraid of now‑‑and
these are businesses like your florist or your deli shop that provide services
now to the community‑‑are now going to have to openly compete on
another day of the week when these larger businesses are now going to open
forcing the small business to open to compete against them. So these florists that used to be open on a
six‑day‑a‑week schedule are now going to have to consider
whether they are going to forgo opening on Sunday and potentially losing
whatever revenue that could be generated by those people who would now go to
the larger facilities, be it your Safeway or other. It is going to put added pressure on them in
an economic climate that is not favourable at this time.
I had the good fortune, Mr. Speaker, of visiting one of
the local barber shops in the community to talk with the owners of the
establishment last week and also to talk to some of their patrons. Their patrons do not trust the government‑‑[interjection]
I hope the glare is not affecting the members opposite, a condition of the
environment we work in with the stress of everyday living.
In the barber shop I encountered a half dozen people, Mr.
Speaker, including the two proprietors of that establishment. The owners of
that business were opposed to Sunday shopping. They did not think that it was
fair for them to have to go out and provide a service to the community, because
they would have to open because their competitors in the larger shopping malls
were open. They wanted to take the time to
spend with their families, so they saw it affecting their quality of life.
The customers of this business came from different
countries, they immigrated to
So we saw people of different nationalities telling me
what it was like in other parts of the world where they too have to compete on
a global scale, but through decisions of their collective representatives,
their governments, they chose not to have the opportunity for business
establishments to open on Sunday.
Now, I have to ask myself, why are we doing that here in
this province? Why are we looking at
going to that if we are supposed to be competing with these other
countries? It is advantageous for them
to remain closed on Sunday. Why could it
not be advantageous for us as well? [interjection] No, I have not had the
opportunity to talk to President Clinton yet, president‑elect.
Yes, that is one of the things that‑‑the
member opposite says that President Clinton is having an all‑party
conference on ways to address the problems of the economy in the U.S., and that
is something we on this side of the House have said for many, many months now,
that you should bring an all‑party conference together to discuss how you
get out of the economic doldrums that you find your country in. That is the consultation process, and I am
glad to see that President Clinton is undertaking that initiative.
[interjection]
Well, I am sure that the member opposite will recognize
that there are people from labour who are involved in that, too, who could be
Republicans or Democrats. There are
business people going in there who could be Republicans or Democrats. So I am sure President Clinton will do what
is best for his country; at least I hope he will.
The Ma and Pa businesses of the community have told me,
the mom‑and‑dad businesses have told me that they are opposed to
Sunday shopping because of the impact it is going to have on them. They want to give their employees whom they
have the Sunday off which means that they, in turn, would have to work to be
open on that day, which will put increased pressure upon their family units
because many of them are family people.
I note that the government says that they have had a
public demand for this, and as the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has
indicated earlier, obviously the public demand is coming from the Winnipeg
Chamber of Commerce. When I asked the
retailers in my community, well, you have an organizational body, the Winnipeg
Chamber, that is supposed to represent you, what they told me was that it is
very apparent that the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce is not representing their
interests in this matter, that it seems to be listening to the larger business
interests of the community. [interjection] As the Minister of Natural Resources
(Mr. Enns) says, it is obvious that the bigger squeaking wheel gets the grease
in this case, and that is probably what the government has done. They have listened to the representatives of
the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, because it is obvious they have not listened
to the representatives of the
We have, Mr. Speaker, received correspondence from
several people. Some of them are religious
organizations, and I will quote from some of the correspondence that I have
received. From one particular
organization, one church of my community, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑Day
Saints, they question the government's decision to move toward full Sunday
shopping.
They know, Mr. Speaker, that it is going to put pressure
on the family unit, but they are concerned about what it will mean to the
family unit itself, what extra pressures this will bring to the family. They feel that Sunday, being a common day of
rest, will be the preservation of a sacred time to teach enduring human values.
They are worried about family breakups, of increased
levels of divorce that will most likely occur.
When I talked to residents of my community, one individual told me last
week that his wife will now be forced to decide whether she is going to work on
Sunday and that if she is forced to work on Sunday that he will most likely not
see her more than a few hours of each week.
He will not have that day to spend with his wife and with his
children. His wife will be off working
on Sunday, the day that he has off, and I think, Mr. Speaker, that that will
lead to increased pressures on the family unit.
The business costs from the letter that was sent to me by
the church talks about increased cost to the businesses for shoplifting. We know that this will occur when businesses
are open. There is going to be
shoplifting that occurs, but they are more concerned about the impact upon the
family. I will quote from the
letter: Family living is fragile enough
these days without one more element of increased pressure tearing at the few
strands holding the families together.
* (1650)
I think that is what this is all about, Mr. Speaker,
increased pressures on the family unit by members being forced to work. A further quote from the letter: As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter‑day Saints, we support every measure that would keep Sunday free
for uninterrupted family life and for spiritual education so that we can go
back the other six days and make an honest effort to improve our businesses,
our schools, our communities and every other element of our society. We pray for our lawmakers and our places of
business and urge them not to be penny‑wise and pound‑foolish on a
matter of such grave consequence.
I support Sunday closing.
I believe that it is important to have a common day of rest. I had a question that was put to me a short time
ago by members opposite, whether or not I have ever worked on Sunday. I must admit I worked on Sunday, but I worked
in an essential service where I was obliged to work. I did not have an option in that situation.
An Honourable Member: Where was that?
Mr. Reid: The railway. The railway is an essential service. You were
forced to work by requirements of law to provide that service to members of the
public.
An Honourable Member: It used to be the
railway.
Mr. Reid: Yes, it used to be the railway,
because it is being drastically cut back now.
I am not sure how much longer that the two railways of
Another piece of correspondence I received, Mr. Speaker,
was‑‑and I am sure that the member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger)
would be interested in this‑‑it is from a business establishment in
his community. I hope that every member
of the Legislature got this piece of correspondence, because I found it was
interesting and very applicable to the situation that we are facing here by way
of this bill.
It talks about Sunday shopping as an effort to combat
cross‑border shopping relating to the government's comments on this
bill. This business establishment feels
that there is going to be a drastic impact upon the thousands of independent
businesses of our province and that the large urban shopping centres may be the
only ones who benefit by this legislation. This business opposes Sunday shopping
for two main reasons. Economically, it is splitting six days of business into
seven while increasing the costs of the operation‑‑which many of
the retailers of my community have already told me‑‑and, also, that
there will be higher cost to the consumer as a result of this. As the overhead
increases for these businesses, they are not going to eat that cost, they are
going to pass it on to the consumers, which will further force people to look
for other shopping alternatives, which may include cross‑border shopping.
It will also add social costs by way of deterioration of family life, something
about which I have spoken, Mr. Speaker.
So that, Mr. Speaker, is why I am personally opposed to
Sunday shopping. I believe it is
important to have a common day of family rest, as many others have indicated to
me in my own community. This government
likes to pretend that it represents family values, but this legislation does
not leave me with that impression. They
allow wide‑open gambling to take place in our province. Now they are allowing wide‑open Sunday
shopping, hardly a sign of trying to represent the family unit.
The government talks about revisiting this issue in five
months after the public has been trained to go shopping on Sundays, to give
them that opportunity, and for the few people who may take advantage of that on
a regular basis, then you will‑‑[interjection] We are not talking
about Tories here as trained seals. We
are talking about the public here. We
are talking about the public having the opportunity to go shopping.
[interjection]
It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the members opposite
think that the public are trained seals.
I do not know why the . . . benches would think that the public at large
are trained seals. They are very intelligent
people. I am sure if they want the
opportunity to add their comments, they will have that opportunity.
[interjection] Oh, get a new line.
It is going to be very difficult for this government, Mr.
Speaker. It is going to be very
difficult indeed for this government to roll back the clock to November if the
public decides that there is not the will out there to support Sunday
shopping. I do not know how this
government is going to be able to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity now to put my
comments on the record, and I will indicate to the House that I do not support
full, open Sunday shopping. I will be
voting no on this legislation because I think that it is important for the
family unit to have that quality time together, that if we take that away from
them, it will put added pressure on them.
We have enough difficulties in our communities that we represent by way
of single‑parent families and divorce situations, and we do not want any
more of that to occur.
So I think it is important to give the families in the
communities that we represent the opportunity to spend that quality time
together. I hope the government will
listen when this legislation goes to committee.
I hope, too, that they will undertake a full public consultation process
before we resume our sittings, because I think it is important that the public
have some input into this process before this legislation gets passed, that you
do not do it on a unilateral basis. The
public should be consulted on this.
I have represented my constituents here, and I have
expressed the concerns of the members of my community, including the retail
sector and the concerns they have. Not
one of them did I visit last week who was in support of the government's action
of Sunday shopping‑‑not one.
Now, myself, I found that unusual.
I thought I would have encountered a few, but I did not encounter one
who was in support of that.
I think it is important for the government to go out and
consult with the public, not just the friends who support them, the larger
interests who are controlling obviously the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce,
because the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce is obviously not representing the
small retailers of my community, otherwise they would have been listening to them
and the concerns they had and would have put pressure on this government to
move away from this Sunday‑shopping legislation. [interjection]
I am sure if the member opposite was interested in Mr.
Christophe's comments he would pick up the phone and call Mr. Christophe. Mr. Christophe, I am sure, will be pleased to
provide the member opposite with his comments with regard to Sunday shopping.
* (1700)
Mr. Speaker, those are my comments. I thank you for the opportunity to‑‑I
just have a couple of last comments I would like to make with regard to Sunday
shopping.
This is important, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Christophe, I am sure has communicated
with members of this House. The member
opposite is interested that Sunday shopping will obviously have an effect on
not only the people who are employed in industry that is unionized but will
also have an impact on industry that is nonunionized. Of course the ones who are in the
nonunionized situation will be much more hard‑pressed to defend their own
interests and the wishes for them to spend time, quality time, with their
families.
With that, I thank you very much for the time to put my
comments on the record.
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Speaker,
I see that the time has almost run out, that it is almost five o'clock. I believe there is a minute left on the
clock. I am wondering whether it would
be consideration to call it five, and I will continue my remarks tomorrow when
the House sits again‑‑or tonight.
However‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I am interrupting the member according to the
rules. When this matter is again before
the House, the honourable member for Emerson will have 39 minutes remaining.
Is it the will of the House to call it six o'clock?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No, okay.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5
p.m., time for Private Members' Business.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 2‑‑University
Education Review Commission
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr.
Reimer),
WHEREAS the social, cultural and economic landscape of
society has changed dramatically placing new and challenging demands on our
university system; and
WHEREAS the government of
WHEREAS these aspects included the governance structure
for post‑secondary education, the review of university management
systems, public accountability for universities, general accessibility to
university education, and review on co‑operation, allocation of functions
and institutional linkages between universities; and
WHEREAS the government has announced the formation of the
University Education Review Commission to examine these issues in university
education; and
WHEREAS the public has been invited to participate fully
in the review process so that together with the government, a dynamic
environment for evolution of the university system can be created.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of
Manitoba support the government of
Motion presented.
Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Speaker, the
University Education Review Commission is the first body in over 20 years that
will recommend sweeping changes to the post‑secondary education system in
this province. The commission will hear
petitions from students, academic groups, business organizations, taxpayers and
others and will address a number of pressing issues: the role and mandate of universities; general
accessibility to the university education system; appropriate governance
structures for post‑secondary education; application of funds and
budgeting systems; issues of accountability; relationships among universities,
community colleges and high schools.
Mr. Speaker, the commission is also mandated to give
consideration to legal and regulatory constraints and make recommendations
accordingly, provide advice on organization, management and delivery of
university education in
Mr. Speaker, it is not only the public that has to be at
these review meetings. We have to have
the students, the student bodies, the educators, the professors coming forward
with their ideas. The ideas on where the
university is headed to and what direction it takes can only be brought forward
by those who are working within the system and who bring forward their ideas.
University education plays a central role in economic
performance, vitally important for the continued prosperity of this
province. The province spends upwards of
$397 million on university‑related expenses. I for one would like to know how those dollars
are being spent and see the full review of where they are going into the
system. I am really hoping that the
commission will recognize the need to consolidate programs and embark on joint
ventures and co‑operative arrangements between other universities and
colleges.
(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Speaker, in
the Chair)
I implore the faculty members, some
of whom appear here in the Chamber, to go forward to the commission and put
their thoughts forward, even on their own remunerations. Possibly they might be able to find some cost
savings there.
These are both new challenges and new opportunities. The stake‑‑[interjection] The
member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) says, it is all about money. It is not all about money but, without the
money, where is the education process going? Nowhere, because the member for
Point Douglas has seen to it with his NDP philosophy that we are taxed and
taxed to the limit from the past, and all they ever did when they had a problem
within the education system was throw money at it.
No, they did not go forward to the public and say, what
can happen within the organization to save those dollars or accurately spend
those dollars to see that the education system is moving ahead. No, they just throw more money at it and think
that will cure it.
Well, that will not.
We have to take the initiative of those who are within the system. The educators know where those dollars are
going. Possibly they have to be directed
into an angle that we can all understand.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I do not say that I know where the
dollars should be directed at the universities, but we do have the opportunity
with this review to see that the dollars are allocated in a proper fashion.
This government will take this review seriously when it
comes forward. This government will see
that this review, the first one, may I add, in 20 years‑‑it is
about time that something was done. We
as modern politicians need the expertise that comes from universities and
science and technology. We need that new‑think
from the universities.
Mr. Acting Speaker, when a member holds up a Bible at me
like that in this Chamber, I hope he is not making fun of it because then I
take offence. Never hold a Bible up to
me in any shape or form.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the province is quickly becoming a
leader in medical research. We are
leading edge in agricultural science and sustainable rural development and in
large measure this is due to the university research. I have had the opportunity over the years to
meet a number of university professors and I think very highly of all of
them. They have come forward with a lot
of initiatives that nobody listened to.
No one was there to carry through the initiatives that these professors
and workers at the university saw necessary for the future.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I congratulate this government and
the minister responsible for Education for bringing forward this review.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the Honourable Duff Roblin will be
chairing this commission as well as Miss Kathleen Richardson, Mr. Kevin
Kavanagh and Mr. Sid Gordon. These
members are all very talented in their specific fields and I am looking forward
to the report, which I believe we are asking to have come back in March or
later on next summer, summer of '93.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I am hoping that the opposition
members can see the positive nature in this resolution and commend the
government on their stand. Thank you.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley):
Mr. Acting Speaker, I must admit I had looked forward to a little more
discussion from the government side about this particular resolution. I thought there might have been more
substance. I thought there might have
been some discussion of the social and cultural landscape of
I will perhaps make some comments on the small items that
the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) did put on the record because some
of them I thought were quite interesting.
He suggested first of all that this commission would make sweeping
changes to the university system in
* (1710)
I had expected that he might simply do more than read the
press release of this government on this particular issue, but then I suppose
that was too much to expect. We had an
entire throne speech which was based upon recycled press releases, so why
should we expect any more from individual back‑bench members?
The member spoke of his inability to understand where the
millions of dollars on university related activities go in
Every university is an open institution. I am sure that the member would have been
welcome at public meetings at the
It is not difficult to find out how the money is being
spent in
I suppose that one of the great surprises of this
particular review is that four people were selected. It is quite a small commission. That has its advantages and its
disadvantages, but it is a small commission which is expected to do a very
large amount of work in a relatively short period of time, with very little
guidance, Mr. Acting Speaker.
One of the great disappointments I think that people who
are presenting to the committee are finding is that there is no white paper for
this. There is no sense of direction
from this government. There is simply a
listing of items, many of which have been studied by commissions across Canada
and in other provinces over the last four or five years: issues of governance, for example, which are
being addressed by the Canadian Association of University Teachers right now;
issues of teaching and research which were addressed by the national Smith
Commission over the past year; issues of research which have been dealt with by
the Economic Council of Canada.
There are a number of very recent in‑depth reports
dealing with problems in university education across the country, but this
government did not feel that it had the ability, and, I would say, sense of
direction to take those reports, many of which have very direct relevance to
Manitoba's problems and to produce a white paper, a background paper, saying,
look, here are essentially the issues which are facing Manitoba now. What it did instead was to choose a very
small committee, which I would argue has a very limited experience of internal
university affairs. Each of the four
members of the commission has certainly made very large contributions to
If this was a commission which was truly interested in
that broad public base of opinion, one would have expected that would have been
represented in some symbolic sense on this particular commission, but that was
not the case. This particular government
either had an agenda which it already wants to put into effect with the
universities, or it simply wanted to have a very limited, a very narrow
perspective upon the future of universities in this province.
I am concerned about the nature of the commission that
has been established, and the absence of any direction from the government, or
a discussion paper in the sense of a white paper which could with some
preparation have been put in place.
We have no discussion of goals of education for
Manitobans. We have a blanket statement about the social and cultural landscape
of society changing, which the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau)
unfortunately was unable to put any meat on the bones of that particular
context that the government had presented.
We have no sense of the way in which the government is
looking at education in this particular commission. Is it looking at training? Is it looking at its industrial applications? Is it looking at its relationship to the
Is it looking, for example, for expansion or contraction
of the universities of
It is a narrow commission. It has also, I think, been given very narrow
directions. I know the minister in
particular takes exception to this critique, but I do have the opportunity to
enlarge upon it now and, again, I wish the member for St. Norbert (Mr.
Laurendeau) perhaps had addressed some of this in his limited remarks.
It is difficult to speak about universities in
When we look at the national scene, it is important to
notice that the universities' contribution from the federal government has been
declining, particularly over the time period of the Tory government in
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
At the same time, I think it would
have been useful for the commission to have had a mandate to look at the
regional and sectoral nature of the universities in
Whenever anybody speaks about universities in the prairie
region, one of the examples which is always given of co‑operation is of
the veterinary school in
So where is that sense of regional perspective in this
particular university review? Where is
the sense of the sectoral nature of our interest in medical research or our
interest perhaps in mining research or agricultural research that would give us
links with other provinces on either side of us or elsewhere in
I think, too, the sense of an international perspective
is an important one. Again, the
University Education Review Commission, supposed to report in a very short
period of time, has been given no context for examining the international role
of
Students come to the
* (1720)
What we have then is a narrow review, a narrow
perspective by a relatively narrow group of people who are to report in a
matter of a few months, and yet the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau)
expects that they will be recommending sweeping changes to the university
system. What we have, in fact, in this
university review is an example of the drift in Tory policy since the 1980s, a
drift that we see in so many other areas of their activities across
What we have seen since 1988 is year after year of lost
policy initiatives, of absence of direction in health care, in agriculture, in
rural development. Review and delay,
review and delay, that is all that this government has done. We are seeing it again in the universities
review, a review which is I think perhaps‑‑and it is a government
which refuses to confront the federal government with the results of its actions
upon the everyday life of Manitobans.
Instead of confrontation over the absence of post‑secondary
funding, of the decline in health care support for provinces such as
I will not believe it until I see every Tory in this
House tear up his membership card for the Tory party. I will not believe it until I see them stop
attending those $500‑a‑day dinners.
I will not believe it until I see them stop sending their money to the
Conservative Party of Canada and to Brian Mulroney. That is when we will believe that there is
any opposition in this Tory party to the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak about the role of the
universities in the community in
There is widespread public support for the community
service of the university. It is the
universities to which Manitobans across the province turn for scientific
assistance and for community service, and I regret the narrow framework that
this government has placed upon the review commission.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) indicated
earlier that he liked my speech, but I do not think he is going to like this
particular one, because I find it extremely difficult to accept a resolution
which is so self‑congratulatory in nature and which does not deal with
the reality facing university students and indeed university education in the
province of Manitoba.
I want to begin, Mr. Speaker, with some of the WHEREASes
in this particular resolution. Whereas
the social, cultural and economic landscape of society has changed. Well, that is true. There is no question that
the landscape has changed. When I went
to university in the '60s, 8 percent in some of the undergraduate faculties
were made up of women. Now some 53
percent of the population in universities are women, so if that is what he is
making reference to in his resolution, then obviously I cannot find fault with
that.
His next WHEREAS‑‑the government of
Let me just give you some very simple examples. The tuition fees charged by our universities
have increased under this administration by 82 percent‑‑82
percent. As a result, there are many
young people out there who find it impossible to access our universities, and
the government certainly has a responsibility to ensure that young people do
not find themselves unable to go to university simply because of financial
restrictions, and yet they have made no attempt to balance the tuition fee
increases with additional student aid, additional student bursaries, additional
funding. In fact, they have cut
them. There has been the inability on
the part of students to get that kind of access dollar which they so
desperately require.
* (1730)
The Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey) now
and the previous Education minister have said they keep making representations
to the federal government in order to improve and embellish the Student Aid
Program. Have they done that? No. [interjection] Well, you know, the member
for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) seems to forget that student loans are paid back for
the most part, not everybody, but for the most part, student loans are paid
back. We are not talking about, for the
most part, monies that just go into the well never to be seen again. Most students upon graduation legitimately
pay back the monies that they have borrowed.
All the more reason for improving the access to universities by making
student loans more generous, which make it possible for them to attend those
university educations.
(Mr. Jack Penner,
Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
The next one goes on and talks about
the governance structure that has been imposed upon our post‑secondary
institutions, known in this province as community colleges, as if this has been
some wonderful achievement. Well, I
would like to remind the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) that many of
the problems with the governance model that have been identified are exactly
the problems that have been identified because of the lack of co‑operation
at our universities. Yet this
government, having looked at the university model and recognized that it does
not always work, that it does not provide the accountability, that it does not
provide the accessibility, has taken exactly that model and imposed it upon the
community colleges.
Now I have long recognized the need for our community
colleges to have some independence and some removal from the day‑to‑day
administration of the Department of Education, but we do not need to have three
governing bodies in conflict with one another.
Yet that is the model your government has established, that we are going
to have a community college for ACC, we are going to have a community college
for KCC, and we are going to have a community college governance board for
Then he has talked about the need for the Education
Review Commission. Let us talk about
that review commission for just a few moments.
I have, as the previous speaker indicated, no difficulty with any of the
four people who have been appointed. But let us be realistic for a moment. We have appointed Duff Roblin who has just
retired from the Senate because he reached the age of 75. We have appointed Kathleen Richardson who
does not give out her birthday, but I know she is considerably older than I am
and I am 50. I know that Kevin Kavanagh
is in his sixties. I do not know the age
of the other individual, but the reality is, that is not even a good
demographic in age basis of the representation of the
For the most part, if they went to university, they went
to university, I would suggest, in the heyday of university experiences. This was the days of university in which,
quite frankly, we were in classes with very small numbers of students. The
largest class I was ever in at university had 200 people and that was a first‑year
biology class, and we thought it was enormous.
All of my sophomore, junior and senior classes had less than 25 students
in them. Now it is a miracle if a
student in first or second year gets into a course with less than a 100 people
and often far more than that.
I went to university in the day where you chose whatever
course you wanted from the calendar, and you were guaranteed admission to that
particular course. So I was able to do
things like take Russian history and Russian government, American history and
American government, Canadian history and Canadian government. It was a wonderful way to blend the two, lock
step, all the way through my university career.
I talked to friends of my daughters this year who did not
get into a single course they wanted to take, not one. A second‑year student did not get into
one course they wanted to take. That is
why so many of our young people are not finishing their degrees in three or
four years but are taking five and six and seven years because they cannot get
the courses they want.
Yet have we put anyone on this review commission who has
any understanding of what the today experience is like at our universities? No, not a single person on that board, with
the greatest respect to all of them who are first‑class individuals. But
if you are genuinely interested in hearing about the problems, then it seems to
me appropriate that you would have some background knowledge and some
information and that you could build on work that has already been done. But, unfortunately, they have been given this
massive task. They have been given a
limited time frame upon which to do it, and I have to think that unfortunately
and tragically, the report that they are going to come up with is going to
reflect their lack of time, their lack of expertise and their lack of ability
to study and evolve the issues as they need to be addressed.
The problems facing our universities are not unique to
the
My oldest daughter did not go to university in this
province as, quite frankly, does not my youngest daughter. Their reasons for choosing to go outside the
province are different, but essentially has somewhat to do with the fact that I
am in this Chamber, and they want to have some individuality and some
separateness apart from me.
My oldest daughter went to Harvard, a wonderful
university. I think we all recognize that.
She graduated from a high school in
When she arrived at this, I think we would agree,
prestigious university, they said they would take her into second year, that
she could skip all of the courses in first year and go into second year because
of her wonderful record of academic performance from a high school in Manitoba,
and I think we should congratulate ourselves for doing that. As a family, we chose not to let her do that. She was 17, and we felt she needed the
benefit of four full years, but she had that option. They then picked her courses for her so she
would not repeat anything which she had already done in her high school
program.
Well, let me compare that to a young man who graduated
this spring from
At the
If we want to turn off academically bright and talented
kids, that is one way to do it.
An Honourable Member: Who makes that
decision?
Mrs. Carstairs: The decision is
made by the university.
Those are the kinds of problems, though, that are faced
by young people that should have been addressed by this review committee. I would suggest to you they are not going to
be because young people are not sitting on that review committee that could
alert them to the problems of their friends and their associates that they are
going through and the struggles they are going through.
That, Mr. Acting Speaker, is really a most unfortunate
circumstance because, if we are going to challenge and welcome these young
people to remain in our province, then they must do so by making them feel
comfortable academically, socially and financially within our community, and we
are not doing that.
So I wish this university grants committee well, but I
cannot participate in congratulating a government that has failed our young
people and failed them miserably, failed them at the community college level,
failed them at the university level and, unfortunately, will continue to fail
them until they accept that they as a government have a responsibility to
education in the province of Manitoba.
Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources):
Mr. Acting Speaker, I move to participate in the debate on this
resolution for several reasons. I have
watched with growing wonder and amazement at how members opposite, both of the
official opposition and of the Liberal Party, in effect have become the
reactionary, small "c" conservative, afraid of change of the status
quo, certainly afraid of sweeping changes, certainly afraid of even reviewing
or doing anything that has to happen from time to time under the normal
business of providing responsible government.
I of course also take some considerable pride in relating
a little bit of history. I appreciate
the fact that neither spokesperson for the opposition has in any way taken
issue with the individuals who are involved in this committee, because I would
hope not. Most in this House would not
realize this. There have been fundamental changes that occurred way back when.
The honourable Leader of the Liberal Party suggested a
little while ago that this government, after all, has been somehow negligent in
passing budget after budget after budget for the universities and now finding
it necessary to put in a review team to look at what is going on that could
perhaps be changed.
* (1740)
Mr. Acting Speaker, that of course is not the case. The truth of the matter is, for at least some
20‑odd years this government, nor any other government, has looked at
university budgets. There was a time‑‑and
I suspect I am the only one in the House who remembers that time‑‑when
university presidents with their administration walked annually into the
Treasury Board of the day, that I was a member of, to have their budgets
approved.
The University of Manitoba‑‑well, there was
only one university at that time. It was
of course the current chairperson who is chairing this review who created the
other two universities in
Now that has not happened, Mr. Acting Speaker, for these last
20 years because a Universities Grants Commission was established, because we
were certainly always concerned that academic freedom be not in any way
impinged upon. It was the same Duff
Roblin who established the Universities Grants Commission.
I can remember the first chairman of the Universities
Grants Commission, a former deputy minister of Education, by the name of Mr.
Scott Bateman, who was the president of the Universities Grants
Commission. It is that body, that
government, whether it is this government or the governments of Ed Schreyer or
Howard Pawley have ever since given humongous chunks of money in the millions
of dollars for them then to disburse among the university community.
If the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) wants
to take issue about how that money is being spent in a very specific and
detailed way, as she explained in her comments just a few moments ago, about
the necessity of having a bright physics student having to repeat a course at
the University of Manitoba which, in her view, should not be necessary, that is
not the purview of this government or any government, but it reflects very
directly on the management of the university in question.
The honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) talked
about the importance of the regional question of status of the universities,
the national and the international. All
of that is true. Mr. Acting Speaker,
this government has to come to grips with what the situation is in Manitoba at
this particular time, as we have had the courage to do, and will do in
virtually all major services provided through tax revenues.
My colleague in the Health portfolio explains that every
day in this Chamber. There will be and
there are occurring right now as I speak sweeping changes taking place in the
delivery of health care in this province, ones that I am quite satisfied will
not in any way impinge on the delivery of health to the people of this province
of Manitoba but ones that will utilize, maximize the resources available to us in
this province and in this country.
My colleague the minister responsible for Autopac (Mr.
Cummings), I have every confidence, will review, will look at another program
that has been in operation for 20 years, namely the Public Insurance
Corporation of Manitoba. We will make a
consideration, and we will make a decision as to whether or not some
fundamental changes ought not to or should be brought into play with respect to
that corporation's activities.
I just come back to my original open comments. Some would say, it should not be possible for
a Conservative government to be that group within our society that makes these
fundamental changes to the status quo.
Some would say that that is at odds with our name. Some would like to say that even our own
name, Progressive Conservative, is a contradiction of terms, that we cannot be
progressive and cannot be conservative at the same time.
History in this province records that every fundamental
major social programming in this province has been brought in and put into
place by a Conservative government.
Mr. Acting Speaker, there is no question. Even Mr. Roblin's most vociferous political
foes will acknowledge that his government was the government that brought
education into the 20th Century in this province.
After 10 and 20 years or 30 years of Liberal and
coalition governments, by the mid‑1960s we still dotted our landscape
with one‑room schools that we could not find teachers for.
My first job as an adult was what is now hanged and
framed somewhere as an extinct species, the permit teacher. We used to churn 500, 600 kids out of high
school with barely six weeks education at what was then called normal school
and send them out to teach our youngsters.
That was the education system in the '60s that Duff Roblin and a
Conservative government had to come to grips with and he did.
Consolidation in the city, consolidation throughout rural
Manitoba‑‑that was not easy to decide, which community gets the
high school and which community does not get the high school. It was not easy to introduce massive
transportation and busing of school children 30, 40, 50 miles in rural
This is a man that today we have asked after having
served a full and exemplary career in public service, the former Senator Duff
Roblin, former Premier of this province, my first boss, that is now being
asked, because he refuses to quit, because he still has much to contribute, to review
the system.
The honourable members, both the member from the Liberal
Party and the member for
I congratulate, I commend the Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey). I hope that this government has
the fortitude. I believe we have to look
seriously at how we expend those some 400 millions of dollars on secondary
education. I can tell you in advance
that honourable members opposite will be among the first to rise on their feet
if it should perhaps mean some dislocation of the status quo, if a professor
finds himself maybe out of a job, or if the suggestion has been made that
perhaps we ought not to be doing everything at each university but specializing
and concentrating some of our needed resources.
Perhaps we should be doing what the member for Wolseley
(Ms. Friesen) says and looking at the regional question. Should we be offering something here that is
being offered in
* (1750)
I expect, Mr. Acting Speaker, that by keeping this review
committee small, of very responsible Manitobans that do not have to prove their
worth to anybody in government or in the private sector, that they can provide
within that relatively short time frame‑‑again, the honourable
members opposite argue, they do not want results too quickly. Oh, no, they do not want a report that maybe
this government will act on. They want a
nice long exercise in public relations where we travel the province, where we
involve every segment of the society, everybody will tell us. When you do that‑‑we
have had so many of them‑‑it all comes back to more funding, more
funding, more funding, more funding, but the bigger question has to be asked,
and we face that every day in this House:
What are appropriate levels of funding?
Perhaps an even more pressing and compelling question is,
not politicians of the day and not this government of the day imposing its will
or intruding on the academic freedom of the universities. That is not the purpose of this review, but
it may well focus progressive educators within the system, as my colleague from
St. Norbert indicated, to come out, just as when pressed and when given the
opportunity they have done in the health field, to come up with solutions that
are professionally supportable, workable and doable. Then we have a government that is prepared to
carry them out. That is what is going to
happen.
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway):
Mr. Acting Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate about
our educational institution.
I have no hesitation at all to express my admiration to
the Honourable Duff Roblin, but this Progressive Conservative government at
present, they are all sizzle, there is no steak‑‑all sizzle, no
steak. Where is the beef? What is the substance of this review? Is this just a delaying tactic because the
government cannot cope with the pressure and the demand for higher education in
this province?
It is a fact‑‑of all the federations that I
know across the globe, it is only in
What are the implications of this? If you happen to be in a rich province like
I think if there is any reform that is to be made,
regardless of the fact that it has been traditionally provincial jurisdiction,
the more rational direction is to make education a federal responsibility. Why?
Because only the federal government can make a standard that is uniform
all across these provinces giving every Canadian the equal opportunity and
access to a good quality education, but we will not do that because we will not
willingly give up a jurisdiction that is ours by reason of the British North
America Act. This is selfishness,
irrationality. Who can argue with that
position?
There was a long time ago a Greek philosopher. His name was Diogenes. He was carrying a lamp in the noon day
looking for someone. When he was asked
what are you looking for, he said I am looking for an honest man. If we have to be honest about the policy in
this country, we have to admit the fact that education is the very foundation
of the present and the future of this country and, therefore, the opportunity
should be given to everyone equally. Is
that being given equally? I will give
you information.
The elite of this country are not sending their children
in the educational institutions of this country. The son of Galen Weston Junior, 18 years old,
he is now enrolled in
Tuition alone in the Ivy League colleges costs $25,000
per year, just the tuition. Who can
afford such a kind of education only available to those with money? This is what we talk about accessibility,
accessible to those who have the resources, but never to those who have the
intelligence or the talent but not the money.
So I think that if there is any fundamental reform that
is to be made in this country, that the function of education should be a
national responsibility so that wherever you are born, whatever province you
came from or you may come from, whether rich or poor, you will have equal
access and equal opportunity to the same high standard and quality education
wherever you may be in the country. That
is the only way. That is the rational
way.
To persist in the tradition that this is a provincial
responsibility is to create inequality, because the poor provinces cannot, in
any stretch of the imagination, sustain a good quality education because they
lack the necessary resources. Year after
year you have noticed what the federal government has been doing. The federal government has been cutting all
these grants to the provinces in order that equality opportunity may be
enhanced. This federal government by
rationalizing on the deficit has been consistently cutting grants on health and
education given to the provinces. Yes,
it is true. That is the fact.
It does not mean that because you go through the formal
process of learning, you are necessarily an educated person. Not so.
There is a difference between getting information and getting an
education.
You may have a head filled with facts and formulas and
all the technicalities of things of the world, and yet if you do not have that
basic integrity and honesty built in you, you are more dangerous than if you
were not educated. Only the educated
person is the honest person, because he knows how to apply the kind of
knowledge that he gets, that he achieved out of working in the university
structure, in the institution of learning of the university.
Of course, not all people who get an education are
necessarily the only ones who get success in life. You can get an education informally in the sense
that you take it directly from experience.
The present Premier‑designate, for example, of
It is only through formal schooling that we try to avoid
the pains of trial and error method because we learn through the experiences of
others, through studying and learning the skills and calculating, and all the
skills that we can acquire without going through the process of pain ourselves.
That is why education is more expensive, but if we think
that education is expensive, try ignorance.
It is more expensive than anything you can imagine in your life, because
you do not know what you are after, you do not know what you are doing, you do
not know how to get what you want. You
will suffer the rest of your life because you have no skill, no opportunity, no
knowledge known to you, because you are not educated in the sense that you know
what you want and how to get it, and once you get it you know how to use
it. That, Mr. Acting Speaker, is what
education is all about.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):
Order, please. When this matter
is again before the House, the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) will
have six minutes and 35 seconds left in the debate.
The hour now being 6 p.m., I am leaving the Chair with
the understanding that this House will again reconvene at 8 p.m.