LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday, May 19, 1993
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Paulette Patenaude, Lorraine Gosselin, Simone Lacasse and others requesting the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental
Program to the level it was prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Allen H. Ripley, Lynn Vanbeselaere, Shirley Slack and others requesting the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental
Program to the level it was prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
* * *
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Steve W. Mamchuk, Peter Wagner, William Wagner and others requesting the
Manitoba Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
* * *
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Gary Williams, Jackie Reid, Kay Smart and others requesting the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the
level it was prior to the '93‑94 budget.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Debra Hall, Wynne Murray, Doug Brown and others requesting the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the
level it was prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
Mr. Speaker: I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Hickes). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the United Nations has
declared 1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the
theme, "Indigenous People: a new
partnership"; and
WHEREAS the provincial government
has totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government
has stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination of all
funding to friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as
the services and programs provided, such as:
assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially
disadvantaged, families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural
programming, housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance,
advocacy;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly
pray that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Ms. Friesen). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 1,000 young adults are
currently attempting to get off welfare and upgrade their education through the
Student Social Allowances Program; and
WHEREAS
WHEREAS the provincial government
has already changed social assistance rules resulting in increased welfare
costs for the City of
WHEREAS the provincial government is
now proposing to eliminate the Student Social Allowances Program; and
WHEREAS eliminating the Student
Social Allowances Program will result in more than a thousand young people
being forced onto city welfare with no means of getting further full‑time
education, resulting in more long‑term costs for city taxpayers.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly
pray that the Legislative Assembly of
* (1335)
PRESENTING REPORTS BY
STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has
considered certain resolutions, directs me to report progress and asks leave to
sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable
member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the report of the committee be
received.
Motion agreed to.
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the First
Quarterly Report of the Manitoba Telephone System.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 36‑The
Highway Traffic Amendment Act
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and
Transportation): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that
Bill 36, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Loi modifiant le Code de la route),
be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Wang
Contract Status Report
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First
Minister.
The issue of Wang computers has been
raised in this Chamber before. The
Premier, of course, in 1989 announced an agreement where the government would
spend $4 million and Wang computers would create 50 direct jobs, $23 million
worth of investments and 22 additional jobs later on.
In the 1990 election, this was such
a positive development that the Premier used this as an example of his
government's so‑called success on job creation, success that was written
more in invisible ink than it was in real jobs.
Unfortunately, the project did not
come to
Mr. Speaker, we have been informed a
letter was sent to Dauphin informing the people of Dauphin that the Vital
Statistics branch will not be relocated to Dauphin. The entire program, at this point, is being
reviewed as to computer automation and potential costs of upgrading the equipment.
I would like to ask the
Premier: What is the status of the jobs
and the Wang computer situation?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member, I know, gleefully
likes to take advantage of any bad news that he can with respect to
corporations which are having financial difficulties. That is fair ball. We know exactly where they stand on job
creation and investment. That is, they
will drive it out as quickly as they can.
That has been the New Democratic platform as long as we have sat in this
House.
He does relatively accurately in his
preamble portray the fact that we did exercise a penalty from Wang corporation
because they did not meet the job creation targets they were expected to by way
of the original agreement. That penalty
was to be exercised by way of accepting technology services from Wang to the
value of $2.1 million, I am told. That
is the current status. The government
has a variety of projects that it is investigating whereby Wang will provide
the services and technology to the tune of $2.1 million.
I will take as notice the remainder
of the question as to where that stands and what services and technology have
been received to this point.
Vital Statistics
Computerization
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the government in 1992 announced
that the services and penalty would be exercised by having Vital Statistics
being automated by Wang with an untendered contract. We are now informed that this will not take
place.
Can the Premier advise us on the status
of the decentralized decision for Vital Statistics to Dauphin, and the status
of the automation? Is Wang going to
perform this function as announced by the government in public, or is it not?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the one thing I know is that the
Wang corporation is committed to provide us with the services to the tune of
$2.1 million. That much I know continues
to be committed. Whether or not those
services are provided by way of an initiative in Dauphin is another matter
which I will again take as notice and bring the response back to the member.
* (1340)
Wang
Contract Penalty
Agreement
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the government announced this, I guess,
about two weeks after it announced the expansion of the jobs in The Pas in
March of 1989. It is now four years later that this contract was signed by the
government, with the penalties. It is
four years after they breached the original deal, the second deal, the third
deal.
They announced another rejigging of
the deal in January of '92. It is
another 15 months after that point.
I know the government is thankful
that this company spent $18,000 advertising the great environment of
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that this is a
good question because it shows a contrast between what we have done vis‑a‑vis
our negotiations and what the New Democrats did.
The New Democrats, in providing
similar support to businesses that were going to be presumably locating in
We indeed will ensure that Wang
provides the services and does in fact repay that, unlike New Democrats who had
no penalties and just squandered the money.
Health Care System
Transportation Issues
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, on April 2, the
Will the minister commit to meet
with this organization prior to the Motor Transport Board hearing this case on
June 2?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I offered to representatives of
that group, to meet with my ambulance division people this afternoon. I am not certain whether they intend to carry
out that invitation.
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Speaker, why is the minister refusing to meet with this group, since
his own officials that he told this group to meet with have said they only deal
with regulatory matters and not policy matters, and this is a policy decision
to be made at the policy level by the minister and his colleagues?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, often in the development of
policy, we attempt to rely on advice from expert groups in the case where we
are attempting to come to grips with changes in the health care system, and
quite often, the final individuals who provide advice into new policy
development are the senior staff in my department.
That is, Sir, after all, why we
retain them, why we rely on their expertise, and it is through those
individuals that policy changes, if any, made by this government are often
first recommended. Hence the suggestion
of the appropriate meeting with them.
Mr. Chomiak: My
final supplementary: Since the minister
is refusing to meet with this organization, Mr. Speaker, will the minister at
least make public a study that was supposed to be completed last July by Jean
Fawcett [phonetic] that looked at interfacility patient transfers, so this
organization and all the public of
Mr.
Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt
to see whether that study has been completed by the individual as outlined by
my honourable friend and respond accordingly.
* (1345)
Health Care System
Waiting Lists
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Health.
Mr. Speaker, the Fraser Institute released
the results of the study of waiting lists in all 10 provinces. There are good things and bad things in this
report about waiting lists in
For urgent cardiovascular treatment,
we are the best in the country, and that is a great improvement for the last
year. On the other hand, in the areas of
orthopedic and eye surgery, the waiting list is nearly the worst in the
country. However, we are the fourth
largest in spending on health care in this country.
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister
of Health: When will the Minister of
Health use all possible measures outlined in the Health Action Plan to make
sure the waiting list in all these areas is decreased?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the issue of waiting lists is
one that from time to time is observed by‑‑and I believe it was the
Fraser Institute, again, in which they made observations approximately 15
months to 18 months ago.
Mr. Speaker, it is the very issue of
waiting lists and the prioritization, if you will, between physicians with
admission privileges to a number of hospitals that we are attempting to provide
some greater clarity and guidance through investigation by physicians and other
experts in the field.
To date, Sir, I have not received
the wisdom of their advice in terms of patient management on waiting lists in
at least one of the areas that my honourable friend is expressing the concerns
of outside observers.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, the Health Action Plan created a
study review that was supposed to have a report due by November of 1992. That was supposed to help decrease waiting
lists.
Can the minister tell us when we
will have that report so waiting lists can be decreased?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Speaker, that is what I am anticipating, and I cannot give my
honourable friend a time frame in which that committee will provide my office
with its report and any recommendations.
Centralization
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, one of the ways to decrease the
waiting period is to have hospitals of excellence.
Can the minister tell this House
when the final decision is going to be made as to which hospital is going to
perform what kind of surgery that will help, according to the Health Action
Plan?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, in a number of program areas,
there are varying stages of progress in terms of consolidation of surgical and
other services carried out in our acute care sector.
The one area of surgical excellence
which is closest to decision making is ophthalmology. The others range in status, and some of them
probably will not report until at least later on this summer, possibly late
fall.
Mammography Services
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the
Minister of Health.
The American Cancer Society has
reviewed the Canadian study on breast cancer and maintains that regardless of
that Canadian study, breast tumors are found and cured in younger women. It stands by its position that screening does
save lives of women over 50 years of age.
Women in the Westman area still have
to wait eight months for mammography tests at the
Will the minister now reconsider his
position and provide the necessary funds to the
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, let me slightly clarify my
honourable friend's position about the waiting time for an elective
mammography, and that is, the circumstance in western
However, Mr. Speaker, that cannot be
so quickly linked, as my honourable friend wanted to do in his preamble, with
endangering women's lives, because the physicians in western
It is a professional judgment of the
physicians in western
Sir, I say to my honourable friend
that any woman judged in western
* (1350)
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, I just point out that the
National Cancer Institute in the
So, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the
minister further: Would he take into
consideration the fact that Westman has a higher percentage of women over 55
than does the province as a whole?
The province as a whole has 23.5
percent of the female population over 55 years of age, whereas in Westman it is
as high as 28.8 percent in 1992.
Certainly, the risk of breast cancer
rises with age, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask the minister, therefore, if he
would reconsider and take that matter into consideration.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why a year and a
half, two years ago, we brought together the best experts in
Now, Mr. Speaker, this issue is very
much fraught with two sides of opinion.
My honourable friend quotes from a study. I will quote from another study.
Mr. Speaker, that is why we have
tried as best possible to be guided by
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, an ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure. I do not know how you can
measure the value of the lives of women.
Layoffs
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question related to
Will this Minister of Health confirm
that the
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that. If my honourable friend wants to get into the
issues of
We did not go underground when we
made tough decisions of bed closures like my honourable friend from Brandon
East did when he sat around the cabinet in 1987 and mandated the closure of
beds in
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Arni Thorsteinson
Property Holdings‑Foreclosure
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, my questions are to the Premier
(Mr. Filmon).
On May 17, the Premier stated that
his chairman of the PC Manitoba Fund, Arni Thorsteinson, would pay back over $6
million that the provincial government was forced to sue him for in the Court
of Queen's Bench. It seems that this is
one of the longest foreclosures in history.
Why did it take three years for this
government to attempt to recover the money owed by Mr. Thorsteinson?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, firstly, let me say to my
honourable friend that in any foreclosure of any property, public housing
policy that has been produced‑‑incidentally, this was introduced by
the former government, these two particular projects. Notwithstanding that, we would not
immediately foreclose the minute somebody is one month in arrears in rent. We would wait for a reasonable period of
time, four or five months, six months, somewhere in that neighbourhood.
During that period of time and for
the ensuing time, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the federal
government Crown corporation, attempted a mortgage workout agreement with the
owners of those two buildings. They
worked for a considerable period of time attempting to find out if they could
come up with the workout to salvage those two buildings.
Mr. Speaker, they were not
successful. In November of 1992,
Manitoba Housing was instructed by CMHC, our insurer, to begin foreclosure
proceedings, which we did.
Mr. Maloway:
Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is: How long did Mr. Thorsteinson and companies
continue to collect the rents from these properties after they stopped making
the mortgage payments?
Mr. Ernst:
Mr. Speaker, the matter here is between Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation, which is the insurer of Manitoba Housing in these projects, and
the owners.
They attempted over a protracted
period of time, trying to find some method, some way, as they did with the
building in
* (1355)
Mr. Maloway: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the
same minister is that he did not answer the question. The question was: How long did Mr. Thorsteinson continue to
collect the rents from these properties after he stopped making the mortgage
payments? That was the question.
Mr. Ernst:
Mr.
Speaker, I think my honourable friend is having difficulty in understanding how
the mortgage process works. The fact of
the matter is a mortgage was granted by Manitoba Housing, insured by the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Canada
Mortgage and Housing, as the insurance company, as it has every right to do,
gives the instructions to the insured party.
That is us.
Mr. Speaker, they gave us
instructions to await an attempt at workout and then came to us and said in
November of 1992, begin the foreclosure process. That is what we did. We are now in possession of the building.
Prairie Economic
Participation
Government Position
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, today in
Mr. Speaker, in Mr. Parson's opinion
and in the Canada West Foundation's, there are $5 billion in savings to be had
by the western provinces in moving toward a more co‑operative approach in
the delivery of government services. The
last time I asked about this to the Premier, three weeks ago, he gave it short
shrift and indicated some disdain for the Canada West Foundation's predictions.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my question for
the minister: Is he prepared today to
tell the House why he is not looking at prairie economic co‑operation as
a way of saving tax dollars, so that we can actually have a chance of balancing
the‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member has put his question.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, firstly, I reject totally the
preamble of the member for St. James, and as usual, he totally misrepresents
what has been said in the previous discussion on the issue.
I did not reject the concept
whatsoever. In fact, I said to him‑‑and
I did not treat it with disdain‑‑this is a matter that I had been
working on from the day that I first met with western Premiers on May 17, 1988.
The reality is, it was one of the
three major topics of the Western Premiers' Conference for Canmore that was
just cancelled. The member opposite
should inform himself on these issues if he is going to ask questions in the
House, and then he would be better equipped to ask those questions.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter
is the ballpark figures that have been issued as to what savings might accrue
make assumptions that go anywhere from shared services and co‑operative
actions all the way to total integration, political and administrative integration
of the four western provinces. I think
that taking the individual provinces and making a collective government of them
is probably something that is not feasible in the eyes of most western
Canadians, including most Manitobans.
So there are various aspects to the
issue, but first and foremost, I will say that we will examine any potential
avenue to be able to co‑operate in the delivery of services, to be able
to provide for a lower cost of operation, and therefore lower taxes to our
people. That we will look at willingly
and enthusiastically, as we always have, Mr. Speaker.
* (1400)
Mr. Edwards:
Mr. Speaker, no one is talking about the political unity that the
Premier is talking about.
What I am talking about and what my
question is about is economic co‑operation, similar to the things that
the rest of the world is doing.
My question for the Premier: He has shown some disdain for the figures put
forward by the Canada West Foundation. I
would ask him, given that he has been working on this, as he says, for all
these years, can he table in the House his predictions and the Minister of
Finance's (Mr. Manness) predictions as to the gains that are there to be made
by successfully moving towards prairie economic co‑operation?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I have not shown disdain for the
figures. I have sought to find out the
basis on which the figures were put forward.
Now, he cannot give me that basis, and from the information we have
received from consultations with the Canada West Foundation‑‑because
I sat down with Dr. David Elton just about two weeks ago in my office in the
Legislature to discuss this very study.
He could not put forward the assumptions in the basic underpinnings of
those figures. So I have to question
then, what are the figures based on?
Where are the savings going to accrue?
If the member for St. James cannot
give them to me, then I think I have every right to question the validity of
his assumptions.
Mr. Edwards: I
suggest the Premier read the report.
Education System
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): My final question for the Premier, let me give
a specific example: Is the Premier
prepared to look at the joint purchasing power and the savings to be made in
the Department of Education alone of $600 million, by getting together with the
western provinces in purchasing the supplies and services that are needed in
our education systems? They say $600
million. Is this Premier saying‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I guess we would all have to know
whether or not that purchasing is going to take place in
The western provinces already in the
area of education are co‑operating vis‑a‑vis curriculum. They are co‑operating vis‑a‑vis
the sharing of post‑secondary education facilities in the allocating of
students. For instance, we have
agreements to send students to
We have the sharing‑‑Mr.
Speaker, the member opposite laughs at all these things because he is trying to
make some sort of political Brownie points for his leadership campaign. The fact of the matter is, we are committed
and we are doing things towards this workout of economic co‑operation.
Enrollment
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, in the Canadian context,
Will the Minister of Education tell
us what her projections are for enrollments‑‑I am using the overall
figure‑‑at
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, our
colleges have now moved to governance, and they are now able to negotiate for a
market‑driven training, for instance.
I understand that they are in the process‑‑Red River
Community College very specifically is now in a negotiation process and when
they finish their negotiation process, then we will know more about what
federal money will also be available to our community colleges and then what
the enrollment may be in total.
Adult Basic Education
Programs
Alternative Programs
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain why
adult basic education enrollments at
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, again, as I have said, there
have been programs which have previously been funded in the majority by the
federal government, and those programs are now being looked at by the community
colleges to see if they can access direct funding from the federal government.
In addition, as the member knows, in
terms of funding for ACCESS programs, for instance, there also has been a
complete decline in the area of federal funding, whereas our province has
continued to support funding. I have
also explained to the member a continuum of programming which is available to
students from literacy programming, high school programming available within
home divisions.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr.
Speaker, could the minister explain how her policy‑‑and it is a
policy, it is a consistent policy of reducing opportunities for people who have
not completed their secondary education.
Could she tell us how that benefits the
Mrs. Vodrey: First of all, I would point to the assistance
that we are providing students who are currently in the secondary programs so
that those students are able to successfully complete their program and that
they are able to successfully complete their program in a sequential manner.
We also co‑operate with the
Government of Canada in terms of stay‑in‑school initiatives. For those students who wish to return to
school, there are programs available within the home division to allow students
to complete the high school programs, and then we continue to offer assistance
for students who wish to proceed into the post‑secondary institutions.
The Pas Health Complex
Layoffs
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, next month over 15 LPNs at The
Pas Health Complex will be laid off and residents of The Pas are rightly
concerned that these layoffs are not cost‑efficient and in fact will
result in higher costs for the complex, while at the same time providing less
services to the people.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the
Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) to advise the House, when did she first
learn of the layoffs? After becoming
aware of the layoffs, what action did she take to co‑ordinate her
response to the layoffs with other government ministries?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I believe my honourable friend
was asking a question about The Pas Health Complex and some of the initiatives
around staffing restructuring that they are undergoing right now. The knowledge I have to date of the
initiative as proposed by The Pas Health Complex is that the new staffing mix
that they propose will comply with the guidelines that we require to be
followed in acute care hospitals and will not compromise patient care or
quality of patient care.
Mr. Lathlin:
Mr. Speaker, I will table for the minister, over 2,000 petitions from
residents of The Pas protesting that decision of this government.
Mr. Speaker, my second question is
to the Minister of Education and Training.
Is the minister aware that these
people who have been thrown off their jobs will be unable to find other
employment in The Pas, even though most of these people have worked in that
field for most of the time, and, in fact, all their working lives?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct my
honourable friend, in terms of one of the assertions he made in his preamble.
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend
indicated that it was a government decision in terms of the staffing patterns
at The Pas Health Complex. As with all
acute care hospitals in
Mr. Speaker, in achieving goals of
health care, boards throughout the length and breadth of
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
* (1410)
Mr. Lathlin:
Mr. Speaker, my final question is again directed to the Minister of
Education and Training.
Could the minister advise the House
if she has any alternative plans for those people who have been thrown out of
their jobs in The Pas, because right now the only option left to those people
is unemployment insurance, welfare, and, in fact, having to move out of The Pas
to find employment elsewhere? What plans
does she have?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Speaker, in any of these decisions where individuals are affected by
layoffs, as is the instance cited by my honourable friend, those circumstances
are very regrettable for the individuals involved. I do not think anyone, certainly in this
government or at the board or administrative level of the facilities making
those decisions, takes any particular joy in making these kinds of decisions.
Mr. Speaker, as much as possible,
whenever layoffs are part of the restructuring within the hospitals, every
effort is made on redeployment and offering retraining where appropriate within
the health care system and within other funded institutions of health care.
Child and Family
Services
Reduced Workweek
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, this Friday is the first day that
Child and Family Services workers will be unable to properly meet the needs of our
province's children as a matter of government policy.
Because of this government's policy
of workweek reduction and the concern that it will adversely affect the safety
of
My question for the minister
is: What is the impact of the four‑day
workweek on the children and families of
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family
Services): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to the
member before, and we had some discussion of this in Estimates, the board
chairs and the executive directors of those agencies take their
responsibilities very seriously. They do
have staffing scenarios that include weekends and long weekends.
In my discussions with the board
chairs and with the executive directors, they are prepared to meet that challenge
and have the appropriate staffing in place.
Mr. Martindale:
Mr.
Speaker, this weekend, regular CFS workers will be unavailable for four
consecutive days.
Will the minister explain to this
House and to families in
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, the member does not seem to
understand that emergency services are always in place, 24 hours a day, every day
of the year, that they work through regular holidays at Christmastime, and the
professional staff of those agencies put in place the emergency services that
are necessary.
Mr. Martindale:
How
can the minister assure the House and Manitobans that with less staff on the
weekend, children at risk will not be not looked after and their needs will be
taken care of? What plan is in place to
make sure that all emergency situations will be covered?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, the member is essentially asking
the same question. The agencies that
provide services‑‑and I do say I have a lot more confidence and
faith in the professional staff who operate and work in those agencies than the
member does.
They face long‑weekend
situations from time to time throughout the course of the year and put in place
procedures to deal with emergency situations.
I am sure the boards and staff, the leadership of those agencies, have
the confidence that the measures they have put in place certainly will work.
Crown Corporations
Reduced Workweek
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I also have a question in regard
to the public sector reduction.
I would like to ask the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) if he can now indicate what is going to happen with the
many Crown corporations‑‑we are seeing, for example, in terms of
MTS which is going to have to compete with Unitel. Other Crown corporations have to compete in
the retail sector, such as liquor commissions.
Which ones are going to be affected
by the closures? Which ones are not?
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the
House and to inform the member for Thompson, in the case of most of the
corporations, either negotiations have been concluded with their bargaining
units or are in the process of being concluded.
I can tell him that at the Manitoba
Telephone System, agreements were concluded with all of the unions representing
the various employees in a very amicable way.
Service will be provided, and those people will certainly be continuing
to do the job on behalf of the people of our province.
Mr. Speaker:
The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Nonpolitical
Statement
Mr. Ben Sveinson (La Verendrye): Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker:
Does the honourable member for La Verendrye have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Sveinson:
Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise before the House today to
once again recognize the achievements of some of our very fine
The sport of ringette has enjoyed
tremendous popularity and success in
One of these players is in the
Chamber today serving as a Page, Ms. Gaetane Manaigre. She played for the Assiniboine Park‑Fort
Garry Sixers this season and was a member of the Manitoba Belles that won the
Canadian championships in
Gaetane was also a member of the
I would ask all members to join me
in congratulating Gaetane, and all those who have brought pride and distinction
to our province with their accomplishments at the Canadian championships, for
their personal development and contribution to the promotion of ringette in
Manitoba, and for the positive role models and leadership they provide for
other ringette players and for women in sport in Manitoba.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call second readings
Bill 34 and then adjourned debate Bills 12, 23 and 22, in that order.
SECOND
Bill 34‑The Public
Schools Amendment (Francophone Schools Governance) Act
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Labour (Mr. Praznik), that Bill 34, The Public Schools Amendment
(Francophone Schools Governance) Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles
publiques (gestion des ecoles francaises), be now read a second time and be
referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
* (1420)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present for second reading, Bill 34, which
will establish a Francophone school division in our province. The bill provides for the election of a
Francophone school board. That board
will be responsible for providing Francophone French first language education
in
The enactment of this legislation
will provide the Franco‑Manitoban community with a mechanism to manage
and control the schools their children attend.
It also reflects the special recognition given by our Constitution to
the English and French languages.
Section 23 of the Charter guarantees the right of the English‑speaking
minority in
The Supreme Court in a 1990 decision
has interpreted Section 23 as granting these official minorities the right to
govern their own schools where numbers warrant.
This bill providing for this governance right, is truly a milestone in
the historical development of French language education in
In our province, today, there are
over 5,400 children attending French first language programs or francais
programs as they are called. These
students attend their francais programs in 27 schools in the province located
in eight different school divisions. The
long‑standing tradition of supporting and facilitating but not imposing
change from above has been maintained by my government in Bill 34 and in our
approach to the implementation of the governance system.
Francophone parents will be informed
about the new structure and how it will operate and about its many
advantages. That important task has been
assigned to the implementation committee, chaired by the Honourable Alfred
Monnin, former Chief Justice of the Manitoba Court of Appeal, who has had a
long involvement with Francophone education.
Mr. Monnin will be joined on the team by representatives nominated by affected
groups. I am pleased that the key
Francophone groups have accepted my long‑standing invitation to serve on
such a committee.
I will provide for your information
a copy of this committee's mandate and its membership because, as I said
before, it will play an important and complementary role in relation to the
provisions in this bill.
The implementation committee will
provide the parents with an opportunity to signal their decision to join the
new school division. I believe that most
parents will welcome the opportunity to participate in this important new stage
in the evolution of French instruction in education, but my government will not
impose a system on parents from the top down, so to speak. By Bill 34, existing boards are not
prohibited from continuing to offer French instruction.
The government of
The content of this bill is guided
by the numerous recommendations submitted to the Minister of Education and Training
on May 31, 1991, by the Manitoba Task Force on Francophone Schools
Governance. This task force was set up
in 1990 to advise the government on all matters related to the establishment of
a governance system for Franco‑Manitoban schools.
The task force was chaired by Edgar
Gallant, a distinguished career civil servant who had presided over similar
task forces on French education in
The proposed legislation creates a
Francophone school division to be established by regulation not later than
eight months after the bill is given Royal Assent. Certainly, it is my hope that we will be in a
position to establish the division in the late fall of this year.
The territory of the Francophone
school division will include all areas of the province where census data shows
significant concentrations of Franco‑Manitobans. This means that every community which now has
a school offering a francais program will be included within the territorial
boundaries of the new division.
In addition, some other communities
which have concentrations of Franco‑Manitobans but no francais school
programs will also be included in the territory. The territory will be comprehensive enough to
allow the new board to respond effectively to the needs of Franco‑Manitoban
communities.
A map describing the territory of
the new Francophone division can be found in the information booklet entitled
Francophone Schools Governance, and I will be making that booklet available for
you today.
Under the guidelines expressed by
the Supreme Court, the province has considerable scope in choosing the precise
model for governance. A single
Francophone school division was the model recommended to the government by the
Gallant task force. We accept the
opinion of the task force that given the size and location of
The new Francophone school division
will be responsible for the delivery of primary and secondary educational
programs in its territory where numbers warrant. This simply means that wherever there are
sufficient numbers of students whose Section 23 parents want their children's
education to be provided by the Francophone school division to make this
practical, these programs will be provided.
In large measure, this education is already being provided in francais
programs in schools now.
My government expects that parents
of children in most of these existing schools and programs will wish to join
the new division so that those programs will simply be transferred to the new
division. The creation of the new
division involves primarily a change in administration of those existing
programs.
The object of Bill 34, Mr. Speaker,
is to provide an effective mechanism for all parents who want to exercise their
rights under Section 23 of the Charter.
It is simply not practical or desirable in
Guaranteed minimum or a proportional
representation, in particular, has run into a lot of criticism as being
divisive, cumbersome and otherwise unworkable in
Under Bill 34, the principal program
offered by the new Francophone board will be the francais model, one designed
for students whose mother tongue and home language is French. The new division will not provide English or
French Immersion programs. These
programs will remain the responsibility of existing school divisions.
To ensure that children master
French as their first language, the programs offered by the division will be
intensive, providing at least 75 percent of classroom instruction in the French
language in each grade. Members may be
aware that this is the predominant model in use today in
There are, however, some schools in
which a less intensive approach is taken, sometimes referred to as the partial
francais approach. Should the parents of
children in a less intensive program want to join the new division, there will
be a three‑year transitional period during which the Francophone board
will be obliged to continue that approach for those children.
The Francophone school division will
also be responsible to develop and offer a program called programme d'accueil
which can be translated as a type of welcoming program. The program will be developed and offered if
there is a sufficient demand for it. This program will assist nonfluent
children of Section 23 parents to acquire the language skills required for them
to participate successfully in the French language program provided by the new
Francophone school division.
* (1430)
The necessity for such a program
lies in the fact that there are a large number of
Let me focus for a moment on exactly
who will be entitled to send their children to school in the new division. As previously mentioned, the Francophone
school division's mandate is to provide French language programs to students
whose parents wish to exercise their right under Section 23 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the
The Gallant task force recommended
that, in some respects, the entitlement provision spelled out in Section 23 of
the Charter be defined more precisely.
We believe these recommendations are consistent with the purpose of the
Charter Section 23, and we have included them in the bill.
The bill therefore defines the
following residents of Manitoba as persons entitled to have their children
educated by the Francophone school division:
Persons whose first language learned and understood is French; Canadian
citizens who have received at least four years of primary school instruction in
the French first language program in Canada; or Canadian citizens, any child of
whom is receiving or has received at least four years of primary or secondary
school instruction in a French first language program in Canada.
Only one of the child's parents must
meet the above criteria to ensure eligibility.
Under the provisions I have just described, every Franco‑Manitoban
parent residing in the territory of the division will be eligible to send his
or her child to programs run by the new board.
In addition, those Manitobans whose
children are now attending francais programs will be eligible. The bill makes it very clear that if a
program is transferred, every child now attending such a program will be
entitled to continue to attend. As recommended by the task force, the
Francophone school board will also be empowered to admit other children whose
parents do not meet the criteria set above.
Mr. Speaker, I might add that under
Bill 34, entitled persons not resident in the territory of the Francophone
school division will also be able to send their children to schools run by the
Francophone division if this is practicable.
Now a word about the unique aspects
of the new governance structure. Bill 34
proposes the creation of a French language school division with a unique
trilevel structure. This trilevel
approach is designed to ensure that the Francophone school division is
responsive to the needs of
To ensure strong local involvement,
the proposed legislation requires that a school committee be established for
each school in which a program is being provided by the Francophone school
division. These school committees will
be consulted on all matters affecting their particular schools.
The Francophone school division will
be divided into regions. Each region
will have a regional committee whose members will be elected by the
parents. The regional committees will
keep the school board attune to regional matters. In turn, the regional committees will be
obliged to consult with the school committees about local school issues.
In addition to the important advisory
and consultative role played by the regional committees, Bill 34 permits the
Francophone school board to delegate to a regional committee the responsibility
to actually make determinations about regional matters.
Each regional committee will elect trustees
from among their membership to serve on the Francophone school board. The board will be a decision‑making
body for the Francophone school division and will have all of the regular
duties and powers of existing school boards except for the power of property
taxation.
Mr. Speaker, I should add that the
governance structure I have just described is essentially that recommended by
the Gallant task force.
Although the proposed boundaries of
the division itself have been identified, it would not be wise or appropriate
to determine the precise number of regions and their boundaries until the
implementation committee has completed its work identifying which existing
programs will initially be transferred.
That committee has been asked to provide its recommendations on the
number of regions, their boundaries, the number of councillors to be elected in
each region, and the number from each regional committee to serve on the school
board. Bill 34 enables those matters to
be prescribed by regulation.
The objective will be to ensure that
the governance structure is representative of the population it serves and
sensitive to both rural and urban concerns.
The Gallant committee foresaw four such regions, one in the urban area
of
Mr. Speaker, I now want to highlight
some of the relevant provisions regarding the election of the governance
structure. Parents who send their children to programs run by the new
Francophone school division or entitled persons and their spouses who have
requested in writing that their child's education be provided by the
Francophone school division will have the right to vote in elections for
regional committees. There will be
special provisions for the first election which I will describe in a moment.
Bill 34 also provides for the
possibility and subsequent elections of widening the franchise beyond parents
by regulation. Any parent eligible to
vote will also be able to run for office of a regional committee member. Other individuals who have the ability to
operate in the French language will also be eligible to run for office, even if
they do not have school‑age children.
The intent is to ensure that parents will not be denied the chance to
elect experienced and capable members of the community merely because those
persons may not be parents of a school‑age child in the system.
As I said before, some of the
elected regional committee members will serve as trustees on the Francophone
school board. Each regional committee will choose its representatives to sit on
the Francophone school board.
According to Bill 34, funding for
the Francophone school division will come primarily from provincial grants
available to all
Mr. Speaker, public funds are
already being provided for Francophone education in the province. The new governance structure is primarily a
change in administration of that existing education. While there may be costs associated with the
transition in administrative structure as required by the Charter, the
government does not expect these costs to be substantial. As in the case with existing boards, the new
Francophone board will be obliged to conduct its operation in an efficient and
cost‑effective manner, mindful of the necessary limits to overall public
expenditure.
Before concluding my remarks today,
I want to explain how the work to be done by the implementation committee will support
and facilitate a smooth and effective transition to the new system. First, as I
noted above, that committee will perform the important task of informing
parents likely to be affected by the creation of this new structure of the
details of this initiative.
The informational pamphlet I will
soon provide will be distributed by the committee to all parents whose children
now attend francais programs. The
implementation committee will ask parents who qualify under Section 23 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms whether they want the Francophone
programs that their children currently attend to be transferred. In the event there is no clear consensus in a
particular school community, the long‑respected principle of majority
determination, the only practical way of dealing with such an issue, will be
applied.
* (1440)
Let me elaborate somewhat on the
registration process. In each of the
schools in
The process is to be completed by
October 1 of 1993. Given the number of
schools involved and the fact that it is difficult to carry on such a task on
school vacation, this is a very ambitious schedule. This process must precede the determination of
regions and boundaries and, given the objective to hold elections in this
calendar year, the compressed schedule is necessary.
If a majority of the completed
registrations in a particular school program indicate that parents want their
child's education to be administered by the Francophone school division, that
program will be designated for transfer by regulation. Ultimately, the program
will be transferred to the Francophone school division.
Mr. Speaker, all parents of children
in a program designed for transfer will be eligible to vote in the first
election of regional committees. This is
an example of how the work of the implementation committee and the provisions
of Bill 34 will interrelate.
If a majority of the parents do not
favour the transfer of their school's education to the new division, that
program will remain the responsibility of the school division in which they
reside. However, Bill 34 makes it clear
that individual entitled parents whose children attend such programs still have
the right to request that their child's education be provided by the new
Francophone school division.
Bill 34 makes it equally clear that
the Francophone school division will be obliged to provide education to such
children wherever it is practical to do so.
Individual Charter rights are not
removed because of a decision of a school community as a whole to stay with the
status quo. Consistent with such an
approach under Bill 34, any entitled parent signifying an intent in writing to
have the new board deliver his or her child's education will also be able to
vote in the first election for regional committees even if the program his or
her child attends has not been designated for transfer.
Having talked about transfers of
programs, I now want to explain how Bill 34 provides for the transfer of school
facilities from existing boards to the new Francophone division. You will
recall that there are now 27 schools in
We refer to these as single program
schools. The property transfer
provisions related to these 19 schools will be quite simple and
straightforward. Where the majority of
registrations in any of these single program schools favour the transfer of the
French first language program to the new Francophone school division, Bill 34
provides that not only the program but also the school facility in which that
program is offered will be transferred to the new Francophone school division.
There are, however, eight schools
where francais programming exists which can be described as mixed program
schools. There, in addition to students
following the francais programs, there are other students, most of them in
French immersion programs, but a few are taking English programs. For the most part, Mr. Speaker, these schools
are located in rural areas where the number of children may not be sufficient
to justify separate school facilities.
Bill 34 requires that adequate premises be transferred to the
Francophone school division to house any programs designated for transfer in
these schools.
Bill 34 contemplates that shared use
of existing facilities is one possibility.
The implementation committee has been asked to recommend which schools
or school space should be made available to the Francophone division to house
any of those French first language programs presently located in mixed program
schools, where the majority of registrations favour the transfer of these
programs to the new division.
The implementation committee's
recommendations will be forwarded to the new Francophone board and the existing
boards to work out the details or negotiate some other mutually agreeable
arrangement related to the transfer or the shared use of schools presently
housing programs in addition to the French first language program.
Bill 34 will provide for the
appointment of an arbitrator to resolve any stalemate. Bill 34 also includes provision for entitled
parents, as a group, to request that consideration be given to transferring a
program to the Francophone school division any time after the division has been
running schools for two years. Such
requests can be made on a periodic basis.
Elections of the regional committees
are targeted for late fall, early winter of 1993, provided that the
identification of participating programs can be ascertained before October 1,
1993. Assuming that elections of
regional committee members proceed in 1993, and the Francophone school board
itself is elected from among regional committee members prior to the end of
1993, the new board will assume responsibility for its students as of July 1,
1994.
There will be a very significant
workload for the newly established board to undertake before it assumes
responsibility for students.
Establishing its offices, hiring its administrative officers, preparing
budgets, arranging for an orderly transfer of staff, dealing with the details
of any sharing arrangements and preparing a transportation plan are only some
of the activities it will undertake.
No doubt, there will be much
consultation and co‑operation between the new board and the existing
boards to make the transition as smooth as possible for affected students,
staff and parents. Bill 34 contains
numerous provisions to ensure that the transfers of staff and assets proceed
efficiently and give consideration to all affected parties.
A process is provided for the
selection of teachers to fill positions with the new board. Fair procedures incorporating appropriate
successor‑right principles will protect the rights of teachers,
principals and nonteaching staff transferred to the new school division. Thus rights and benefits of teachers and
other nonteaching employees, as set forth in current collective agreements and
employee contracts, will be honoured until new agreements are finalized between
the new Francophone board and its employees.
The task of creating an appropriate
new collective bargaining framework may appear at first blush to constitute a
challenge to the board and its employees alike, given the number of bargaining
units and collective agreements which will be subsumed within the board's
initial operations. I am confident that
all concerned are up to the task.
Nonetheless, the provision is made for the collective agreement board
and
Mr. Speaker, this completes my
summary of the highlights of Bill 34. I
am confident that the content of this bill will respond to the requirements of
Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am proud to have been associated with this
important step in the evolution of French language education in
I believe the provisions of this
bill will meet the aspirations of the Franco‑Manitoban community to
control and to manage their educational facilities. It will enrich the
* (1450)
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Monsieur le president, il me fait plaisir de
faire une presentation devant cette Assemblee cet apres‑midi. Pour moi, c'est une journee historique,
encore de pouvoir faire un discours totalement en francais. En 1988, lorsque j'ai ete elu pour la
premiere fois a L'Assemblee legislative du Manitoba, c'etait aussi une journee
historique: c'etait la premiere fois depuis 1890 qu'un discours avait ete fait
totalement en francais. Alors,
aujourd'hui, il me fait grandement plaisir, pour cette journee historique pour
la francophonie du
A la suite de la presentation devant
cette Assemblee legislative du projet de loi par la ministre de l'Education, je
reagis immediatement avec joie au coeur, d'autant plus que le projet de loi fut
seconde par le premier ministre lui‑meme, ce qui a mes yeux signifia de
facon evidente l'importance avec laquelle le gouvernement desirait traiter de
ce dossier.
Le Projet de loi 34, Loi modifiant
la Loi sur les ecoles publiques (Gestion des ecoles francaises) est un des
projets de loi parmi les plus importants pour les Franco‑Manitobains et
les Franco‑Manitobaines, car la langue d'education d'un peuple est la
source intellectuelle qui assure l'existence de ce meme peuple.
Comme je l'ai deja dit a maintes
reprises dans cette chambre, c'est l'ancien president de la France, Georges
Pompidou qui, a mon avis exprime bien
simplement mais combien justement l'importance de la langue francaise
quand il disait que le role de la langue n'est pas un simple moyen
d'expression, c'est un moyen de penser, un moyen d'influence intellectuelle, et
c'est a travers notre langue que nous existons.
Cet effort que je fais et que font
les Franco‑Manitobains et les Franco‑Manitobaines pour le
developpement et l'epanouissement de la francophonie au Manitoba, c'est aux
Francophones de le faire. Et, en
harmonie avec l'initiative adequate mais attendue du gouvernement c'est a la
communaute francophone du
Quel plus beau geste de remerciement
a Louis Riel pouvons‑nous offrir a nos enfants que celui de leur assurer
une education en francais. Une education
pour laquelle le fondateur du
Monsieur le president, je ne veux
pas laisser ici deborder l'emotion du moment sur la realite vivante historique
que vit actuellement la province du
C'est avec sincerite mais avec
vigueur, que j'invite les Franco‑Manitobains et les Franco‑Manitobaines
a participer aux audiences publiques du comite parlementaire qui traitera de ce
projet de loi.
Que cela soit a titre individuel ou
communautaire, a son nom personnel ou a celui d'un organisme, porte‑parole
professionnel ou syndical, d'une communaute religieuse ou a titre de laque, de Chevalier de Colomb ou de Franc‑macon,
de travailleur ou d'etudiant, du milieu rural ou du milieu urbain, intellectuel
ou ouvrier, de jeunes ou moins jeunes, de pere ou de mere, d'homme ou de femme,
j'invite la population franco‑manitobaine a venir faire des presentations
aux audiences publiques du comite parlementaire.
Le gouvernement, tout comme les
partis d'opposition, a besoin des recommendations du public en ce qui a trait a
la gestion des ecoles francaises. C'est
une invitation publique que je lance a la population franco‑manitobaine a
participer a un procede democratique et necessaire a l'avenir de la langue
francaise au
C'est une invitation que je lance a
la francophonie manitobaine a prendre l'occasion de recommander des amendements
durant les audiences publiques du comite parlementaire afin d'ameliorer le
projet de loi et de satisfaire les Franco‑Manitobains et les Franco‑Manitobaines.
Monsieur le president, les
allegeances ideologiques doivent servir de fil conducteur tout en permettant a
la pensee de ne pas outrepasser la realite.
La raison d'etre de notre Assemblee legislative, de contribuer a
l'amelioration des conditions de vie des Manitobains et des Manitobaines, doit
etre la source d'inspiration qui permette au gouvernement et a l'opposition de
se completer l'un l'autre.
Je ne discuterai pas ici de maniere
systematique les differences des deux bords parce que la chose est deja faite
de facon habituelle. Neanmoins,
j'aimerais preciser qu'il est le role de l'opposition de montrer avec force et
pertinence les insuffisances du gouvernement.
A mon opinion, le projet de loi
semble proposer les recommendations principales du rapport Gallant, ce dont je
felicite le gouvernement. Notamment, le
projet de loi prevoit l'etablissement de comites scolaires locaux, plus
exactement au niveau de chaque ecole ce qui, a mon avis, est l'assurance de la
participation active des ayants droit dont les droits sont garantis par
l'article 23 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertes.
Egalement de positif dans le projet
de loi est la prevision d'etablir un programme d'accueil afin d'ameliorer les
habiletes des eleves aux exigences linguistiques du programme francais. Ceci
pourrait
Enfin la creation d'un comite
d'admission est une note positive a la concretisation logique de l'existence
d'une division scolaire qui se soucie de la qualite des programmes qu'elle
offre.
Monsieur le president, je dois
neanmoins souligner plusieurs faiblesses qui existent dans le projet de
loi. Des faiblesses qui m'inquietent
d'abord comme legislateur, comme contribuable et enfin comme Francophone. Je me resignerai aujourd'hui a en citer les
principales afin de susciter des recommendations des Franco‑Manitobains
et des Franco‑Manitobaines.
Tout d'abord l'absence totale dans
le projet de loi de precisions sur le processus de fonctionnement et les
pouvoirs du comite d'implantation, ou comite Monnin, dont la ministre de
l'Education n'est pas tenue d'en retenir les recommendations.
Ensuite, j'ai un grand nombre de
questions auxquelles j'espere nous pourrons trouver ensemble des solutions
accommodantes pour toutes les parties impliquees.
Quel est l'interet public a
maintenir deux programmes francais paralleles: l'un offert par la division
scolaire de langue francaise, et l'autre offert par la commission scolaire du
systeme actuel?
Pour quelle raison donne‑t‑on
tant de pouvoir au ministre de l'Education?
La formule de financement proposee
est‑elle vraiment realiste? Ne risque‑t‑on pas de voir la
division scolaire de langue francaise recevoir differents montants d'argent
pour deux ou plus d'eleves de la meme classe, simplement parce qu'ils
n'appartiennent pas a la meme commission scolaire actuelle?
Les taxes scolaires variant d'une
commission scolaire a une autre, de quelle maniere la division scolaire de
langue francaise pourra‑t‑elle etablir ses previsions budgetaires
de facon efficace?
Monsieur le president, pourquoi
donne‑t‑on au ministre de l'Education le pouvoir ultime de decider
qui peut etre candidat aux elections? Le principe fondamental de la democratie
ne dicte‑t‑il pas une obligation pour la loi de definir qui a le
droit de vote et qui peut se presenter aux elections?
Pourquoi donne‑t‑on le
droit de se presenter aux elections aux personnes qui n'ont pas d'enfants d'age
scolaire et qu'on leur refuse le droit de vote?
Pourquoi accorde‑t‑on le
droit de vote aux ayants droit aux deux commissions scolaires, a
Pourquoi les autobus et les
chauffeurs d'autobus ne sont‑ils pas
transferes a la division scolaire de langue francaise? N'y a‑t‑il
pas ici une dimension de securite envers les enfants a avoir un chauffeur
d'autobus qui parle francais?
Le fait de donner la possiblite aux
ayants droit de choisir de se joindre ou non a la division scolaire de langue
francaise n'est‑il pas purement et simplement un empechement par la
majorite a la minorite d'exercer son droit?
La mise en place de la division
scolaire francophone n'est‑elle pas sujette au bon vouloir des divisions
scolaires majoritaires?
Monsieur le president, comme je l'ai
mentionne plus tot, tout ceci sont des preoccupations qui necessitent
probablement certains eclaircissements, sinon des ajustements ou amendements
qui devraient etre proposes ou recommandes par la communaute francophone.
C'est pourquoi je considere ce
projet de loi comme un point de depart pour l'implantation finale de la gestion
scolaire francophone au
Monsieur le president, la ministre
mentionnait que c'est un echeancier ambitieux.
Je le crois, mais je crois, en travaillant ensemble, les trois partis
dans cette chambre et la communaute, qu'il est realiste de pouvoir avoir notre
gestion scolaire en 1994. Avec ces
commentaires, je felicite le gouvernement d'avoir apporte ce projet de loi en
cette journee historique pour le Manitoba.
Merci beaucoup.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a presentation
before this Assembly this afternoon. For
me, this is a historic day, once again, to be able to make a speech completely
in French. In 1988, when I was elected
for the first time to the Legislative Assembly of
Following the presentation before this Legislative
Assembly on the bill by the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey), I
am reacting immediately with joy in my heart, all the more because the bill was
seconded by the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) himself which, in my mind, clearly
indicated the importance that the government wished to give to this matter.
Bill 34, The Public Schools Amendment
(Francophone Schools Governance) Act is among the most important bills for
Franco‑Manitobans because the language of education of a people is the
intellectual source which ensures the existence of this same people. Mr. Speaker, as I have already said many
times in this House, it was the former President of France, Georges Pompidou
who, in my opinion, expressed very simply, but so aptly, the importance of the
French language when he said that the role of language is not simply to be a
means of expression. It is a way of
thinking, a means of intellectual influence and it is through our language that
we exist.
Mr. Speaker, this effort that I am making and
which Franco‑Manitobans are making for the development and flourishing of
Francophone life in Manitoba, it is up to Francophones to do it. And in keeping with the proper but awaited
initiative of the government, it is up to the Francophone community of
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to let the emotions
of the moment spill over into the living historical reality of the
It is sincerely and vigorously that I am
inviting Franco‑Manitobans to participate in the public hearings of the
parliamentary committee that will be dealing with this bill. Whether it be on
an individual or on a community basis, in one's own name or on behalf of an
organization, as a spokesperson for a profession or a union, whether from a
religious community or whether as a layperson, a Knight of Columbus or
Freemason, worker or student, whether from rural or urban areas, whether
intellectual or labourer, young or not‑so‑young, father or mother,
man or woman, I invite the Franco‑Manitoban population to come and make
presentations at the public hearings of the parliamentary committee.
The government, as well as the opposition
parties, requires the recommendations of the public in regard to the governance
of French schools. This is a public
invitation that I am making to the Franco‑Manitoban population to
participate in a democratic procedure that is necessary to the French language
in
Mr. Speaker, ideological allegiances must serve
as a conductor while at the same time not allowing reflection to surpass
reality. The raison d'etre of our
Legislative Assembly, to contribute to the improvement of the conditions of
life of all Manitobans, must be the source of inspiration which allows the
government and the opposition to complement one another.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to discuss here in a
systematic way the differences on each side, because this is something that is
done regularly. Nevertheless, I would
like to specify that it is the role of the opposition to show, forcefully and
relevantly, the government's insufficiencies.
In my opinion, the bill seems to propose the
principal recommendations of the Gallant report, and for that I congratulate
the government. Particularly, the bill
provides for the establishment of local school committees, more exactly, at the
level of each school, which in my opinion ensures the active participation of
entitled persons, persons whose rights are guaranteed under Section 23 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
* (1500)
Also positive in the bill is the provision for
the establishment of a programme d'accueil in order to improve the abilities of
pupils to meet the linguistic requirements of the French program. This could very well lead to the setting up
of certain francization programs which could represent the link between the
French Immersion program and the French program.
Mr. Speaker, lastly, the creation of an admissions
committee is a positive note in the logical realization of the existence of a
school division which is concerned with the quality of the programs that it
offers.
Mr. Speaker, I must, however, emphasize several
weaknesses that exist in the bill, weaknesses which concern me first as a
legislator, then as a taxpayer and finally as a Francophone. I will confine myself today to citing the
principal ones in order to incite recommendations from Franco‑Manitobans.
Firstly, the total absence in the bill of
details on the process of functioning and the powers of the implementation
committee, or the Monnin committee, whose recommendations the minister is not
required to adopt. Next I have many
questions to which I hope we will be able together to find solutions that
accommodate all the parties involved.
How is the public interest served by maintaining
two parallel French programs, one offered by the Francophone school division
and the other offered by the school board of the current system?
Why is so much power given to the Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey)?
Is the proposed financing formula really
realistic? Are we not likely to see the
Francophone school division receive different amounts of money for two or more
pupils in the same class simply because they do not belong to the same current
school board?
As school taxes vary from one school board to
another, how will the Francophone school division be able to establish its
budget estimates in an efficient manner?
Mr. Speaker, why is the Minister of Education
given the ultimate power of deciding who can be an electoral candidate? Does
not the fundamental principle of democracy dictate an obligation for the law to
define who has the right to vote and who can be a candidate? Why is the right to run for election given to
persons who do not have children of school age and to whom the right to vote is
refused?
Mr. Speaker, why is the right to vote given to
entitled persons for two school boards, that is, to the Francophone one and the
one that exists under the current system?
Why are the buses and bus drivers not
transferred to the Francophone school division?
Is there not a safety consideration here with regard to children having
a bus driver who speaks French?
Is not the fact of giving the possibility to
entitled persons of joining or not joining the Francophone school division
purely and simply an impediment by the majority of the minority's exercise of
its right? Is not the setting up of the
Francophone school division subject to the good will of the majority school
divisions?
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, all of
these are concerns which will probably necessitate certain clarifications, if
not adjustments or amendments that should be proposed or recommended by the
Francophone community. It is for that
reason that I consider this bill as a point of departure for the final
implementation of Francophone school governance in
Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned that this
was an ambitious timetable and I think it is, but I believe, with the three
parties in this House working together and working with the community, that
realistically we can have our schools governance in place in 1994. With these comments, I congratulate the
government for having brought forward this bill on this historic day for
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Je propose, avec l'appui du depute de
Wellington (Ms. Barrett), que le debat soit ajourne.
[Translation]
I move, seconded by the honourable member for
Motion agreed to.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 12‑The
International Trusts Act
Mr. Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae), Bill 12, The International Trusts Act; Loi sur les fiducies
internationales, standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River
(Ms. Wowchuk).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker:
Agreed.
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak and I wish
with all my heart that I could speak in French as the member for St. Boniface
(Mr. Gaudry) did and as the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) was able to do,
but I am going to put the remarks on Bill 12 on the record, I am afraid, only
in English. [interjection]
If I were to put the remarks on Bill
12 on the record in French, it would be a very short speech, which members
opposite maybe would appreciate.
Mr. Speaker, on Bill 12, which is
The International Trusts Act, I am going to put my comments on the record and
then we will be prepared to move this bill to committee.
The background for Bill 12 is the
fact that in 1984
There are many countries in the
world that do not follow the common‑law traditions that
Since 1984, the federal government
has ratified this international law, and the convention that it came out
of. Five provinces‑‑Alberta,
Other governments across the world
have ratified or are in the process of ratifying this convention, including the
Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to stand
and put on the record the fact that we appreciate the provincial government's
undertaking this harmonization in the area of trusts. I will tell the Speaker, as he and members of
the government know, we are not always in favour of harmonization. In many areas, we feel that it is a negative
concept, but, in this particular instance, we are supporting the principles
behind The International Trusts Act.
The bill basically will set up the
parameters for a trust, and they would describe the primary characteristics of
a trust as it will relate to the
This describing the primary
characteristics of a trust will enable people who come from countries that do
not have a common‑law tradition to understand and to work with the
Canadian and
The bill also, as the Minister of
Justice (Mr. McCrae) stated in his introduction of the bill, will set out the
minimum extent to which the law of the country, i.e,
It recognizes, as we have said
before, that we need to work within an international context, and an international
context in which many countries do not operate under a common‑law system,
so that this law will attempt to recognize and relieve the problems that can
arise if you have a trust or something that acts as a trust coming from your
country of origin which does not fit into the common‑law concepts of
Canada and Manitoba.
There are, however, Mr. Speaker,
some issues that I would like to raise briefly before we pass this bill on to
committee, issues that have been raised by members of my caucus in the
past. This bill, The International
Trusts Act, unlike several other pieces of legislation that have been brought
forward in the House this session by the government, is not retroactive. I guess I would have a question about why it
has not been made retroactive when Bill 22 is retroactive, when the social
allowance legislation is retroactive, when the infamous Sunday shopping bill
was first introduced, was retroactive.
Just a comment that the government
has no problem making other bills dealing with other major issues facing the
people of Manitoba retroactive, but in this case, it is not. In other words, it will not apply to trusts
that were created before this legislation comes into force. So in effect, it means that people who have
come to
As I mentioned earlier, one of the
major factors leading to the initiation of Bill 12 is that we are becoming more
international in scope. We have spoken
on this side of the House about the problems that this internationalization has
engendered for us in Manitoba and Canada and people all over the world, and we
will continue to do so, because we are facing enormous problems as national
boundaries become more and more porous as money becomes more and more
international, as we discover that 47 out of the top 100 financial entities in
our world are not nation states but are transnational corporations which know
no national boundaries, which by definition have no heart or soul but are only
solely concerned with profit and the bottom line.
* (1510)
So we are in an international world,
Mr. Speaker, and I think, in a positive way, Bill 12 addresses one of the
problems that is inherent in an international community, an international
community which has a range of legal and familial and fiduciary backgrounds,
and recognizes as well that the concept of a trust as looked at in Bill 12 is
essentially a common‑law kind of a concept. So we believe that basically it is a positive
move that is being undertaken in Bill 12.
As we recognize that many people who come from non‑common‑law
countries will be able to take advantage of the implications of Bill 12, it is
also important that we improve the portability and compatibility of the range
of trusts and other kinds of similar negotiations that are being undertaken.
There are a couple of questions, as
I stated earlier, that we have some concerns on, and I am putting them on the record,
as have members of our caucus, in the hopes that these questions will be
addressed in the public hearing process or in debate on third reading. I would like to briefly outline these
questions. One is the question of illegal transaction and the protection of our
trusts. What happens if a transaction is
considered legal in the jurisdiction in which it is undertaken and illegal in
Does this legislation interact with
The Wills Act? Have the drafters of this
legislation looked at the harmonization with The Wills Act so that trusts that
are set up as a result of wills, estates and all other transactions are all
treated equally, or if there are differences in how they are treated, those are
clearly delineated in the legislation?
That is a question we have that we hope will be answered in public
hearings or by the minister in further discussion.
There is the question of private
trusts. This again is particularly
germane when the federal government has pushed through, with unseemly haste, an
extension of the tax‑free status of private trusts in this country.
Parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, the
government always asks us what we would do to react to the economic problems
facing us, and one of the things we have said, on a federal level, is that
there is an enormous loophole, an enormous amount of legitimate revenue that
could be gained by the federal government through‑‑if they had
chosen not to extend the tax holiday on private trusts for another 21
years. This is just an unbelievable tax
loophole that only the wealthiest of our population can take advantage of.
Will these trusts be dealt with
under Bill 12? I would hope, Mr.
Speaker, that the provincial government would talk with their federal
counterparts on this particular thing, this concept. I know it is a bit late now, but with any
luck, there will be a new federal government in the country, and perhaps this
issue can be looked at again. Then,
perhaps, we will be able to revisit the impact of that on Bill 12.
There is another question that we
have raised in the House, and I think it is worthy of a bit of discussion, very
limited discussion, at this point. I am
sure it will be raised again in public hearings and again on third
reading. That is, is this bill as a
result of the North American harmonization and integration? Is this bill the outcome of discussions and
debate attempting to erase the 49th Parallel, attempting another in the long
line of agreements, such as the Free Trade Agreement and the North American
Free Trade Agreement, designed to restructure our society in a north‑south,
rather than east‑west, axis?
Now I think, as we said at the
beginning, this piece of legislation originated in 1984 in an international
convention and conference, but I do think it is very interesting, Mr. Speaker,
that it is being proposed at this time when when we are feeling the effects of
the Free Trade Agreement and are seriously debating, or at least some of us are
seriously debating, the potential hazards of the North American Free Trade
Agreement.
I would suggest that there is only
one party in this country that is actually seriously debating this issue, and
that is the New Democrats. Neither the
Conservatives nor the Liberals are paying much attention to it for good and
sufficient reasons, seeing as how they are the parties of wealth and that their
financial backers are very much in favour of the North American Free Trade
Agreement.
Mr. Speaker, we do have a concern
about the impact that this piece of legislation will have on further erasing
the border between ourselves and the
Mr. Speaker:
As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of
the honourable member for
Point of Order
Ms. Barrett:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, as I stated at the beginning and conclusion of my
remarks, we are prepared to pass this particular piece of legislation to
committee.
Mr. Speaker: I
did understand the remarks of the honourable member for
* * *
Mr. Speaker:
Would you like me to ask the question again? Is there leave for this matter to remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker:
Okay, then leave has been denied.
Therefore, the question before the House is second reading of Bill 12,
The International Trusts Act; Loi sur les fiducies internationales, is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker:
Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 23‑The Retail
Businesses
Employment Standards
Amendment and Payment of Wages Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), Bill 23, The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing
Amendment, Employment Standards Amendment and Payment of Wages Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jours feries dans le commerce de detail, la Loi
sur les normes d'emploi et la Loi sur le paiement des salaires, standing in the
name of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
It is also standing in the name of
the honourable member for Flin Flon, who has 13 minutes remaining.
* (1520)
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): It is my privilege to conclude my remarks on
Bill 23.
Mr. Speaker, the other day the Minister
of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), in answer to questions posed by
myself, indicated that this government, under no circumstances, is going to
allow this piece of legislation to be discussed in rural
I think that shows a degree of
cowardice that we have seldom seen in this Chamber. I want to remind members opposite, and the
member for
Mr. Speaker, I know that this
legislation creates a great deal, has created a great deal, of controversy and
consternation in rural
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the
Chair)
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government
had a choice in this matter. In the
first place, the government and many of the members of the front bench and some
of the back bench were elected from rural
I have quoted on other occasions
remarks that were made by the current member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) in 1987,
when he said that he wants to protect jobs and businesses in his constituency,
and that is why he supported the 1987 legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact of
the matter is that this legislation, although it represents backtracking on the
part of the government, is still a bill that is opposed by the vast majority of
people in rural Manitoba, certainly the vast majority of small businesses and
the vast majority of elected officials in rural Manitoba.
Madam Deputy Speaker, again, the
government is guilty of cowardice on two counts, first, their reluctance, their
fear of meeting the people in rural
It is interesting, the government
has now backtracked from its original proposition that this was going to be a
period of reflection on the impact of Sunday shopping. The government had promised the people of
Madam Deputy Speaker, the member
from St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) wants this to go to committee. So do we.
We want this legislation to go to committee, and we want, for the member
for
We believe that it should be
discussed in rural
An Honourable Member: How many times did you bring your legislation
out to rural
Mr. Storie:
Many, many times. Many, many, many,
many, many times. Yes, many times.
An Honourable Member: Oh, many times you brought it out there.
Zip. Zip, on the record, my friend.
Mr. Storie: No, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on top of
this, I had a meeting in
An Honourable Member: Both of the people that were there‑‑
Mr. Storie: ‑‑were
excellent, that is right. Both of them
did.
I had a meeting in Carman a few
hours earlier, and there were 14 people, business people, regional people involved
in regional development. I had a meeting
in Beausejour, and there were 25 or 30 people out. I had a meeting in Lac du Bonnet, again, good
representation from the business community.
I had meetings in Gimli, Russell and Dauphin, as well as other
communities in northern
The fact of the matter is that this
government is ignoring its roots. It is
ignoring the very people who in many circumstances sent them to this
Chamber. The fact of the matter is that
this piece of legislation is going to slowly but inalterably change the nature
of our economy, and it is going to mean lost jobs in rural
Madam Deputy Speaker, this
legislation represents, as I said earlier, a backtracking. The government originally said they were
going to study the impacts of Sunday shopping.
They have abandoned that, but it is clear by this legislation that the
government was feeling considerable heat from some of its supporters, from some
of its constituencies and that this legislation represents the second best
alternative to the unilateral imposition of Sunday shopping, which was the
government's first choice.
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, what the
government is prepared to do is to turn over responsibility to the
municipalities themselves. The fact of
the matter is that the domino effect is going to take over very quickly after
and if this legislation is passed. The
mayor of the city of
An Honourable Member: Who is that?
Mr. Storie: The mayor of the community of
We all recognize that once the city
takes advantage of this piece of legislation and decides to allow for wide‑open
Sunday shopping, it is not a question of allowing Sunday shopping. Madam Deputy
Speaker, it becomes a business imperative.
It becomes a business imperative because, once the SuperValu is open,
once the Canadian Tire is open, once the major department stores are open, what
happens is every small business has two choices. What this is going to do is force small
businesses who would otherwise for personal reasons or business reasons choose
to be closed, it is going to force them to open.
Madam Deputy Speaker, what this does
is it encourages the demise and the closure of small businesses, the mom‑and‑pop
kind of businesses that are the backbone of our economy. I have said on other occasions that the major
employment in the retail sector comes from the small business community.
[interjection] If the member for
Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) had taken the opportunity to meet with people like
Peter Kaufmann from the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, he would
know that companies, large retailers like SuperValu, create about one hour of
employee time for each $500 worth of sales.
Small independent grocers create one hour of employment for every $50 in
sales.
So the fact of the matter is that on
balance there is more employment being created by the small independent grocers‑‑[interjection]
Madam Deputy Speaker, the member, for wherever the heck he is from, can join
this debate and side with the SuperValus any time he wishes. He talks about quality employment. I do not know when the last time he talked to
a SuperValu employee, who are now all part‑time workers basically without
benefits. So he can talk about the
significant improvement it is for someone to join the retail sector in large
business, if he wishes. I invite him to
join.
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, the
argument holds that there is more employment created in the small independent
businesses in the
* (1530)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that
the front bench, the member for Arthur (Mr. Downey) may want to make fun of it,
and the member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) may want to make fun of this. They may have given up on their
communities. They may not want to
represent their communities, but I think their constituents will be glad to
know that someone cares, that someone is prepared to stand up and say that in
the interest of protecting the small business community, we should keep‑‑[interjection]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am having great difficulty hearing the
honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) complete his remarks. The honourable member for Flin Flon has 30
seconds remaining.
Mr. Storie:
For the enlightenment of the member for
Madam Deputy Speaker, this
legislation is going to undermine rural
Madam Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I vividly remember the first
Sunday that I preached in rural
During the announcements, I said to
people, I notice there are not very many people in church today. Perhaps it is because it is harvest and
people are out on the land harvesting their crops. I thought that maybe there were more people
than usual at church that Sunday as they came to check out their new hippie
minister with the long hair who wore a leather hat. However, after church‑‑[interjection]
Yes, I have had beards in the past. The member knows that. I did not have a beard at that particular
time, however.
After church, I still remember that
two of my members took me aside and they said, you know, Doug, we hate to admit
this, but this is an average attendance for
In fact, the farms of Mantario were
approximately a section and a half in size whereas, at Eatonia and LaPorte,
where the land was actually of much better quality soil, the farms were much
larger. Many farmers had four sections
of land and, so they said, we do not need to harvest on Sunday, we can take in
our crops six days a week, whereas in Eatonia many people felt obliged because
of the pressure of time to work on Sunday in the fields and to harvest their
crops. So my apology was not really
necessary.
As a result, I got to know people
like Tom and Marion Marchant in
Similarly, when I was growing up, I
remember that Sunday was a day of almost no activity other than attending
Sunday school and church. After dinner,
we used to read or go to a park, and Sunday then surely was a day of rest. I could remember once chiding my brother for
playing touch football on Sunday, and he told me where to go and continued
playing touch football with his friend.
I was a rather judgmental purpose
person at that time due to the influence of my fundamentalist friends. I remember that it was really a more
puritanical time, even for members of the
All of that, of course, has changed
as many of our churches have become more liberal. The result is that individual and
denominational observances of Sunday have changed over the years, over the
decades and over millennia.
I would like to ask: What are the origins of Sunday observance for
us as Christians? What was the Jewish
view of the Sabbath? What was Jesus'
view? How did the day of rest change
from the seventh day to the first day and when?
What does God want of us now? How
should Christians view the retail shopping amendment act and also The Retail
Businesses Holiday Closing Amendment, Employment Standards Amendment and
Payment of Wages Amendment Act?
In the Hebrew Scriptures we
read: And God spoke these words, saying
. . . Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labour, and do all your
work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath for the Lord your God; in it you shall
not do any work.
Sabbath in Hebrew means
"rest" or "ceasing from labour." The Hebrew people were reminded of their need
to imitate God, whose creative activity left the Sabbath free from work. There was a very simple reason for the
observance of the Sabbath; it was so that working people may rest.
In Exodus, the day of rest was the
last day of the week and it still is for Jews.
Christians celebrated the first day of the week since Jesus'
resurrection was on the first day. This
was made a legal holiday in 321 A.D. We
believe to this day that a day of rest is not merely a commandment but a gift
from God, that is, those of us who are Christians.
In Deuteronomy we read: Remember that you were a slave in the
Because
It was not merely a legal ordinance
enacted as a ritual taboo but was said in the context of remembrance. Remembering the Sabbath was also
What of modern remembering? The Sabbath or Sunday can be a day of rest
and rejoicing and remembering. We can
rejoice and remember that we do not have to work seven days a week or even six
days a week. We, too, are liberated from
slavery, the slavery of manual labour, thanks to the invention of numerous
labour‑saving machines.
Rabbi Herschel, in his book, The
Sabbath, said, quote: Sabbath is one of life's highest rewards, a source of
strength and inspiration to endure tribulation, to live nobly. The work on weekdays and rest on the Sabbath
day are corelated. The Sabbath is the
inspirer, the other days the inspired, end of quote.
In Matthew's Gospel, we hear the
story of Jesus and his disciples walking through the grain fields on the
Sabbath and plucking ears of wheat because they were hungry. They rubbed the kernels in their hands as farmers
still do and ate the wheat. This act was one of 39 forms of work forbidden by
the rabbi since it was considered reaping and threshing.
* (1540)
Jesus defends himself from the
accusations of the Pharisees by telling the story of David who ate the holy
bread in the temple. He also says that
the priests worked on the Sabbath, but their work is justified by its holy
purpose. Jesus gave a humanitarian
interpretation of the law when he said, quote:
The son of man is Lord of the Sabbath, end of quote.
Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, and he
interprets it in humanitarian terms.
Sabbath law does not oblige one to go hungry. In Christian terms, the principle of human
need, not mere caprice, is determinative.
Jesus also healed on the
Sabbath. He asked the scribes and the
Pharisees if it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath because he knew they would
accuse him of breaking the law. He asked
if it was lawful or permitted to do good or to do harm to save a life or
destroy it. He knew the answer since the
Jewish law made provision in emergencies to care for both animals and human
life.
Religion does not consist of rules
and regulations. True religion consists
of love, forgiveness, service and mercy, and Jesus' example shows that human
need is more important than human ritual.
What does this mean in the context
of Sunday shopping? What is role of the
provincial government when it comes to protecting the morals and values of
Christians?
At one time, Christians were clearly
the majority in Manitoban society. The
government gave special privileges and protection to this majority, but now we
believe we are in a post‑Christian era where Christians are no longer the
majority. Therefore, I believe that the role of government is to protect the
rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
Well, who is the minority in the
Sunday shopping debate, and why do they need protecting? Clearly, the minority are not shoppers, but
retail workers. The common pause day,
which until the law changes is still Sunday, provides a key way of protecting
workers from being dropped out of the five‑ or six‑day workweek out
of economic necessity.
This is also true of business
owners. I have a friend who owns a
business at Garden City Shopping Centre.
Whereas Sunday used to be a day off and his only a day off, he now has
to worry about staffing his business on Sunday and being there himself if he
cannot get staff or if someone is sick.
International human rights
standards, to which
Sunday shopping would make it more
difficult to make sure that people actually got these rights in real life. I have already heard of
The Canadian Conference of Catholic
Bishops has said that, quote: The rights
of workers are more important than the maximization of profits. Clearly that is what this debate is really
about. It is about a small group of
people who want to make more money.
This group is primarily the Winnipeg
Chamber of Commerce who bragged in their newsletter that they successfully
lobbied the government to change the Sunday shopping law.
In fact, their newsletter of
December 14, 1992, called Communique The Voice of the Winnipeg Chamber of
Commerce has this as a headline in an article in their front page which says,
Sunday Shopping Big Win for Chamber.
So we know who is driving this
legislation. We know who is lobbying
this government. It was primarily the
Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce on behalf of big business, and when they got the changes
in the law that they wanted they bragged about it in their December newsletter.
T.S. Elliott asked, quote: Why do people live together in cities? Because they love each other or because they
want to make money from each other?‑‑end of quote. It is obvious that the people who do not want
to create a better community, who do not want to promote community values and
family values but who want to make more money from consumers are the people who
are pushing the changes to these laws.
We need a day of rest to
worship. We also need a day when the
majority of commercial activity ceases, for the alternative and life‑restoring
tasks to happen, the restoration and building of family and community, the
appreciation of nature, the arts and everything that makes us into rounded
individuals.
Wordsworth said, quote: The world is too much with us late and soon,
getting and spending. We lay waste our
powers. Little we see in nature that is
ours.
To summarize this debate, what this
bill is really about is those people who want to create a sense of community in
order to foster family values and to encourage family life to continue and to
be renewed on days of a common pause when at least two parents or even a single
parent with children can have time with their spouse or with their children.
On the other side of the debate are
those people who clearly are only governed by the bottom line, who want to make
more money for their businesses.
Obviously they do not care about the rights of their employees, they do
not care about community values and they do not care about family values.
Now, the amendment talks about
protecting the rights of workers, giving them the right to refuse to work on
Sunday, but we know that is not always going to work because people are going
to be motivated by economic interests and not by their rights which may or may
not be protected under this legislation because people are going to say, I have
to work because I need the money.
They also know that they are not
given a true choice. That when they are
asked to work on Sunday, even though they have the right to refuse, they are
going to take those hours because they know that the employer has a lot more
power in this situation and the power to penalize them in a number of ways.
Employers can penalize them by
denying them hours during the week, and the employees know this. They know that even if they refuse to work on
Sunday they can be penalized by having less hours during the week.
So employees are always going to
choose to work those hours whether they want to or not.
I think it was very interesting that
when government members were debating this bill in December that they
emphasized choice as one of their arguments, and yet I think that they are
using this argument very selectively, that they are using the argument on
choice in the Sunday shopping legislation; but there are other kinds of
legislation, including some that are very controversial, that they would never
use these arguments because they do not fundamentally believe in choice,
especially when it comes to women. So we
will remind them of that, and we will quote back their speeches when we are
debating other kinds of legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have
numerous concerns about the original Sunday shopping bill, but of course that
has been superseded by Bill 23, The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Amendment
Act. Fundamental to those objections is
that this is really offloading responsibility of the provincial government to
municipalities. I think this government
is not at all consistent in that when it comes to education, the government is
very heavy‑handed and dictatorial in telling school divisions what they
must do, and taking away local autonomy and local decision making and forcing
budget decisions on them, whether they want it or not.
But when it comes to a tough
decision like Sunday shopping where their caucus is divided, and where rural
Manitobans are pitted against Winnipeggers, they take the easy way out and they
say, let the municipalities decide. Let
them decide whether they want Sunday shopping or not, knowing that some
municipalities will say yes and some will say no, and then they are off the
hook. They are no longer
responsible. When delegations come, as I
hope they will on this bill, they are going to say, do not do this, we do not
think you should do it.
The member for Emerson (Mr. Penner)
and his colleagues will say, we are not doing it, we are letting the
municipalities do it. So if you object to
Sunday working, then go and present a brief to your city council or to your
municipal body and tell them not to do it.
They will say, oh no, we are not responsible for this, we have washed
our hands of this. It is true, they are
afraid to take responsibility for this because it is a tough decision. They want the municipalities to have to make
the tough decision, because they cannot take the heat.
As Harry Truman said: If you cannot take the heat, get out of the
kitchen. Good advice. This government should follow that advice,
but they do not know how. All they know
how to do is to offload responsibility to municipalities on the one hand, but
on the other hand, force the school boards to have less jurisdiction, less
responsibility and less authority, because the provincial government is going
to force decisions on them, whether they want it or not.
* (1550)
In summary, we are opposed to this
bill. We are opposed for a number of
reasons. Even though I did give you the
context, I know the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) was asking me: Is
there some context to this introduction?
Well, there was a context to that introduction. I was talking about the history of the Sabbath,
both for Jews and Christians, and concluded that part of my remarks by saying
that Christians are no longer in the majority in this province, that this is
the post‑Christian era.
Therefore, I believe it is
inappropriate for the Legislature to act to protect the interests of a
religious minority, because, after all, this is a pluralistic society. Not everybody worships on Sunday as the
common day of worship. Some people
worship on Friday, some worship on Saturday, and some worship on Sunday. However,
I believe that we as legislators should protect the rights of minorities. In this case, the minority that is the
greatest in need of protection are workers who are going to be forced to work
on Sunday as the result of this legislation.
We have many comments from briefs
from many organizations in other provinces about the effects of having to work
on Sunday in other provinces. One of the
briefs that I have talks about the social cost and the human costs of Sunday
working and points out these costs are immense, even tragic. I would like to quote from this brief,
because I think it is a good story that illustrates the difference between
values which promote community and family values and the values found in this
legislation, which strictly have to do with the profitability of large
corporations.
This brief says: I would like to tell you about one of our
members‑‑this is a union making a brief, the UFCW‑‑in
British Columbia, Janice Riley. Janice
is a single mother with two children ages 13 and 15. She is a part‑time cashier at a
unionized Safeway store in North Delta, a suburb of
Here is her daily schedule: Monday, day off, but the children are in
school; Tuesday, work 6 p.m. to midnight, get home, quickly unwind, get some
sleep; Wednesday, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., hardly worth going to work really;
Thursday, day off, children in school; Friday, 6 p.m. to 10 p.m., catch the
bus, it is a 35‑minute ride home; Saturday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.; it is the
busiest day of the week, get home and wipe out.
Children are home from school, but she does not get to see them. She is at work; Sunday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. They call this part time. The children are at home. She is at work. What if she needs a free Sunday one
week? Quote: You can request a day off, but you might lose
two shifts that week as a result so you do not do it very often, says Janice. Remember, this is a unionized store. Nonunion
workers generally face even worse situations.
Janice Riley is, tragically, fairly
typical of the new retail workforce in Canada‑‑female, part time,
working nights, Saturdays, holidays and, in some provinces, Sundays.
Here is a quote from a Loblaws
presentation, quote: The store business
is not a nine‑to‑five, Monday‑to‑Friday job. Converting
it to an around‑the‑clock, seven‑days‑a‑week
environment will no doubt negatively impact our employees' obligation to family
and religious beliefs and ultimately strain the employer‑and‑employee
relationship. The traditional family is
being buried, and I would suggest that Sunday openings will be the shovel that
digs the grave.
Here is another comment from the
president of the Alberta Consumers' Association, quote: The biggest argument against Sunday shopping
is the social cost. One working parent
on Sunday means families cannot be together for meals or activities. Surveys
found senior citizens in nursing homes get fewer visits and fewer outings with
their families in areas where Sunday shopping is allowed. Attendance has dropped at family entertainment
spots such as zoos and museums, and church attendance dropped even more. We need a common day of rest.
Here are some comments from an
article in The Globe and Mail of January 25, 1990, by an author who writes on
education and teaches at the
He says, quote: Who will be at the cash registers and
wrapping up the french fries? Largely
the same people who do it now, teenagers.
Vast numbers of them already work part time, and the demand is so great
even now that employers are recruiting from Grades 7 and 8. In recent years, there have been scores of
newspaper and magazine articles, TV documentaries and books on the effects of
part‑time jobs on students.
Teachers consider it a national problem.
They feel the massive involvement of students in the labour market is
quietly but effectively gutting the education system. It has lowered academic standards, undermined
extracurricular programs and increased the stress young people experience in
the home, at school and in the workplace.
Has anyone wondered about the
efficiency of a student who works up to a 40‑hour week outside
school? Even more troubling, has any
parent with a child working such outrageous hours and still maintaining an 80
percent average ever wondered about the quality of that 80 percent? Canadians frequently are urged to look at
other countries as models. We attribute
at least a part of their success to their education systems, and so we should.
Do the Japanese or the Germans allow students to sell their time to the retail
sector? End of quotation.
So I think we should consider the
adverse effects on students of Sunday working and whether or not they are
really benefiting as much as they could from their education because they are
working part time. In fact, I have had
some personal experience with that myself because I, too, had a part‑time
job when I was in high school, and I was not doing very well. I was enjoying working and I was enjoying
making money, but my grades were failing so I quit my job. I probably should have quit it a lot sooner
so that I did not have to go to summer school after Grade 11. So I have some personal experience in working
in the retail trade. I worked in a large
supermarket. I was one of those who
probably should not have been working. I
should have been at home studying every night, certainly studying a lot more
than I did.
I am also concerned, Madam Deputy
Speaker, about the effects of Sunday shopping on rural
Here are some of the arguments used
by the president of Gaynor Foods and the past president of Selkirk and District
Chamber of Commerce. His name is Mr. Jim
Gaynor. He says, "It will be very
damaging to small business in our province, the sector which is well recognized
as being our major employer." He
says, "It will be damaging to the commercial life of rural communities at
a time when our government is spending large amounts of dollars to move jobs to
these communities in an effort to strengthen them."
So this policy goes against the
government's policy of decentralization.
This government has embarked on a process of moving government jobs to
rural centres so that they augment and enhance the economy of those small
communities, and the people who are living there will spend their government
pay cheques in those communities. At the
same time, in a totally contradictory way, they bring in Sunday working legislation
which is going to encourage people in many local communities, small
communities, particularly ones within commuting distance of
Mr. Gaynor says, "The only
businesses positioned to benefit from this change are a few large corporations,
many of whom have a questionable commitment to our province as they have
recently moved their head offices to other provinces." I think that is true of the owners of malls
and the owners of large chain stores.
Their head offices are not in
Mr. Gaynor says, "The case has
been made by some large corporations that business expands as a result of full‑scale
Sunday shopping. This is absolutely
wrong. The reality is that business
shifts from rural communities and small centres to these large corporations,
most of whom are headquartered in distant cities or foreign lands," which
is exactly the argument that I was putting forth in support of what Mr. Gaynor
is saying.
He says, "
* (1600)
Mr. Gaynor says, "The notion
that Sunday work is voluntary is an illusion.
If some business shifts from Monday through Saturday to Sunday, then
employees will have no option but to work Sunday‑‑or accept reduced
hours or layoff. It should be noted that
the executive of the companies who are promoting Sunday shopping will not be
working, but they will expect their staff to be on the job."
I have already pointed out that this
puts employees in a serious position, having to make very difficult choices,
and they are going to make the economic choice rather than a choice for their
family simply out of economic necessity.
Even though the legislation says they cannot be forced to work, they are
going to feel obliged to work and they are going to work. If they quit voluntarily, because of changes
by the federal government, they will no longer be able to be eligible to
collect unemployment insurance.
Mr. Gaynor says, "It is
impossible to argue that our government is on solid ground when it changes
legislation that was put in place by unanimous consent of the Legislature
without consulting that same Legislature.
It can rightly be argued that it is high‑handed actions such as
this that has brought the stature of our political leaders to the lowest level
in history."
I think he makes a couple of
excellent points here. The first one is
that the previous legislation was amended during the Pawley government years on
the basis of a consensus of all three parties in the Legislature, and now this
government is acting unilaterally. They
do not have a consensus in this Legislature. They have a clear division amongst
parties and a division within the Liberal caucus, who decided to have a free vote. Mr. Gaynor rightly points out that this
affects the credibility of all politicians at a time when our credibility is
probably at an all‑time low.
If we could use the example of the
Filmon minority government, many people in the public thought that it was a
good government because they did in many cases operate by consensus. They had
to; otherwise, they would be defeated.
If there was some legislation that was too controversial, the opposition
parties combined had the votes to pull the plug and force an election. So the minority government from '88 to '90
was a government that made compromises.
It was a government that was known for being very moderate and governing
very small "c" conservatively, and people were happy with that kind
of government.
In fact that is probably one of the
reasons why the Premier got a majority in 1990, but now this government has
embarked on a different course entirely.
Because they see there is no need for consensus, they never practise a
consensus. They do not feel they have
to, and this legislation is the proof.
This approach is totally different than the approach that was taken when
the laws were amended to allow a maximum of four employees per store if they
wanted to stay open on Sunday.
An Honourable Member: That is okay though, right?
Mr. Martindale: Well, the point I was making was that it was
a compromise of all three parties in the Legislature, and now this government
is acting unilaterally without consulting the opposition, just bringing in
legislation. As Mr. Gaynor points out,
it is one of the reasons that‑‑
An Honourable Member: Who are we supposed to consult with? The opposition?
Mr. Martindale:
The
member for St. Norbert asks: Who should
we consult with, the opposition?
Yes. Mr. Gaynor is saying that
this government is moving away from a consensual style of governing to an
arbitrary, highhanded style at a time when politicians are under attack and
their credibility is at an all‑time low. [interjection] The member for
St. Norbert says, we do not even have a consensus in our own caucus.
An Honourable Member: I said, we did have consensus in our caucus.
Mr. Martindale: Oh, the member says they did have consensus.
Well, I am not too sure about that. I
mean, we had the remarks of the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) on the
record, who was basically opposed to this legislation. So there is no consensus in your caucus. The member for Rossmere opposed it.
An Honourable Member: You know, Sunday is the Sabbath. Why do ministers work?
Mr. Martindale: The Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) asks
why I work on Sunday if I am opposed to Sunday working. Well, I would like to point out, first of
all, that it is entirely voluntary, and I realized that is was part of my
occupation to work on Sundays. It is
traditional for ministers to take Mondays off.
No one is forced to work on Sunday
without knowing that it is part of their occupation, and there are many people
who volunteer to be police officers, people who volunteer to be nurses, people
who volunteer to work in nursing homes, many different kinds of essential
services, firefighters being another, who know that that is a condition of
their employment before they sign up. That is also true of myself as a
We have no objection to that. We know that there are many occupations where
people are expected to work on Sunday.
What we object to is the fact that this is being extended to a much
larger group of people in our society, and it has adversely affected a
particular group of people. In fact, I
would suggest that there is a danger of turning our society into two classes of
shoppers, those with high enough incomes to shop on Sunday, and those whose
economic need forces them to work on Sunday.
We know that those whose economic
need forces them to work on Sunday are primarily people who are women, first of
all, who are in low‑paying jobs in the retail sector. So it is adversely having a tremendous effect
on that group of people in our society.
Those are the ones who are going to be affected by this legislation.
[interjection]
Well, I have already talked about
the effects of students and their education.
An Honourable Member: Well, that is right. You do not think students should be working,
right?
Mr. Martindale: If the member was listening, he would have
heard what I said about students and the quality of their education and their
marks, the effects of working on Sunday and their academic record. In fact, I used myself as an example.
[interjection] Well, the member will have to read my remarks in Hansard.
Mr. Gaynor goes on to point out
that, "The case has been made by the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, who
have lobbied hard for Sunday shopping, that a majority of their members are in
favour. It is a fact that most business in the City of
Mr. Gaynor goes on to say that,
"Some have argued that Sunday shopping is necessary if we are to attract
Mr. Gaynor says, "The law
governing Sunday shopping which our government recently rescinded on a trial
basis, and plans to eliminate entirely, has stood the test of time and served
our province well."
He urges all rural chambers to lobby
hard for its retention and to make representations to the executive of the
Manitoba Chamber, demanding they vigorously defend their excellent policy
position of opposition to full‑scale Sunday shopping.
So it is very interesting to see
such a decisive split between the two chambers, the Manitoba Chamber and the
Winnipeg Chamber, on the issue of Sunday shopping. We know that a small group of people in the
Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce were behind the lobby that effectively got to this
government and got these two pieces of legislation in front of us. [interjection]
The Minister responsible for MPIC
(Mr. Cummings), whose bill we are looking forward to reading, asks if I have
read the bill, and I would say, yes, I have read both bills. I have read Bill 4, The Retail Businesses Holiday
Closing Amendment, Employment Standards Amendment and Payment of Wages
Amendment Act. Yes, I read them.
I can tell the honourable minister
that I read the rest of it as well. [interjection] Yes, well we hear the
members again repeating their call for freedom of choice. Their remarks are on the record. I know the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr.
McAlpine) put that on the record and we remember that. We will quote that back to him some day.
[interjection] Well, the member asks an interesting question. What else would I be willing to regulate?
In this particular context, I am
saying that the rights of workers are more important than the maximization of
profits. In fact, that is what the
Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops have said. I quoted that earlier. The rights of workers are more important than
the maximization of profits. So we have
a majority here who are shoppers, and we have a minority who are workers, and
we have taken a firm stand on our side in protecting the rights of workers.
We believe that the protection in
this bill is totally inadequate because people are allegedly being protected in
this bill, but we believe that the protection is inadequate, that people will
either be forced to work because they are going to lose hours during the week,
or for economic necessity because this government does not believe in job
creation.
We have a higher and higher
unemployment rate and people's wages and family income are going down because
of the collective policies of the federal Conservative and provincial
Conservative governments. We know that
average family incomes are declining, so people are going to feel obliged or
forced to work on Sunday because they need the money. I do not blame them for that. If people feel that they have to, that is a
choice that they have to make, but we do not need to put them into that
difficult situation by passing this legislation. They would not have to make those choices if
this legislation were not in place.
* (1610)
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): Somebody else said one time, let my people go.
Mr. Martindale: The Minister of Urban Affairs should have
been listening earlier. He quotes Moses,
let my people go. I talked about the
origins of the Sabbath observance, but I am not going to repeat it for this
member unless of course he would like to come to church and hear this all over
again.
In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker,
we on this side are firmly on the side of workers and protecting the rights of
workers and not forcing them to work on Sunday.
Thank you.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a very
serious piece of legislation before us, and we are engaged in a very serious
debate, although it would be difficult for people listening to this debate,
based on the comments and the heckling from members of the Conservative
benches, to know that what is before this House today is one of the most
serious major bills that we have dealt with in a long time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, one would
hardly get the impression, listening to the heckling from members on the
Conservative benches, that we are dealing with a bill that fundamentally alters
changes, some long‑standing traditions of Manitoba society. This is a serious change in the way in which
Manitobans have operated throughout our history. This is a major shift from our traditions
that have centered around community, around co‑operation, around family,
around spirituality.
Madam Deputy Speaker, everything
about this bill flies in the face of a well‑established, long‑standing
tradition in the
This is not just a simple act with
some minor amendments to change the hours of shopping. This is a shift, a very significant change,
for
It is a most interesting situation
that we are dealing with, from the party that has for years and years talked
about community values, small‑town values, the strength of the rural
sector of our economy, family values, co‑operation, we see a piece of
legislation that flies in the face of everything that has characterized the
Conservative Party of Manitoba and, indeed, of this country.
Now we are getting increasingly used
to many contradictions from the Conservative government today. We are getting used to a situation where it
is very seldom possible to match the rhetoric of this government with its
actions. This bill certainly is no
exception to that more recent phenomenon.
It was interesting listening to the heckling in response to the member
for Burrows' (Mr. Martindale) contribution to this debate, especially when it
came to the discussion of the process around the introduction of this
legislation.
It was interesting to hear the
member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) suggest that all that mattered was a
consensus on that side of the House, a consensus in the Conservative caucus. It
was interesting to hear the member for
I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
speaks miles for the way in which this government has approached such a serious
matter and puts the government's position in proper perspective because, in
fact, we have two major concerns with Bill 23.
We have certainly many, many concerns about the substance of this bill
and the fundamental shift in policy direction around the retail sector and
shopping trends in the
But just as important as the
substance of the bill is the process around how this bill was introduced and
what kind of decision‑making model was applied to its introduction. The process for the Conservative government
was about as undemocratic as you can get.
It was about as unconsensual as you can get.
* (1620)
The process of the Conservative
government around this bill was absolutely arbitrary; it was dictatorial; it
denied opportunities throughout the process for any kind of consultation either
from the public or from opposition members in this Chamber. It denied an opportunity for a healthy
exchange of ideas so vital, so necessary, for such a marked shift in policy and
philosophy. I think one could go even
further in saying this bill is undemocratic.
I think one can actually go so far
as to say the process has been unethical and perhaps even go so far as to say
it has been illegal.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know
how members in the Conservative benches can sit there with their heckling and
laughter around a bill that has fundamentally affected our legislative
privileges and traditions here in this Chamber.
Let us be clear about what this
government did. It introduced last fall
Sunday shopping, No. 1, for debate, and at the same time made the bill before
becoming legislation apply.
I cannot think of too many
circumstances where we have seen that kind of violation of our parliamentary
traditions and democracy in this province.
It has been a fundamental abrogation of our abilities as legislators and
a denial of our ability to meet the responsibility of ensuring that everything
we do in this Chamber is of integrity, of honesty and consistent with the
values we hold so dear to us in this great democracy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, how was it that
before this legislation was debated, before this legislation went to committee
for public hearings and before we were able to have a democratic vote on Sunday
shopping, Bill 1, that the bill was in effect?
How was it that stores were open before a bill became law on
Sundays? How was it that no charges were
laid? How was it that the retail sector
in the
Was it the case that in fact someone
from that government, the Justice minister perhaps, suggested to the police
that no charges should be laid? Did
someone suggest that the police should turn a blind eye to Sunday retail
activity?
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are too many
unanswered questions around the legality, around the ethics of this bill to
warrant a great deal of concern on the part of everyone in this Chamber and
every citizen of Manitoba. Just on the
process alone, there is enough concern to warrant a huge uprising, cry of
concern from those of us in this Legislature and Manitobans everywhere. Our fundamental rights and freedoms, our
democratic institutions, everything that has caused us pride and joy about
There was no consultation of any
kind of far‑reaching, broad‑sweeping nature. Obviously‑‑the member for Burrows
(Mr. Martindale) pointed this out‑‑there were clearly intensive
discussions with the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, who appear to be the force
behind this legislation but, beyond that, Madam Deputy Speaker, there was no
attempt to get the pulse of Manitobans on something as fundamental as Sunday
shopping, to get a reading from our citizens about whether or not they wanted
to see this shift in policy, to have an open dialogue about the merits of
Sunday shopping in terms of economic activity for this province versus the sacrifice
of some very long‑standing and important values and principles in our
society today.
But before, Madam Deputy Speaker, it
was even possible to resolve that heavy‑handed, arbitrary undemocratic
measure of this government last fall, the Conservatives chose to just add one
more pain to that scenario by introducing Sunday shopping bill No. 2. So here we are with Sunday shopping bill No.
2, still no sign of consultation, still no dialogue with Manitobans, still no
indication of a healthy process around this legislation, and still every
indication that this government is bent on pursuing its objectives no matter
how many people it hurts, how many communities are destroyed, or how many
values are sacrificed.
What is so worrisome about that kind
of unethical, undemocratic process on the part of this government is that it is
doing nothing but contribute to people's cynicism and skepticism about
politics, politicians and democratic institutions today.
I do not know if members of the
Conservative government are doing this without thinking about the consequences
or if in fact there is a deliberate strategy in place to contribute to that
kind of cynicism. I guess it really does
not matter, because the final analysis is that the actions of this government
and the process surrounding Sunday shopping bills No. 1 and No. 2 create a very
serious situation for elected institutions, elected representatives and
democracy in general for this province, and goodness knows we have seen enough
blows to elected representatives, elected institutions and democracy in this
province and in this country in recent times.
We all know. We see it on a daily basis. Increasingly, on a daily basis, we see people
skeptical, distrustful, doubtful, cynical about all of us. They have seen too many broken promises. They have experienced too many arbitrary
heavy‑handed decisions on the part of government. They have seen too many ideas spilled on them
without any avenues for expression of view.
Our democracy, Madam Deputy Speaker,
this Assembly, our role as elected legislators in the
Is it the intention of this
government, is it the agenda of Conservatives everywhere in this country to
make people cynical, to make them skeptical to the point where people do not
vote, they do not get involved, they pull out, they withdraw to the point where
that unelected powerful sector in our society is able to enjoy full reign so
the corporate agenda espoused by Conservatives in this Chamber and everywhere
in this country is able to rule the day?
Is that the intention?
* (1630)
One has to ask that question when we
see and study the process around Sunday shopping bills No. 1 and No. 2 because
there seems no other purpose. It seems
so meaningless for any government to embark upon such a shift in policy and not
have the people with them, not to have support for the idea, not to have created
reasons to believe in the need for such a change.
So we are left having to make such
conclusions however often the members opposite may laugh them off or disregard
our concerns, and we are left with sick feelings in our stomachs about where we
are all headed, where democracy is headed and how we can restore people's faith
and hope and confidence in our democratic institutions.
Madam Deputy Speaker, Bill 23 is not
only opposed by us because of the process around its introduction, a process
that has been very arbitrary and undemocratic, but we are also opposed to Bill
23 because of its substance as well. By
the substance entailed in this bill, we see a move again to a most unhealthy,
nonconsultative, elitist approach to our society.
Madam Deputy Speaker, looking at the
substance of the bill, is it not interesting that this government should choose
to delegate responsibility for decision making around Sunday shopping to
municipalities? Is that not interesting
in the context of a government that has spoken so vehemently in favour of
Sunday shopping hours?
I think it was put very well by many
on our side. It reflects for us, it
indicates for us the clever strategy on the part of this Conservative
government, a strategy that we have seen repeated time and time again around
difficult decisions and major legislation.
If they can pass the buck so that someone else can get the blame for the
change, then let us do it.
That has been their philosophy,
Madam Deputy Speaker. That has been a
guiding light throughout the last number of years on major legislative
changes. It certainly, if anything, is
cowardly. It shows lack of courage and
irresponsibility. It is absolutely
irresponsible not to have taken a position after healthy dialogue and open
consultation and then maintain responsibility for that position. But to do this, come forth with this hodge‑podge
approach of being very strong about Sunday shopping hours and then passing
responsibility over municipalities, knowing it puts them in a horrible dilemma,
is certainly cowardly. It is certainly
uncourageous.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I said
earlier, the Sunday shopping bill is contrary to all of the rhetoric we have
heard coming out of the Conservatives for many years. It is contrary to the values that the
Conservative Party has appeared to believe in throughout its history and,
therefore, hard to, in that context, understand.
What is really much more serious
than that kind of debate going on within the Conservative Party is that it is a
fundamental contradiction and change in the values that have marked
* (1640)
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister
of Housing has been shouting from his seat that he likes to shop on Sundays,
and his spouse likes to shop on Sundays, and he knows lots of people who like
to shop on Sundays. Well, I do not know
about members across the way, but I certainly and we certainly find it rather
repugnant to make policy on the basis of anecdote. There has to be an analytical framework for
making decisions. There have to be a set
of values that guide the decision‑making process. There has to be outcomes that justify such a
shift in policy. On all fronts, the
evidence is either not in or the blows are being felt now by those various
components in our society.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is almost
as if this government would like to take
Perhaps the rationale for this bill
on the part of the Conservatives would have worked back 30‑40 years ago
when the family was different, when in fact the norm for a family was, in the
two‑parent family, to have one breadwinner, usually the man with his
spouse working in the home full‑time, caring for children, the household
and domestic responsibilities, where it might have been possible to have a
Sunday shopping law that did not add enormously to the pressure of that family.
Times have changed. We cannot go back, much as the Tories in this
House and this province would like that to happen. The family today is much different. The norm for the two‑parent family is
both parents working, and working, Madam Deputy Speaker, because they have
to. I think if the Minister of Housing
had looked at the most recent statistics on poverty in
Madam Deputy Speaker, let me correct
the record. I have been referring to the
Minister of Housing when all the while I should have been referring to the
Minister responsible for Seniors (Mr. Ducharme)‑‑
An Honourable Member: And Government Services, do not forget that.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: And Government Services. Let me get it all on the record‑‑
An Honourable Member: And he loves to shop on Sundays.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: ‑‑and that is the minister that
loves to shop on Sundays. I want it on
the record, so I am glad that we have been able to clarify that, and I
apologize for my error.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the family has
changed, and two‑parent families, now the majority are two earners‑‑[interjection].
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So we are dealing with a different family
unit than was the case in the '40s. We
are dealing with a situation where economic circumstances require two earners
in the family to be working, and, in fact, if those two adults in the two‑parent
family were not working, we would see over 20,000 more families in
Now, the Minister responsible for
Seniors may not yet have made the connection between Sunday shopping and the
change in the family. What he should try
to understand is the kind of responsibilities, the kind of duties, the kinds of
demands on the family today as a result of trying to be responsible parents,
full‑time or part‑time workers in the work force, concerns about
their children and their well‑being, involvement in community
efforts. Madam Deputy Speaker, just on
that basis alone the minister should be able to understand that the family is
facing all kinds of pressures and demands, is already juggling many balls in
the air and cannot possibly deal with additional stress and pressure.
We are seeing that anyway, Madam
Deputy Speaker. The economic policies of
this government have on their own, never mind the Sunday shopping bill, added
enormous stress and pressure on the family today. Worry about job loss, fear among those who
have been laid off, worry about the future for themselves and their children,
wondering if they will be able to make ends meet. All of that has come into play, as well,
because of the economic agenda of the Conservatives here in
In fact, many people wonder if the
family, as we know it today, will be able to survive the kind of pressure and
stress that it is being faced with. So
now this government, in the midst of that kind of situation, throws another
whammy at the family. A family that has
now too few hours in the week to juggle everything is faced with the one day,
the guaranteed notion of one day of pause, one day for family, one day for
emotional renewal, one day for spiritual reflection, one day for community
involvement. That is what is at risk in
this legislation, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It will mean now a family juggling
all of those balls in the air seven days of the week. No day left to try to reflect and regroup and
put some order into an otherwise hectic, demanding schedule, because whether
one is looking at this legislation from the point of view of the retailer, or
the worker, or the consumer, the pressure is there. The demands are there, and there is just one
more ball in the air to juggle.
I do not think we should be
insensitive to that. In terms of our
jobs as MLAs, we often find ourselves juggling all of our responsibilities
seven days a week, we all know that it is not healthy. We all wonder how long we can continue doing
that, but that does not make it right.
That does not mean we should not be thinking about what is best for the
family as a whole, generally in our society, today.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill is
also very much going to create difficulties for women in our society
today. When one looks at the pressures
facing family, one cannot ignore the fact that women, by and large, still today
maintain major responsibility for juggling children, their needs, school
responsibilities, extracurricular activities, visits to the doctor and dentist,
all of that is still very much something that falls on the shoulders of
women. We are making changes in that
regard. There is some indication that
responsibilities are being shared more equally in the family, but the fact of
the matter is women still maintain a greater share of responsibility for
children, domestic chores and the household.
* (1650)
So, that being the case, we have to
look at the situation facing women in the family who have that major
responsibility and who are also working full‑ or part‑time and who
now must face the possibility of working on the one day of the week where they
could find some opportunity for themselves to rest, to reflect, to seek
spiritual renewal.
On top of that, Madam Deputy
Speaker, let us not forget that we are talking about the retail sector. We are talking about clerks, sales people in
the retail sector. We know that the majority
of workers in that field are women and we know the pressure, demands and stress
added to women workers in the retail sector.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order please.
The honourable member's time has expired.
As previously agreed, this bill will
remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr.
Chomiak).
Bill 22‑The Public
Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation Management Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill
22, (The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation Management Act; Loi
sur la reduction de la semaine de travail et la gestion des salaires dans le
secteur public), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr.
Reid).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the
opportunity to add to the debate on Bill 22. I am pleased to be able to say a few words on
it this afternoon, however brief the time will be.
First of all, I want to say at the
outset that I will not be supporting the bill, and I will be elaborating on
some of the reasons why I am not going to be supporting the bill.
I want to say that this bill is not
a fair bill, in that it tries to hide really the taxation, the very regressive
tax that is being levied only on the public sector. It gives a lot of power and authority to the
employers. It also disregards the
collective bargaining process.
Before I speak on that, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I would just like to also say that not only will it affect the
collective bargaining process, the workers who are involved in the collective
bargaining process, including employers, but it would also‑‑I think
the component of the bill that I disagree with the most is that it will have a
very serious negative impact on the poor people, the weak people.
I want to read a letter that I have
received from one of my constituents.
This constituent of mine happens to be a nurse and we all know in this
Chamber the problems and the troubles that the nursing community has had to
face as this government moves on with what they call the health care reform.
In any event, this constituent of
mine writes to me outlining some of the concerns she has in terms of the impact
that Bill 22 will have on her and her co‑workers. She says that this bill smacks of
totalitarianism. It makes a mockery of
our negotiations by taking away our bargaining rights. How open to discussion will our employers be
when they know a rollback is going to be legislated?
Secondly, the constituent goes on to
write: With all the cutbacks in health
care in the last few months we already work short staffed. Hospitals cannot close down for 24
hours. If, as nurses, we are required to
take 10 to 15 days off during a 12‑month period, where is this money
going to be saved? In other words, she
is asking the question, how cost‑effective will this bill be?
Currently, in The Pas, Madam Deputy
Speaker, nurses who are sick or who are on vacation are not being replaced or
are only replaced for a portion of the shift that they are off. As a result of the decrease in nurses due to
the cutbacks and this so‑called reform, patient care is suffering. Patients are not being looked after the way
they were looked after before.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
She gives an example of how patients
who require rehabilitation, for example, are not being turned over as
frequently as they would have been before the cutbacks were made. Such activities like exercises, physiotherapy
and so on are done with decreasing frequency and sometimes are not being done
at all, Mr. Speaker.
Activities of daily living are being
rushed like you would in any assembly line in order to complete everything as
fast as possible. The human aspect of
health care is being diminished and it is being lost. Even the important area of medications‑‑this
nurse writes‑‑is being compromised as nurses' time is compressed while
the nursing duties expand, for example, giving medications to patients on more
than one floor. In The Pas Health
Complex we have four or five floors where they care for patients. Nurses are now being required to run from one
floor to another to give medications, Mr. Speaker. That is what this nurse from The Pas is
talking about.
No wonder nurses are becoming even
more frustrated with not being able to provide the level of care that they are
used to giving and the level of care that they know they are required to
give. They do not have the time anymore
to listen or to offer the comfort and support that they know their patients
need from time to time.
They used to be able to do that
before, and the comfort and support that the patients deserve and need is being
lost as we are speaking, Mr. Speaker. We
are very concerned about the quality of patient care decreasing in The Pas and
area and the loss of the workers' freedom, the nurses' freedom to bargain if
this bill is passed.
So I, for one, will be voting to
defeat the passage of Bill 22 and to ensure that Manitobans can continue to
enjoy their democratic rights to quality health care‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. When this matter
is again before the House, the honourable member will have 32 minutes
remaining.
* (1700)
PRIVATE MEMBERS'
BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker:
The hour being 5 p.m., it is time for private members' hour.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 25‑National
Education Standards
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), that
WHEREAS 38 percent of Canadians are
functionally illiterate; and
WHEREAS different standards exist in
the core subject areas of mathematics, science and the humanities from province
to province; and
WHEREAS different educational
standards from province to province may result in unfair treatment to students
transferring credits within
WHEREAS standards are necessary for
assessment, screening and student evaluation across
WHEREAS inconsistencies exist
between programs offered in the educational system and the needs of the
workplace; and
WHEREAS as a result
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of the Province of Manitoba support the establishment of
National Education Standards to be developed in consultation with provincial
and territorial governments, educational professionals, industry and labour,
and other concerned groups and individuals.
Motion presented.
Ms. Gray: Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today and speak on this very important
resolution. One certainly cannot pick up
a newspaper or a magazine without reading about education and what is called
the educational crisis in
This particular resolution deals
with the importance of looking at national education standards. Certainly we in this caucus have talked about
education standards when we looked at the
Those standards go further than just
looking at simply a set of principles or a set of goals and objectives. When we talk about standards, we are talking
about something that is very concrete.
We are talking about standards, things that can be measured from
province to province to province.
It is a very disturbing fact that in
a country such as ours, such as
We are a very mobile society, and we
do move from province to province. We do
hear time and time again the differences that people face from moving from one
educational institution to another.
Whether that educational institution is an elementary or middle‑years
school or whether that institution is post‑secondary, there does not seem
to be any type of standards across this country that really will give us some
sense of consistency.
There are reasons why it is
important that we look at national education standards. We need to be competitive as a country of
Canada, and when you look at multinational corporations, when you look at other
countries who are wanting to invest in Canada, oftentimes when they are
determining what type of a country do they want to invest in or what type of a
country do they want to bring their organizations to they will look at our
educational standards.
It is very difficult, Mr. Speaker,
to get a grasp on what exactly are the educational standards across this country
because we do have such inconsistencies.
We know that a number of provinces have been looking at the entire issue
of standards and looking at education in general. In the last five years, provinces such as
We have yet to hear from the
leadership candidates in the federal Tory race about education. One hopes that the front runner, who does not
seem to like too much about Canadian society, would at least support education,
because education is very critical, Mr. Speaker.
Education, as the government is fond
of saying, is the key that does unlock a future of opportunity for us. It is important that we not look in isolation
in this
We need to come together because we
know that these provinces have had royal commissions and they realize that
there is a problem and they realize that we have to look at national standards.
When I talk about the illiteracy
rate, you know,
I know our Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey) here in this province does not like to refer to dropout rates. She likes to refer to‑‑I think I
am paraphrasing here‑‑reintegration rates and so be it. She may want to look at how many students
leave school and then are able to be reintegrated back in and how many of those
students do not get reintegrated back in.
It is going to give us the same statistic. The point is that through Statistics Canada,
we do have a sense of what the dropout rates are.
In
It is important that we have some
sense of how are our students doing in relation to other provinces and in
relation to other countries. Now I know
there is some opposition when it comes to looking at testing, standardized
testing, when it comes to looking at even a national set of tests and looking
at those internationally. I recognize
the teachers, and I have some empathy for them.
They are afraid that when there are these national tests that, in fact,
it will be seen to reflect upon the individual teacher.
I can realize why they may be
concerned about that, because having listened to a number of people who have
written letters and who have called in and talked about education, they
oftentimes like to say if education or things are not going well, it must be
the teacher's fault. That is not the
case. If we are looking at a national
standard and if we are actually looking at Canada as a country and actually
having some type of test where we can be compared with other countries, it has
to be made very clear that we are not in fact looking at teachers and them as
individuals; we are looking at how our education system is functioning as a
whole. That has to be taken into
consideration.
When we look at the Minister of
Education, and she referred in this House a number of weeks ago, and she talked
about the federal government and her work with the federal government to look
at the School Achievement Indicators Program which is a Canada‑wide
project. At the end of April of this
year, 13‑ and 16‑year‑old students will be given a math test
as part of the program. Next year, the
program is supposed to focus on measuring reading and writing skills.
The difficulty with this type of
program is that we are really not sure, in fact, how it will be used in each
province and in individual provinces, and that is where we have to look at
having education standards. It is very,
very important that as the country of Canada that we have not just a set of
goals and objectives and principles as to what we see education and what we
would like to see education to be in the future, but that we do have some
standards that we can evaluate our programs against.
* (1710)
I know that members in this House,
we oftentimes talk about evaluation.
Governments oftentimes talk about evaluation, but it is not something
that is done very often. I am not
necessarily referring to this particular government. I am referring to governments of all
political stripes across this country.
We talk a lot about evaluating programs and setting up a set of criteria
to measure them against, but we oftentimes do not really evaluate
programs. We go on hunches. We go on best guesses, and we go on what
might be a populist opinion of the day.
We have to move towards looking at a
set of national standards that can be objectively evaluated, that can give
students an opportunity to know if they are moving from one province to another
how they are actually doing. We need
standards that will give an understanding of how a student is doing, what kinds
of screening programs should be in place and what type of assessment is
necessary for students as they move into different levels of education. It has certainly become clear, particularly
in the area of post‑secondary education.
In fact, we even have difficulty in having students move from one
institution to another within the
If we want to work with industry and
with labour and with business in more of a partnership, whether it is as a
province of Manitoba or whether it is as a country of Canada, we have to get
our act together as far as education. We
have to start looking at it on a national basis, and we have to start making it
a priority.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the
Liberal Party has talked about the importance of national education standards,
and certainly our caucus members have talked about the importance of that, as
has M. Duhamel, who is the Member of Parliament for St. Boniface. He as well has talked about the importance of
education standards and looking at it on a national basis. I would hope that all members of this
particular Legislative Assembly would support the concept and the idea of
looking at national education standards.
We recognize, Mr. Speaker, that it
is not something that is going to happen overnight. When you are dealing with negotiations among
provinces and with another level of government, with the federal government, we
recognize that in fact these things take time.
But at least we have to start the process.
It is going to be important more as
we move into the 21st Century, which is not that far away, Mr. Speaker. It is going to be important that we, as a
country of
We know that on an international
basis,
We know that there are 10 or 12
criteria that can be used to determine what type of education a person has
across this country. Does a Grade 12 in
I hope to hear comments from my
colleagues in the official opposition, and I hope to hear from my colleagues in
government. I would be interested in hearing their points on this. Are they prepared to support this particular
resolution so that at least we can stand united here in the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba and go forth with an agenda to the federal government and
say, this is what we support in
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise
and make some comments on this particular resolution brought forward by the
member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray). I
appreciate the sincerity in the member's resolution. I understand some of the points that she has
made in terms of their validity.
I have some small experience in this
area in my own background and feel that from that experience I have comments
that might be helpful to the House. I am
one, Mr. Speaker, who, during my growing up years, had the experience of
changing schools 11 times in nine years, in every province of the country and
in schools overseas.
I do not think I ever spent more
than about nine months in any one school and moved from provinces where there
were 13 grades to provinces where there were 11 grades, moved from provinces
where French was started in Grade 9 to provinces where it was started in Grade
1, moved from provinces where there was no Latin to a grade where students had
been studying Latin for three years. So
I have some experience in that regard.
I found it very interesting, the
member identified the inconsistencies that happen to a student when that type
of thing occurs. She is absolutely
right. When you move from one jurisdiction
to another like that where the standards are different, you do indeed face
variations in the curricula.
She also correctly pointed out that
that very same type of inconsistency can occur internally within a province,
indeed, even within school divisions, indeed, between schools which are side by
side in terms of their distance within a given school division.
That is because despite what the
member has said, the end‑all and the be‑all of education is the
classroom teacher. Certainly, the
standards and curricula that teacher uses will be a very useful and helpful
guide, a very important facet of the learning experience. We are very committed here in
The member indicated that we need to
have a concrete set of rules across the nation.
I am not disputing that. I am not
certain though of the need to introduce another level of bureaucracy in there
in order to achieve that particular end.
We have, at the moment, Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, the council of
ministers, each province still retaining its own jurisdictional responsibility
for establishing its own educational standards.
In order for a co‑operative,
co‑ordinated, smoothly functioning system of education to occur across
this nation, we have to have that kind of co‑operation that exists when
the provinces come together, as they do right now, on a voluntary basis.
We already see a number of the
measures the member has outlined as being necessary being put in place without
the introduction of that extra level of bureaucratic machinery. We are committed, as are many other provincial
governments, to seeing
I do not necessarily agree with the
statement that because certain things were not done in the past that they are
not being done now and will not be occurring in the future.
* (1720)
We have seen, for example, that Manitoba
Education and Training has taken steps to participate with all provinces and
territories, except Saskatchewan, on the national School Achievement Indicators
Program, SAIP, which falls under the auspices of the Council of Ministers of
Education, who come together in a voluntary way to work on the very types of
issues the member has identified as being of concern.
This may well be the first step
towards the establishment of national education standards. In the SAIP, a sample of 13‑ and 16‑year‑old
students will be tested in each province and territory in the spring of this
year. It is happening now. Testing in
mathematics is currently taking place and, over the next year, reading and
writing will be administered. Those
kinds of thrusts, I believe, address the kinds of concerns being put forward by
the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray).
Curriculum officials from all the
western provinces recently held a meeting in
I know there are some members
opposite who do not believe in testing; this was made very clear by appointed
members. For example, NDP members on the
That may be their position at the
school board level. I will be waiting to
hear what their position is here at the provincial level, but we do know that
there are certain divisions dominated by NDP boards who do not believe in
testing for their students, preferring instead to lower the quality of
education to meet their needs rather than to raise those students up to be able
to meet the testing levels.
I think that is at the heart of the
concern the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) raises, and she is correct in
that, that you do have to raise that standard up. You raise that level up so that the students
themselves are reaching for the stars rather than trying to bring the level of
testing down or eliminate it.
The Canadian Council of Directors of
Apprenticeship has developed an action plan for accelerating this process of
establishing and updating interprovincial and national standards. We approve of that. We are participating, indeed, in that
initiative. We believe that the use of
national standards in apprenticeship training, for example, will make for an
improved and better workforce, will allow for greater interprovincial workforce
mobility which, again, I think was one of the concerns raised by the
member. It will also make more effective
and efficient use of funds and resources.
We know, as well, that the Canadian
Labour Force Development Board will also be a more effective and efficient use
of funds and resources.
We know as well that the Canadian
Labour Force Development Board will also be promoting the establishment of
national standards. These are standards
for occupational qualifications and training and they will facilitate that with
labour market boards at the provincial level, the local level and that will
help form a wide national framework for addressing human resources development.
I do not dispute the concerns raised
by the member. What I do say is that
perhaps her method of approach is not necessarily the one that we need at this
point because we are already beginning in a co‑operative way, through
council of Ministers of Education, to address some of the very concerns that
were raised. I believe they are being
addressed in a way that will be effective because each province that is
involved is opting in and that type of conscious decision to participate is one
that is really good in terms of effecting positive results.
So while I know from my own
background that within divisions, indeed within schools, within provinces
across the province and indeed between nations, the curriculum will have its
variations and the teachers in the classroom will be the ones who ultimately
will make the impact upon the student under their care.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an
amendment to this particular resolution.
I move, seconded by the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer),
THAT Resolution No. 25 be amended by
deleting all words following the first "WHEREAS" and replacing them
with the following:
the Government of Manitoba is
committed to ensuring that all
WHEREAS Manitoba Education and
Training is participating in a national School Achievement Indicators Program
(SAIP); and
WHEREAS students aged 13 and 16
years will be tested in each province (except
WHEREAS Manitoba Education and
Training is participating in an initiative developed by The Canadian Council of
Directors of Apprenticeship (CCDA) where an action plan is developed for
accelerating the process for establishing/updating interprovincial/national
standards; and
WHEREAS the Canadian Labour Force
Development Board will facilitate the establishment of labour market boards at
the provincial and local levels.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba commend the Government of Manitoba for their
commitment to the quality education of all Manitobans.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker:
The honourable minister's amendment is in order.
Ms. Gray: Mr.
Speaker, I am quite pleased to speak on behalf of the amendment which is being
presented. As I read this particular
amendment, I certainly would have no problems at all in commending the
government of
I do have some reservations in
regard to education in general, but I will limit my comments to what we are
referring to here when we are looking at education and training and national
standards. I can appreciate the fact, Mr.
Speaker, that the Manitoba Education and Training is participating in the SAIP
program. I appreciate that they have
started to involve themselves in national programs, but what is required is for
this province and this Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) to take a leadership
role and actually urging the federal government to start looking at national
education standards.
* (1730)
There needs to be a lot of work done
with other provinces across this country.
We have seen royal commissions in about five provinces that have been
looking at the area of education, and yet we have seen really no concrete
comprehensive plan that talks about education standards across this country.
In the Estimates process in the
Department of Education, as we have just begun to discuss some of the issues,
some of the things that have concerned me as I have spoken with the Minister of
Education, albeit it may be because of her newness to the department, is that
in fact there does not seem to be a comprehensive framework as to what we are
doing about education here in Manitoba, never mind looking at a comprehensive
framework that we can take to the national government and that we can take to
other provinces and sit down intelligently and discuss what does the education
future mean for Canada. How do we become
more competitive in the international marketplace? How do we ensure that when students transfer
from province to province that there is more consistency in terms of whether it
is elementary schooling, middle years or whether it is post‑secondary
schooling? How can we ensure that
industry and labour in this country have an opportunity to know what it means
when a student graduates from Grade 12 in
These are some of the questions that
we need to answer. This is why it
requires a comprehensive framework, some planning done on behalf of the
Department of Education here in
I mean it is appalling, Mr. Speaker,
when one looks at the illiteracy rate across this country. It is appalling when one looks at the high
school dropout rate in this country. For
a country of
Certainly, I am not about to say that
national education standards are a panacea or something that is going to make
all of the problems in education go away, because that is certainly not the
case. I think, looking at national
education standards and to even have that on an agenda of federal ministers and
provincial ministers would at least get some truly good discussion underway as
far as education in general.
Yes, we may be looking at the SAIP
program. Yes, we are tinkering with
education in bits and pieces, or at least the federal government is. There has to be more to it than that. There
has to be a commitment. There has to be
political will. Part of that has to be down on paper. Part of that political will has to be the
federal government saying to the provincial Education ministers, let us take a
look at this; let us have a forum; let us have a conference; let us sit down
and talk about education. How are we
going to work together as partners to solve the education crisis in this
country? There is a crisis.
I mean, whether you agree with what
any government in any province or territory is doing in education, whether you
agree with it, whether they are right, whether they are wrong, the point is,
there still is a crisis that needs to be addressed. Some governments are
addressing it in different ways. Again,
it would be an entirely different subject to talk about what this particular
government is doing in education in general.
I do have a lot of difficulties with
this amendment, Mr. Speaker. Some of the
WHEREASes I do not disagree with. Yes,
we are participating in the SAIP program; yes, we are involved with the 13‑
and 16‑year‑olds; we know they are going to be tested; yes,
Manitoba Education and Training is participating in the Canadian Council of
Directors of Apprenticeship; yes, the Canadian Labour Force Development Board
is probably going to facilitate the establishment of labour market boards. We have not seen that yet.
Those may all be true as WHEREASes,
Mr. Speaker, but to then jump to the conclusion after those WHEREASes and say
that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba should commend the government of
I do not see that in these
particular WHEREASes, Mr. Speaker, so I must, with all due respect to the
member who presented this amendment, speak against this because I do not feel,
and I know my caucus does not feel that we can support this particular
amendment. Thank you.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise to speak on
this motion and in particular I guess the self‑serving amendment that the
government has put in here.
I would like to congratulate the
member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) on bringing the issue of education and the
standards in education to the attention of the Legislature. I think that is a very important issue and,
as she said, it is certainly one on which we have heard very little yet from
these Tory contenders, the people who have sat around the same cabinet table as
the Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney.
It is interesting that education so
far seems to have formed such a small part of their discussions with Canadians
or at least with their supporters across the country. Now it could be that I have not followed it
very closely because I certainly have not, but I have been following what has
been written in the press, and education does not seem to be at the forefront
of their concerns.
There is a usefulness, I think, a
useful service that the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) has performed by
bringing this to our attention. Perhaps
through the members sitting opposite us, who are participating in this circus
that is going on in the Tory party, they may have some opportunity to bring it
to the attention of, and perhaps make it part of, a national debate.
This particular motion, Mr. Speaker,
I think addresses the issue of a number of areas where Canadians have
difficulties with education. One of them
is the 38 percent functionally illiterate that the member for Crescentwood (Ms.
Gray) concentrated on in her introduction.
That certainly would be a problem for any nation. It has been a problem for a long time for
One of the most interesting things,
I think, about illiteracy is that there are people who do graduate from high
school and who perhaps find a job and then in fact work and are literate and
are functionally literate and have the literacy to deal with their everyday
lives. But one of the studies I think
that is most interesting is that the longer people are unemployed, the longer
they are without work after having graduated from high school, in fact, they do
lose some of those skills. I would draw
that to the attention of the members opposite who seem so prepared to allow the
unemployment rates in our country to stay so unconscionably high. It does have an impact upon the literacy and
upon the conditions of life for so many people across this country.
* (1740)
The resolution and the discussion
that has taken place since also has made reference to the ease of movement of
peoples across this country. The
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) spoke of her own
experience in having moved, I think, it was 11 times in nine years. In some years, I would think that would not
have been unusual for some Canadians, and it is a terribly difficult thing for
children to do. It is something, of
course, which we are seeing in the inner city of
It is partly a result of changes and
difficulties in housing conditions within that community, but it also has a
tremendous impact upon the children who are facing four or five or six
different schools within the course of one year. These are children who in many cases repeat
this year after year. It is no wonder
that children under those conditions do not have access to the same kind of
educational opportunities as do children who are able to remain in a stable
situation in school.
Certainly I would hope that
ministers of education in any province and in any community would take account of
those kinds of conditions within our inner cities as well, and I would hope
that the member for Crescentwood's (Ms. Gray) resolution would draw such
difficulties to the attention of this Minister of Education as well as to
ministers across the country.
Certainly people who do transfer
from province to province have in the past and still in the present do
experience difficulties. I am not sure
that national testing actually addresses that particular problem entirely. There will be other difficulties of
adjustment that children will face.
There will certainly be differences in curriculum, even with national
testing.
But I should say, Mr. Speaker, that
I am not opposed to testing. I do not
think anybody on our side is opposed to testing. We face it in all areas. Every high school, every classroom, every
teacher evaluates students, of which one part is likely to be a test of some
kind. The issue with testing, of course‑‑and
I suppose this government will find out, which is why I think the minister's amendments
perhaps are not appropriate‑‑is that in order to have testing which
makes sense, which is useful to teachers, which is useful to employers and
which is useful to parents, you must be comparing apples with apples.
So, of course, before you begin any
kind of national benchmark testing or evaluation or whatever you want to call
it, you must have a curriculum which is harmonized in some way. You have to test students who at least have
had the opportunity to learn the same kinds of things at more or less the same
rate, and at the same age level.
In some subjects that might be
possible to achieve, I think. If the ministers of education were able to come
together and to create a curriculum that addressed students and certain types
of material at the same age level, at the same grade level, right across the
country, then you could have testing in that area that would have some meaning
to parents, to families and to educators.
It may well be possible, Mr. Speaker, that in the mathematics curriculum
that could be done. It may well be
possible in the science curriculum that it could be done. It is possible that at certain levels in
reading and writing and comprehension those kinds of things could be done.
But I think we always have to
understand that right across
The other difficulty‑‑and
I am dealing in the context here of math and science curriculum where at least
it is possible to have a kind of standardization. I think the other difficulty you might find
is that there are different ways of teaching those curriculums, and people may
be familiar with the discussion that has been conducted in the columns of the
Globe and Mail. Andrew Nikiforuk, who is
the educational correspondent for the Globe and Mail, has dealt with the
Japanese way of teaching mathematics, a whole class way of teaching
mathematics, which does give you the opportunity, as the Japanese do, to have
very standardized levels and to progress through them at more or less the same
age throughout the country. That is one
way of teaching mathematics.
There is another way which is common
in
A third way of teaching mathematics
is the one that we have I believe in Manitoba which is called spiraling, where
we teach introductory concepts at many different levels and we continue to add
to those introductory concepts in a spiraling way so that over a longer period
of time students will be dealing with a wider range of concepts, but they will
deal with them more frequently and with much more repetition than they do, say,
in Alberta.
We have in Alberta or Manitoba
generations of teachers who have been trained in those two or three different
ways of teaching mathematics, so the idea of developing national standards in
the one particular area where you could have standardization of evaluation, I
think, is not as easily done as it seems.
I think it is a good idea. I
think it is one which we should work toward, but I do not think it is something
that is necessarily going to be achieved overnight.
Similar kinds of things I think you
might find in dealing with reading and writing comprehension at more advanced
levels and certainly with anything beyond that.
The idea indeed of developing a national curriculum in the humanities I
think is a very daunting prospect and may not be desirable, because there are
very important areas of regional, of linguistic communities, of multicultural
communities, where each region and each province, each local community, will
want to have its own version of its history.
I mean, the differences, for example, in the history which is taught in
Quebec and the history which is taught in the rest of Canada are quite
considerable, and whose position is it to say that the Quebec version of the
conquest and of 1837 and indeed of Meech Lake is one which does not serve that
community well.
Curriculums in the humanities and in
literature, I think, are a very different kind of question. Those communities which have tried to
introduce national curriculums in those areas I think have run into considerable
trouble. One of them you find in the
So I think that testing evaluation
is part of education. It is not the
whole part, but it has a role to play, but is not one that can be achieved
overnight or very easily. That is not to
say that we should not attempt it by being, but still remaining very aware of
local and regional conditions and interests, and as well as the nature of the
changes we would require in our curriculum and the changes we would require in
our teachers as we strived in fact to achieve these kinds of goals.
I think perhaps what concerns me
most about both the resolution and the amendment to it is‑‑and I
know that my colleague for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) acknowledges this‑‑that
this is a beginning, that we face a much larger problem. I am not sure I would call it a crisis, but
we do face much larger problems in education than national testing and national
curriculum will solve.
We see it particularly in this
government, of course, the lack of support for research, the lack of support
for those who have been unable to complete their high school education, the
lack of support in programs like New Careers which tried to improve the basic
education level, and the backing away from the ACCESS programs which have been such
an important part in this province of creating a whole generation of aboriginal
teachers and which had begun to create the social workers, the dentists, the
doctors which in a way set us apart in our educational achievements and focuses
from many, many other provinces.
* (1750)
So it is very difficult to offer any
support for the amendment that the minister has offered, and I particularly am
concerned about the labour market boards that the minister does make reference
to in her amendment. I have spoken in
the House before of this and certainly there is an opportunity for educational
and economic planning through that process of Labour Force Development boards,
but one of my great regrets about this government is that they delayed and
delayed and delayed for over three years in the creation of an agreement with
the federal government. Even after that,
we now have a further six‑month planning period which essentially gives
us only six months of the existing agreement left to address some of the issues
which I consider to be most crucial to the future of both
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise
and speak on this resolution from the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray). In preparing for this, I found some excellent
quotations on education which I think I can tie into this resolution.
An Honourable Member: Where did you find them?
Mr. Martindale: I found these in a book called Peter's
Quotations, Ideas for our Time, by Dr. Lawrence J. Peter, author of The Peter
Principle.
Robert Maynard Hutchins said, and I
quote: The object of education is to
prepare the young to educate themselves throughout their lives, end of
quote. I found another very similar
quote that says: 60 years ago I knew
everything. Now I know nothing. Education is a progressive discovery of our
own ignorance. Will Durant said that.
I think what this points out is that
education is a lifelong learning process.
It is not a matter of attending school when you are young and never
going back to school, but that we should always be engaged in education
ourselves and improving ourselves, which means going back to school or
university or getting some kind of education from time to time.
Here is another quote: It is no longer correct to regard higher
education solely as a privilege. It is a
basic right in today's world. Norman
Cousins said that.
There were two elected people who
made pronouncements on this topic but said quite different things. Governor Jerry Brown said, I question whether
we can afford to teach mother macrame when Johnny still cannot read, and I
think he was saying that basic literacy is very important and it is more
important than courses which may or may not benefit society as a whole. But Ronald Reagan said‑‑the
member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) will find this interesting: Why should we subsidize intellectual
curiosity?
So we have another school of thought
that does not believe in public education, does not think that the public purse
should subsidize education. I think that
is what Ronald Reagan is saying. Well,
sure, he said: Why should we subsidize
intellectual curiosity? Surely the
member for Pembina would agree that intellectual curiosity is part of the
educational process. But what he is
saying is that the public should not subsidize it, should not pay for it.
In the resolution, the member for
Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) referred to the fact that 38 percent of Canadians are
functionally illiterate. There are many
good organizations around that are trying to do something about this. I was associated in an advisory capacity with
one. We gave them space at North End
Community Ministry, my former place of employment, and they were doing a good
job.
In fact, one of the things that they
did that was quite interesting was, they gave people the Driver's Handbook, and
they got them to study it. Then they
went and took their driver's test. All
of these people had already been driving without a valid driver's licence,
which is very common amongst certain groups of people in our society, including
my constituents. They pose a great risk
to themselves and other people because, if they are not licensed, they are
probably also not insured. We all pay
for that through our Autopac premiums.
So this adult literacy program got
these people to study the Driver's Handbook, to take their test, and they all
passed. It was an excellent adult
literacy program that was combining life skills with adult literacy. Unfortunately, they were not able to get
permanent funding and they folded up.
There is another organization in the
community today called Open Doors Adult Literacy Program. I am happy to say that I am on the advisory
committee for this program. They do have
permanent funding from the literacy office, and they have published a very good
publication called Living and Learning, which was written by the students of
the Open Doors Adult Literacy Program in 1992.
The stories that students write in this book are really quite fascinating,
and I have met these students, I know some of them. They talk about their experiences of living
and learning.
They are thrilled to be going back
to school, and many of them will be trying to get their Grade 12 equivalency so
that they can get a job, because we know that there is a connection between
education and employability. So I am
very happy to be associated in an advisory capacity with the Open Doors Adult
Literacy Program.
I would also like to comment on one
of the other WHEREASes of this resolution.
The second WHEREAS says, "WHEREAS different standards exist in the
core subject areas of mathematics, science and the humanities from province to
province."
I have had some experience with this
problem because I tried to transfer from
So I was unable to transfer to
Then the member says: "WHEREAS standards are necessary for
assessment, screening and student evaluation across
I am opposed to the amendment of the
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), particularly the
"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba
commend the government of
There is no way that we can support
this resolution to commend when this government has withdrawn the Student
Social Allowances Program. This is a
program that is keeping students in school, allowing them to get an education
so that they can get a job when they graduate, and what this government has
done with this budget is they have totally eliminated the program. These people are going to end up on social
assistance. They are going to be much
less employable. Well, they can stay in
school, but they can only take two courses.
So if someone has gone back to school and they are in Grade 10 or Grade
11 or Grade 12, it is going to take them 10 years to finish their education at‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. When this matter
is again before the House the honourable member for Burrows will have eight
minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is
now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Thursday).