LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Friday, May 21, 1993
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the
petition of the honourable member (Ms. Wowchuk). 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 Canadian Wheat Board has played a vital role
in the orderly marketing of Canadian wheat, barley and other grain products
since its inception in 1935; and
WHEREAS the federal Minister of Agriculture is
considering removing barley from the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board; and
WHEREAS this is another step towards dismantling the
board; and
WHEREAS, as in the case with the removal of oats from the
Wheat Board in 1989, there has been no consultation with the board of directors
of the Wheat Board, with the 11‑member advisory committee to the board or
the producers themselves; and
WHEREAS the federal minister has said that there will be
no plebiscite of farmers before the announcement is made.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the
Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition
of the honourable member (Mr. Plohman).
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 the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the quality of education for our children has
been drastically impacted and reduced by these measures; and
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the
Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the
petition of the honourable member (Mr. Maloway). 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 55,000 children depend upon the Children's
Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out the cost savings
of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the Children's
Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has been in effect
for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective and
critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not consult the
users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to eliminate 44
of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service; and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an essential
component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the
Legislative Assembly of
* (1005)
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 37‑The Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation Amendment And Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration
of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness),
that Bill 37, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Societe d'assurance
publique du
His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor, having been
advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the House. I would like to table his message as well.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral
Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery,
where we have with us this morning from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this morning.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Data Collection
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, users of the
The community of
The City of
We have just reviewed a report on the
I would like to ask the Premier, if there is not
sufficient data on the
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, very straightforwardly, if there is not sufficient data,
then the Clean Environment Commission will make that judgment as to whether or
not they have sufficient data upon which to make a decision.
That is the way the process is. That is the way it was put forward in the
legislation that was passed by the New Democratic government, and we are
following the process.
Consultations‑Saskatchewan
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is adequate
for the government to have a narrow‑scoping proposal in the Department of
Environment which is, of course, the necessary area which the environmental
review panel must look at. If the
scoping is narrow and data is wrong, the conclusions, therefore, I think, will
be inadequate for the people of
Mr. Speaker, the
I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon): Has he discussed the issue of the
* (1010)
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, the member makes some very
sweeping comments about the guidelines that have been put in place for this
review. As a matter of fact, an awful
lot of people who are looking at this project really made the point that these
guidelines went beyond what they expected in terms of the outline that the
Department of Environment had put forward.
Frankly, these are issues that will be very widely
discussed and aired at the commission.
As to the conditions of the guidelines, the commission may well choose
to ask questions beyond that if they believe there is insufficient information.
I really challenge the member of the opposition to look at
the process that was put in place, drafted and brought to culmination by the
administration prior to this one. Now he
stands there and says it is no good.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the
minister knows that the process requires accurate data, competent, reliable and
credible data, and it requires broad scoping arrangements for the panel to look
at. We have called all along for a basin‑wide
review and a federal‑provincial review of this project.
The minister did not answer the question. The question was: Given the agreement with
the
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, we have
been in discussion with the
Frankly, he is choosing to characterize the volumes that
are being discussed in such a way that would indicate that this will somehow be
a critical factor. That will be clearly
answered by the proponents or they will not get a licence.
Francophone Schools Governance
Cost Analysis
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, this is a question to the
Minister of Finance or the Acting Minister of Education.
The government is in the process of implementing the Supreme
Court decision on Francophone governance of schools as it must, but in order to
have an informed public debate on this issue, on the Francophone governance
issue, it is important, even essential, that the public and the school
divisions understand the financial impact of that decision and the funding for
existing school divisions.
Can the Minister of Finance or the Acting Minister of
Education tell this House if he has computed the potential cost, based on
eligible students, that would be transferred from existing school divisions by
way of grants? Can he provide us with
the specific amounts and table that information in the Legislature here?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance):
Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a definitive response to that question. Certainly, the government, in setting up the
model, set as a major principle that there would not be additional total costs,
obviously other than start‑up resources that would be required in some
respects.
I would encourage the member to direct those questions
specifically to the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) in committee. We are hoping that this House will give quick
and speedy passage to second reading on this bill, so those types of questions
and/or concerns around that point can be brought forward in committee.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, surely
the Minister of Finance should be aware of what costs we are dealing with here.
In light of the fact that we have estimated the transfer
at some $29 million, based on the Gallant report, of provincial grants and up
to $7 million of property tax revenue, in light of the fact that the minister's
policy is that there would be a transfer at the local level of property tax
revenue, could the Minister of Finance or the Acting Minister of Education tell
us if he is planning to compensate existing school divisions for this transfer,
and what form, what level, that compensation would be?
* (1015)
Mr. Manness: Again, Mr. Speaker,
the very general principles‑‑and, again, I will only address the
general principles in my response‑‑are that the local school
division, existing, may have to transfer a portion of its revenue at no higher
levy rate but equivalent to the number of students who now, by way of their
parents, choose to take their schooling under the auspices of the new
Francophone division.
Mr. Speaker, as far as the total amount of revenue coming
forward from the assessment, the assessed base, we would anticipate that there
would be no increase in the total. Obviously, there will be a split prorated on
the number of students who stay in the local division as compared to now those
who are governed under the new Francophone division.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, we are
talking about at least $29 million plus the local revenue from local taxpayers
that would be transferred. It could be
as high as $35 million to $40 million.
In light of the tight financial situation that school
divisions find themselves in as a result, to a large degree, of this
government's policies, I want to ask the minister if he does not think it is
fair and reasonable that there would be adequate compensation because of the
massive declining enrollments that may occur in some school divisions as a
result of the changeover to ease the impact of this transfer.
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Speaker,
the question is fair, but as I point out to the member, he would be well aware
that we have an education finance formula in place which takes into account
declining enrollment. Obviously, if
there are fewer students to teach, there are adjustments that are going to have
to be made within existing divisions.
The ed finance formula deals with it, and we think that
given the edict and the directive from the Supreme Court, we have followed a
reasonable course in trying to provide what is required under the Supreme Court
ruling and yet within a finite pool of resources.
Social Planning Council
Recommendations
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, one of the frustrating parts about sitting in this House is
the Estimates process where one tries to get the government to accept new ideas
and to listen to what the critics have to say, but to no avail. It does not really matter whether it is this
government or that government. Neither
one of them pays any attention, but one hopes that they do listen to groups
which make representations on behalf of the children of this province.
Mr. Speaker, the Family Services minister (Mr.
Gilleshammer) met this week with the Social Planning Council which raised with
him specific concerns about the cuts to children in the province of
Can the minister say, since he was obviously not
convinced by the critics of either party about the disproportionate, so‑called
fairness being borne by children in this budget, if he listened to the Social
Planning Council?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services):
Mr. Speaker, I have met frequently with the Social Planning Council to
discuss issues they bring forward from time to time, and research they do. They had contacted me in March of this year
to set up a meeting, and because of some of their internal difficulties and
changes, they were not able to come forward until just this week.
We did have a good discussion on a wide range of
subjects. They brought along with them some other groups that had issues to put
forward, and I can say that we listened intently and look forward to further
meetings with them and will look seriously at any of the research they bring
forward.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, can the
minister tell us today if he listened clearly to the presentations that were
made on behalf of children and the very high poverty rate‑‑in fact
the highest poverty rate in this country for children in poverty is in the
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I can
assure you and the House that we did listen very carefully.
The issues presented were on a wide range of subjects,
including the advocates they brought with them.
We have always valued the information brought forward by the Social
Planning Council, and we did have a lively discussion on some of the factors
that they feel our department and this government should take into consideration.
As I indicated, we have made commitments to meet with
them in the future.
* (1020)
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, but if
it is correct, as the minister has just said, that he values the information
which the Social Planning Council brings forward, is he going to change the
direction of the Department of Family Services so they will now better
represent the needs of children, which are frankly not being represented at the
present time by this government?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I can recall in the
Estimates process going over a number of the reforms we have brought in to the
Social Allowances Program, to the child welfare program, the tremendous
positive changes we have made in the daycare program.
I can assure you that the Social Planning Council and their
input in the past have had an effect on some of the policy changes this
government has made, and we look forward to future discussions with them.
Property Taxes
Impact on Seniors
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas):
Mr. Speaker, we are receiving calls from seniors right across the city
who are upset about the increases in their property taxes as a result of the
actions of this government.
Could the Minister of Finance explain how many seniors
are affected by this change and what the average tax increase is for the
seniors?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance):
Mr. Speaker, I do not have my budget material with me. I answered that same question several times
right after the Budget Debate. I am well
aware that there is no impact on seniors earning collectively within the
household $20,000 and less. I am talking
about the pensioners' school tax credit.
I am led to believe that the total impact of all our tax
credit decisions is somewhere in the area of around $45 million to $50 million.
Mr. Hickes: Does the Minister of
Finance think it is fair that some of the poorest citizens of our province, our
seniors, who built this country for us, are being asked to pay 20 to 80 percent
increases in their property taxes?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I think
that after $20,000 of income, the ability‑to‑pay principle comes
forward very quickly, and I take some pride in the fact that, to the extent
that we could in our budget, without dismantling the whole tax credit system
which governments in the past, including the NDP government, worked so hard to
try and build‑‑without totally dismantling it, I think that we did
our best to adopt the ability‑to‑pay principle with respect to the
removal of some of the property tax measures.
I dare say, Mr. Speaker, as I look across all the budgets
that have come out since ours, I can see, for instance, in
Seniors do not mind paying their share as long as they
see where the government in place is trying to do its best to keep the whole
expenditure level down so that taxes do not have to rise.
There is only one government in
Mr. Hickes: Mr. Speaker, I am
sure that is going to be a comfort to many, many seniors.
Will the Minister of Finance commit that he will provide
to this House as soon as possible a full impact report on his disastrous tax
credit changes for
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, at the
next Question Period, I will bring some of that detail with me, and I will certainly
show the breakouts by income groups, by either single or married senior status,
and I will certainly share some greater detail about that.
* (1025)
Student Social Allowances Program
Premier's Position
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
Either the Premier is not aware or has deliberately
chosen to hide from the taxpaying public the fact that recipients of student
social allowances are means tested and cannot get into the program if they have
any other resources, any other means to get an education other than the Student
Social Allowances Program.
Since the recipients of the program cannot get an
education without student social allowances and cannot get a job without an
education, could the Premier tell this House and Manitobans how he can justify
taking a public policy position that it is better to collect welfare than it is
to go to school and get a job?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, I am not taking that position at all. I am taking the position that no other government
in
In all those other provinces, people are able to find
other resources in order to go and take their education. As people have done in the past, prior to
this program being available, people find ways of working part time to put
themselves through or adjusting their schedules so they can, in fact, do this
with their own resources.
Funding Reinstatement
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
Given that, would the Premier now reconsider reinstating
this most cost‑effective, sensible program?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, I repeat, this program is not available in any other
province in the country.
Cost‑Effectiveness
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, the member talks about cost‑effectiveness. She presents no information to suggest she
has evidence that it is.
No other province in
Hay Report Recommendations
Implementation
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): I asked the Minister responsible for the Civil
Service Commission yesterday for some definitive answers on the status of the
Hay audit, a report which outlined great inequities for women in the civil
service, as well as minorities. He
responded that the work of the committee continues, quote, unquote.
Can the minister be more specific today? When can we expect a plan of action from this
government?
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister responsible for The Civil
Service Act): Yes, Mr. Speaker, as we got into this issue
yesterday at the end of Question Period, I can tell the honourable member for
Crescentwood that the Hay audit implementation committee, despite the loss of its
chair, Gerrie Hammond, last year, has continued its work.
The implementation team has had consultations with civil
servants across
Ms. Gray: With a supplementary
question to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs.
Mitchelson): In March of 1990, the
minister outlined that one of her objectives was to promote equality for women,
and the initiative undertaken was the Hay audit within the Civil Service
Commission.
Can the Minister responsible for the Status of Women
table in this House any correspondence she has had with the Minister
responsible for the Civil Service Commission to try and determine when we will
actually get an action plan, not simply a report, but an action plan to
implement changes needed in the Civil Service Commission?
Mr. Praznik: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I
can tell the member for Crescentwood that the Minister responsible for the Status
of Women has been working very closely with myself and with the Hay audit
committee. I believe there are some
staff from her department who serve on that committee, who have kept both of us
informed as to its progress.
As I have indicated in the answer to the first question,
we expect to have a formal plan very shortly, but I must tell the honourable
member that many of the recommendations of the Hay audit report have already
been implemented by the Civil Service Commission and were done so over the last
couple of years since the report was released.
* (1030)
Ms. Gray: With a final
supplementary to the Minister responsible for the Civil Service
Commission: If he will recall, that is
exactly what his staff, the civil service staff have been telling him. Women in Government have been telling him
that, in fact, those recommendations have not been implemented, so we have a
problem here.
Can the Minister responsible for the Civil Service
Commission tell us how soon, once he gets that report, he is prepared to
implement some plan of action as well as meet with Women in Government to
ensure that there are real changes made?
Perhaps he should not just‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Mr. Praznik: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I
would offer some of that same advice to the member for Crescentwood in some of
the people she may be getting her advice from within or attached to or around
the Manitoba Women in Government organization.
I can tell the member for Crescentwood that members who
are involved in that organization serve on the committee. Work has gone on, and I would want to point
out to her, as well, that I as minister have made offers to that organization
to develop some particular programming to assist in developing skills. They have yet to take me up on that offer.
There are two sides to this story. I think some of her information may not be
entirely correct.
APM Management Consultants
Office Renovation Costs
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, the minister has committed $3.9
million this year to its
Mr. Speaker, can the minister outline, in this time of
huge cutbacks to hospital budgets and the huge scaling down of staff at the
hospitals, how much it cost for the renovations of the offices at the Health
Sciences Centre to house this
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend has slightly erred again in his
preamble.
My honourable friend full well knows‑‑and if
my honourable friend were to care to pick up the phone and phone either the St.
Boniface General Hospital or the Health Sciences Centre, my honourable friend will
know that both of those hospitals, their boards and senior management, urged
the government to retain the services of this consulting firm.
Mr. Speaker, in co‑operation with having government
at the table with Lotteries‑funded resources to pay for the contract,
they have agreed to cover expenses.
Mr. Speaker, part of the agreement was that office space
be provided within Health Sciences Centre and within St. Boniface. I believe
they were using existing office space which was vacant. There is very minimal, if any, additional
cost.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, can the
minister explain why offices had to be renovated at Health Sciences Centre for
the
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, is my
honourable friend suggesting that these individuals, who are working within
those hospitals to contact staff, to work with staff, to work with staff of all
levels, ought not to be in those hospitals?
The only advice I can give my honourable friend, instead
of‑‑how do I put this nicely, and more particularly, Sir,
parliamentary? Instead of my honourable
friend running his campaign of disinformation and false information, maybe my
honourable friend should sit down with the management of both hospitals and
have those questions answered to his satisfaction.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, my
final supplementary is to the same minister.
Patients are in the hallways, and she has offices in the
Health Sciences Centre and
Can the minister outline to this House how many social
workers, instructors and other employees have been displaced at Health Sciences
Centre and told they cannot move into offices as a result of his American
consultant‑‑$3.9 million plus $800,000 in expenses‑‑moving
into the Health Sciences Centre?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I
suspect my honourable friend might want to have discussions with the Health
Sciences Centre: a) to ascertain whether
his allegations are accurate; and b) to be further informed in terms of the
parameters of the contract.
Mr. Speaker, I want to contrast this contract which was
publicly tabled at the announcement with any other contract that, for instance,
the NDP got in. When we got into
government we found that, horror to horror, they had engaged American
consultants secretively, without any of us knowing they were engaging American
consultants.
Mr. Speaker, I want my honourable friend to get beyond
his narrow anti‑Americanism and ask himself if he believes that we ought to
seek a better way to protect patient care, to provide more hands‑on care
by nurses to patients and at the same time to contain and reduce the budgets in
our hospitals so that we can provide continued preservation and protection of
medicare in this province, because that is the end result of this contract.
My honourable friends want the demise of medicare, not
its preservation.
Provincial Parks
Wrist Band Identification
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker,
my question is to the acting Minister of Natural Resources.
Yesterday, along with the minister, I was surprised to
learn that this government intends to tag visitors to our provincial parks.
Under this government, there have been fewer American
tourists than in any other time since 1958.
My question to the minister is: How many American tourists does he expect to
entice with his new arm‑tag tourism initiative program?
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources):
Mr. Speaker, it is, I think, known by most honourable members that May
24, the May long weekend, is a difficult weekend for our Parks law enforcement
people to try to keep some handle on some of the rowdyism that, regrettably,
occurs.
We have in a few parks many thousands of youngsters, many
thousands of people, and most of them are very welcome. Most of them are extremely well behaved, but
at ten o'clock registered campers only are permitted back into the campgrounds,
and the department thought this was a ready, easy and cost‑effective way
of providing that identification.
I might remind honourable members, we all experienced
that when we visited the Brandon Winter Fair.
Some of us will even remember that when you attended old‑time
country dances, you got a little imprint on your hand if you were going to
leave the facility and come back.
So that is what the answer is, and I will make a special
effort to ensure that this is not meant in any way to deter our American
tourists.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, this is not a practice to be
carried on. It is for the long weekend
in May alone.
Mr. Maloway: I am glad to see
that the minister is now aware of the program.
Staffing
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): My
supplementary question to the same minister is:
Why did the government cut back Parks staff positions if it is so
concerned with public safety at the parks?
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources):
If we can accomplish through different ways and smarter ways of using
those resources I have to effect the same kind of degree of supervision within
our parks, then I compliment my Parks people, quite frankly, for finding them.
Mr. Speaker, I notice that the honourable member still is
wearing his armband.
Mr. Maloway: I cannot get it off.
Mr. Enns: I am reasonably
adept at duck calls. I will try my moose
call and ask the honourable member to come forward and I will relieve him of
that armband.
* (1040)
Provincial Parks
Wrist Band Identification
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker,
my final supplementary is to the Minister of Tourism, since I am not getting
any answers from this minister.
I would like to ask the Minister of Tourism whether he
thinks this will encourage Americans to start coming back to this province.
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism): Mr.
Speaker, after the last reply of my colleague, the Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns), I do not blame the honourable member for shifting gears
in terms of whom he asks, and it is also interesting, in terms of the anti‑American
questions posed to our Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), that they are finally
showing an interest in our American friends.
I do not see this as having a negative impact on American
visitors. It applies to anybody going to
any of the provincial park facilities, whether they are from the
Workplace Safety
Course Fee
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):
Mr. Speaker, training workers and employers in safe workplace practices,
regulations and the development of committees is essential to reducing
workplace illnesses and accidents.
My question is for the Minister of Labour. If they are trying to encourage safer
workplaces, why is the department now charging for the courses that used to be
free that train people in safe workplace practices?
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, because they have a cost, and that cost should be borne by
the users. It is part of doing business.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, does
the minister not understand and acknowledge that this will be a barrier to
developing safer workplaces and to having people access these courses?
Mr. Praznik: No, Mr. Speaker, our
department had a variety of consultations before we did this. I know it is always difficult to accept a new
charge when there is a charge for a service that was not there before.
I would point out two things to the honourable
member. One is that the entire operation
of the Workplace Safety and Health division of this branch is now funded by the
employers of
Secondly, the charges for these courses are a minimal
charge, I believe, for the service that people are getting and ultimately
should be borne within the system.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, will
the minister commit to reporting to the House any changes in the enrollment and
the representation in these courses from various employers and employees due to
the levying of this user fee?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, within
the department, courses change from time to time. Different organizations, depending on their
need, change their use of courses, so that information in itself would not
necessarily reflect the point I think the honourable member is waiting to see.
I would be prepared to discuss this further with her when
we get into the Estimates debate.
Osborne House
Management Review
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows):
Mr. Speaker, current and former staff at Osborne House have said that
clients there have been treated unethically.
Staff have also said that the way management has treated them is
analogous to the way male abusers treat women.
These are very serious concerns. They need to be investigated by an
independent investigator in order to improve the service to abused women and to
clear the reputation of Osborne House.
Further, Osborne House is publicly funded, and there needs to be accountability
for the public dollars that are spent there.
Will the Minister of Family Services appoint an
independent investigator?‑‑which he did when concerns were raised
about Knowles Centre and Colleen Suche was appointed and wrote a report that
was publicly available with recommendations.
Will the minister do the same thing regarding Osborne House?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services):
Mr. Speaker, in my mind the YM‑YWCA is acting responsibly. It has hired an external agency, the Manitoba
Institute of Management, to interview staff, to undertake an issue
identification process and to develop a plan for the resolution of these
issues.
I believe the board of the Y are taking the allegations
that have come forward from staff and management seriously. They have put a process in place to deal with
it, and I am prepared to let that process take its course.
Mr. Martindale: Will the Minister of
Family Services appoint an independent reviewer, since the current internal
review is the fourth internal review after three failed internal reviews failed
to clear up the problems?
The first phase consists only of interviewing staff. Phases 2 and 3 are very vague, and there will
be no recommendations to the minister which will be made public, which must be
done.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, the
member essentially is asking the same question for the fifth or sixth time.
I believe the board of the Y is acting very responsibly.
These are members of the public who give of their time and energy to provide a
variety of services through the Y.
We are pleased with the work that they have done over the
years at Osborne House. They have put in
place a process, and we will let that process take its course.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, if I
had any faith in‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate. The honourable member for Burrows, with your
question, please.
Mr. Martindale: Will this Minister
of Family Services not appoint an independent review in order to improve
services to abused women and clear up the staffing problems once and for all,
since the Suche report was set up to investigate and make recommendations
regarding child abuse recommendations?
Does this minister not believe that abused women deserve
the same kind of investigation and reporting and recommendation‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, as I
have indicated, a process is in place.
We also have staff from the department, a program specialist, who has
been attending the shelter this week to address the issues that staff have with
services.
We believe that through the efforts of our staff in the
Family Dispute area and the process put in place by the YM‑YWCA, they
will address these issues.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral
Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENT
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable
member for Kildonan have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the
House will join me in commemorating this Sunday as the international gathering
to commemorate the lives of people who have died as a result of AIDS and show
solidarity with people living with this disease. I attended the vigil last year and found it a
very moving experience.
It is the 10th anniversary, Mr. Speaker, of the
International AIDS Candlelight Memorial and Mobilization. The memorial has been a good way for the
community to show their commitment to persons living with AIDS. One thing we must remember is that persons
living with AIDS are not victims of the disease.
It is a time for us to come together to reaffirm our
commitment to education and preventative programs to deal with the issues
dealing surrounding HIV AIDS. As we
enter the second decade of the AIDS epidemic, one thing is clear. AIDS does not discriminate. It can affect anyone. This is not simply a disease of the gay
community. Men and women, rich and poor,
all colours, races, creeds and sexual orientations are living with this disease
in over 150 countries.
Although
By joining forces and working together, we can maintain a
vigorous and co‑ordinated effort to reduce the spread of AIDS in
It is our job today and on Sunday to rededicate ourselves
to the fight against AIDS, to support individual and community spirit that is
determined to eradicate our world of this devastating and deadly disease.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call second readings,
Bills 33, 35, and then adjourned debate, Bill 19.
SECOND
Bill 33‑The Provincial
Railways and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and
Transportation):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey),
that Bill 33, The Provincial Railways and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi
concernant les chemins de fer provinciaux et apportant des modifications
correlatives a d'autres lois), be now read a second time and be referred to a
committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I have two information packages
for the respective critics here. In
giving second reading to this bill, normally I have had preadsheets. In this particular case, it is a new bill so
I have the background information for both the critics so that they can follow
up on them.
As I have discussed in the past, the railways are
planning to abandon approximately half of the nation's rail network. This follows the lead established by their
We, for our part, have been assisting the railways
competitiveness bid through successive fuel tax reductions in our last two
budgets. This assistance was necessary
in view of the significance of the railways to our economy.
* (1050)
Accordingly, we continue to fight for maintenance and
upgrading of the central rail network.
We continue to oppose indiscriminate rail‑line abandonment. We also continue to press for the
introduction of a responsible rail rationalization process, a process which
will consider all of the costs associated with abandonment and one which will
provide compensation to those adversely affected by the abandonment of rail
lines. This will include funding to
defray the additional cost to the road system when traffic is diverted to
trucks from the rail network.
However, Mr. Speaker, if
The 1987 National Transportation Act enables parties to
purchase and operate branchlines, including those scheduled for
abandonment. These independent railways
providing local services are called short lines. The
Mr. Speaker, as an alterative to total abandonment, in
the interests of providing continuity of rail service in
Consistent with the objective of co‑ordination of
regulation between modes and availing the essential regulatory expertise, the
transport board has been assigned the task of regulating short‑line
railways. My department will have the
responsibility of overseeing administrative matters related to safety and new
short‑line rail construction.
The act will have application to those lines acquired on
or after May 10 and then only to those lines holding themselves open for hire
or reward. The act will not apply to
existing railways or private sidings, nor will it apply to amusement
rides. CN and CP will continue to be the
subject of federal jurisdiction.
In developing the legislation, careful consideration was
given to striking a reasonable balance between the shipper and carrier
interests. We wish to accomplish this
objective with a minimum level of regulation and interference. Accordingly, entry requirements consist of
meeting fitness and economic viability criteria which will include a focus on
financial strength, insurability, experience in rail operations and maintenance
of a safe railway.
Short‑line operators will be subject to provincial
regulations as they relate to such matters as labour and the environment. The board will have the authority to suspend
or revoke a licence if a short‑line operator is in contravention of the
act. Penalties will be applied for
noncompliance of an order. Normal
avenues of appeal through the courts will apply with respect to board
decisions. No service would be
discontinued without approval of the board, and this will be contingent upon
proof of the uneconomic operations for access to alternate, alternative,
effective and competitive means of transportation.
Carriers will be expected to provide suitable
accommodation for receiving and carrying the traffic they are required to
handle under the terms of their licence, including interchange facilities. They will have the ability to enter into
confidential contracts with their customers.
The board will have the authority to set maximum rates that a railway
may charge should such action be necessary.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
Shippers who are dissatisfied with the rates charged or
the conditions of carriage and have no competitive alternative may apply to the
board to have the matter referred to arbitration. An arbitrator will be chosen
by the shipper and the railway and both would share in the costs of
proceedings. The arbitrator's decision
would be final and binding upon both parties.
The board will be authorized to work with other
jurisdictions in settling disputes involving joint rates covering their
movement of traffic over the lines of two or more carriers. The board would also have the authority on
application by a railway to make an order directing the connecting of a line
with another railway to enable through continuous movement of traffic. The Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council
would have the authority to make regulations with respect to any matter
covering short‑line rail operations as may be required.
The procedure to follow for acquiring and operating a
branch line necessitates that negotiations take place with CN or CP for the
acquisition of the track. CN or CP then file
a notification of conveyance with the National Transportation Agency.
Concurrently the short‑line operator must apply to the Transport Board
for a licence to operate. Approval of
conveyance by the National Transportation Agency is contingent upon obtaining a
licence from the provincial Transport Board.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we believe that this enabling
legislation will assist to maintain rail service in a number of areas,
essential services that would otherwise be terminated. Accordingly, I solicit the
support of the Assembly in enacting this bill.
Thank you.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 35‑The Fisheries
Amendment Act
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Industry,
Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), that Bill 35, The Fisheries Amendment Act
(Loi modifiant la Loi sur la peche), be now read a second time and referred to
a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Enns: Madam Deputy Speaker
and honourable colleagues, this amendment to The Fisheries Act is fairly
straightforward. What it does is it
provides for some greater protection to the commercial fishermen with respect
to the quota that he currently has. We
have two fisheries on Lake Winnipeg, which is, of course, our principal
fisheries where most of the fisheries are conducted, as well on the Winnipegosis
fisheries where we have devised a quota system, that is individual quotas
allocated to the individual fishermen.
What has been a concern to fishermen for some time is
that although these quotas and the quota allocation system has worked
reasonably well, particularly on Lake Winnipeg, there has never been any
entitlement or empowerment, if you like, in legislation with respect to these
quotas. It is simply departmental or
ministerial policy, if you like, or a policy of the Fisheries director of the
Department of Natural Resources that regulates and that sets up the individual
quotas.
Madam Deputy Speaker, these quotas are, of course,
important to the commercial fishermen.
They can be more helpful to them in terms of providing them with
collateral when fishermen apply to various commercial lending institutions.
As it stands, organizations, such as the former Manitoba
Agricultural Credit Corporation, which used to house the portfolio of
commercial fishermen's loans, now that has been transferred over to the
Community Economic Development Services. They have requested that the quota
entitlement be formalized in legislation.
This is, in essence, what this amendment does.
I have the indication from commercial fishermen and their
organizations that this will be well received.
What this will perhaps in the future hold out that on other fisheries
where we do not have individual quotas, simply overall lake quotas, and
certainly that covers a number of our northern and lesser lakes, where we
simply place an overall quota that is determined by the fishery biologists as
being a sustainable yield from that lake. When that overall lake quota is
harvested, is caught, then the fisheries season comes to an end.
* (1100)
The individual quota entitlement has shown us,
particularly on
Commercial fishing is not a growth industry, regrettably.
The overall state of the fisheries is in difficulty. Our once very prime whitefish that was
internationally known, particularly in the southern and the American markets,
have fallen on some difficult times, both pricewise and there are some
biological problems. The quality, the
size of the whitefish currently being harvested, is meeting with stiff
competition from a revived fisheries on the Great Lakes, which in one hand, as
Canadians, we are encouraged to see because there was a decade where we thought
the Great Lakes were virtually dying on us because of environmental
difficulties.
Certainly I can report to members of the House that the
commercial fishermen who face the ever‑increasing competition from fish
now being caught in lakes that 20 years ago were hardly being fished
commercially, it is self‑evident to them that the water quality in our
Great Lakes has improved substantially to the point that they are causing our
fishermen in Manitoba some difficulty in terms of price competition for a
similar product.
Madam Deputy Speaker, honourable members will have an
opportunity to discuss the amendment directly with people of the Department of
Natural Resources, in specific, the Director of Fisheries, Mr. Joe O'Connor.
I commend this bill for their consideration to the
committee. Thank you.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction of Guests
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would like to draw attention to the public
gallery, where we have with us this morning Youth Parliament delegates to the
Western Canadian Youth Parliament being held in Winnipeg this weekend under the
direction of Keith Berkowski [phonetic!.
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this
morning.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 19‑The Court of Queen's
Bench Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second
reading of Bill 19 (The Court of Queen's Bench Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Cour du Banc de la Reine et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), on the proposed
motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), standing in the name
of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to
permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, would you call Bill 23,
please.
Bill 23‑‑The Retail
Businesses
Employment Standards Amendment and
Payment of Wages Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on
second reading of 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), on the proposed
motion of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.
Stefanson), standing in the name of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr.
Chomiak).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to
permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to speak on Bill 23
which is the bill to allow full open Sunday shopping in
They are adopting legislation that has a number of
problems with it and that they are bringing in legislation which is opposed by
all of the key groups that are affected and have dealings with the
economy. The way that they are bringing
it in shows desperation. The way that
they brought the bill in, in violation to our parliamentary democracy, brought
the bill in in what you could call a retroactive fashion where they allowed for
what they would call a trial, disregarding the fact that the legislation that
exists is therefore being violated, and the way that they are doing this
without any regard for having public input and public debate on this kind of a
major change which is affecting not only our society, but the social fabric and
I would say, indeed, our culture. So I
have a number of concerns about that as well, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Let us deal first of all with the way that this bill is
handing over even more our economy and our very culture to economic forces, to
the market economic forces, and how this kind of legislation and the policy for
more shopping on Sunday is contributing to a race to the bottom that we are
participating in, a race to the bottom to destroy the quality of life in our
province and in our country in trying to compete. This bill is the government's response, they
have stated, their response to the problem with cross‑border shopping.
There is no information that this is going to help deal
with cross‑border shopping, but it shows what Conservative governments
are willing to do to try and deal with these kind of economic problems. It shows that there really is not any concern
or understanding or well‑thought‑out analysis of what is happening
with the economy, and that there has been a difference in Canada and in
Manitoba where we have had Sunday as a day where people cannot have consumer
business done, where they can spend time with their friends and family, devote
the day to home life rather than business and consumer dealings.
The effect that this is going to have on the economy is actually
going to be negative. There is not going
to be a benefit to the economy. The
chambers of commerce have said this. The
Union of Manitoba Municipalities has said this.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers has said this, and
virtually all the rural municipalities have said that this is going to hurt
rather than help their economy.
There will not be more jobs created. There are not going to be more jobs
created. People are not going to have
more disposable income to spend on Sunday.
In fact, it could more encourage people to spend money that they do not
have. Actually, it is going to have a
negative effect too, because it could create more part‑time work, which
will actually then decrease the take‑home pay and the total wages of
workers in the retail and service sectors.
All of these things are a particular problem for workers
in those areas but, even more, it is a problem for women, who tend to make up
the majority of the sales clerks in the kind of businesses that are going to be
forced to be open. This has a double
negative effect because, not only is it going to force those people to work
when they perhaps would prefer to stay home with their family, but it is going
to take them away from the day when most people reserved time with their
family.
I would hazard a guess that the majority of women who are
in those sectors, a number of them will also be single parents. So it is creating a variety of problems for
those families in having to provide alternative care for children who are now
faced with another day of not having their parents there for them. That is another problem that I would say that
this government probably did not give too much consideration to.
The bill itself claims that there is going to be some
protection for these individuals to not work, to refuse going to work, but that
is going to be very difficult to enforce.
We have heard over and over again where workers are threatened or they
feel threatened that they will lose their job if they in fact do complain and refuse
the scheduling of when they are slated to work on Sundays.
* (1110)
Now, this presents a number of problems where it again
gives employers another club, if you would, to wield in the race to the bottom
that we are involved in which has had an effect on making workers more and more
vulnerable in the face of having a chance to maintain a job and maintain some
kind of security in the workforce.
With the economy, it is a lot easier for employers to not
have any problem with having workers leave their job when there are so many
people unemployed. It is much easier for
them to use that threat or freedom that they have to have so many more people
waiting in line for those jobs.
One of the big concerns that I have about this kind of
legislation as well, as I said at the beginning, is the way that it is handing
over more and more control to market forces.
It is making our society and economy more consumeristic or more consumer
driven. I think I have referred at times
before in the House to a study that was done on Canadian leisure that showed
that the most often participated‑in leisure activities in our society are
shopping, television and gambling, and I think that this legislation is only
going to encourage that. I think that is
a problem.
I think that the kind of economy that we have created
that encourages overconsumption is only going to be exacerbated by this kind of
legislation, and we know that consumerism and overconsumption have devastating
effects on the environment. It is a
combination of how people are watching more television, the way that
advertising on television encourages them to purchase and buy, and that this is
not only taking away from the more positive and active parts of our culture in
the form of arts and other sport and recreation activities, I think it is also
contributing to the way that people are giving over their sense of what kind of
society we want to have, to market forces.
This has a lot of implications for our society.
Now, the other problem that this has created is it has
created a lot of chaos in some of the retail outlets where I have had concerns
expressed to me from some of the stores and malls in my constituency where
there have been disputes between the various outlets, some wanting to close
down and others not wanting to close down, or if the stores want to close and
the mall is feeling pressure to remain open.
So this is another problem where it has created this kind of conflict
within the retail sector. This is a
concern where we want to have some kind of co‑operation and good business
relations, but there have been these kinds of disputes created.
I think that it is also not helping the whole issue of
cross‑border shopping, but it is making the problem worse for rural areas
where the border to cross for cross‑border shopping has become the
We already see the huge effect that advertising, mass
media and television have had on rural areas.
This is the kind of legislation that is going to encourage that rather
than discourage it. It is going to draw
away from developing the rural communities and the rural economies that are
suffering greatly under this government and in the economy.
I talked about how this is going to not create any kind
of economic benefit. I think the
government should be getting that message.
I want to speculate a little bit about why they are continuing to do
this.
I think it is part of the attitude that they have when
they will talk about how they do not want to tax anymore. If you look at how the economy is failing and
we look at how the tax burden has shifted and how now more and more individuals
are paying for costs of government and that there is less and less of
government revenue being paid by industry and business taxation, the logical
conclusion of this that we are reaching more and more quickly is, very soon
industry will not be paying any costs of government and individuals will be
paying the full burden and costs through taxation. This is helping them fulfill their agenda of
slowly being able to cut services and slowly reducing government and the role
of government in the economy. It is like
they are going at this from both ends, slowly being able to erode government
services and slowly eroding government's role in regulating the economy.
This is an example where government has had a role.
Government has had a role in trying to shape the effect that consumerism and
the marketplace has on our lives. By
reducing further that role of government and by allowing for Sunday shopping,
it is another way that they are taking away the role of government and allowing
for market forces to have a greater and greater effect on dictating our time,
dictating how we spend our lives and how our society is shaped.
We received a number of calls and letters from a variety
of groups opposing this. It is not often
that you see the kind of consensus across the board between labour, between
chambers of commerce, between church organizations and other community
organizations opposing something, but that is the kind of opposition that this
legislation has. It has such widespread
opposition, I think the government should be concerned that again they are
offending and going against the wishes of what often have been their
supporters.
* (1120)
I go back to the point of how they must be very desperate
if they are willing to do that, and it is a sad state for the province if this
is the best they can do for economic policy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a sorry excuse for economic
policy. Not only is this legislation not
doing what they think it is going to do but, as I have said, it is affecting
our social fabric and our culture in a way that is a concern to many people.
I look forward to when we will have this bill go to
committee. It is going to be interesting
to see how the government is going to deal with facing that huge opposition
from all across
The small business sector, I think it will be important
to hear from them, because we know the small business sector is creating the
most jobs in
That is the kind of consultation I wonder if this
government did. I do not know where they
would have gotten the sense that this is going to help small business. The kinds of letters and calls that we have
been getting to our offices do not indicate they feel that this is going to be
a benefit.
I do not know if they have had any kind of analysis‑‑we
have had this practice going on now for a number of months‑‑if
there has been any kind of polling or research or consultation that has been
done to see if there has been any benefit so far and if at the end of October
there will be some chance they will change their mind, that they will admit
this has not had a benefit to the economy and they will choose to not continue
with this practice.
It is going to be I think difficult to measure the side
that is of concern to me, the social side that I have been talking about. I do not know if those kinds of things are
very easy to study. They are not. It is not easy to study the effect of not
having parents around for one other day on the weekend, what kind of an effect
that is going to have on families. It is
only in the long term that we will see those effects. We hear often how more and more time is spent
by young people sitting in front of the television and how that is exacerbated
by the increase in the kinds of television that they are watching and how, as I
said earlier, the kinds of programs that they are watching are supported more
and more by advertising that is tied in with children's programming and how
that might make young people put even more pressure on their parents to go out
and buy products that really are not necessary and contribute to this kind of
overconsumption and consumerism that is affecting our province and our society.
I think I could not emphasize enough though the way that
the government has turned to bringing in legislation that is retroactive. This is just one of a series of bills that
the government has introduced this session which is not respecting our
parliamentary system here, which is not respecting
We are seeing this also with the social allowance
changes. We are seeing it with the Manitoba Intercultural Council bill, and we
are seeing it with Sunday shopping where they are ignoring the existing
legislation and they are withdrawing funds or changing funding without having
it debated in this House before those changes are made and without having the
public given the opportunity to make representation about their thoughts and
their opinions about the government's actions that will show the government the
effect. That is not a good trend. That is not the kind of direction we want to
see a democratically elected government go.
We would want to see more accountability, not less accountability. We would want to see them respect the
responsibility that they have to be accountable to the people in
So with that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that there
are a number of very good reasons for opposing this legislation. There are a number of very valid concerns
about the legislation, the way that it has been handled, the effect that it is
going to have on our economy and our communities. I hope that the government is still open to
considering the serious consequences of the legislation. I hope that the trial period ending in
October will indeed be just a trial period and that they have some mechanism in
place to evaluate the effects of open Sunday shopping and that they will be
accountable with that study and evaluation and that we will, indeed, have some
fair consideration of the comments that are going to be made at the hearings
and the comments that a variety of members have made in the House. I know that I am sure that the number of
rural members across the way are hearing strong opposition from their elected
municipal officials and residents in their communities. I would just hope that they would listen to
those recommendations and those appeals because I think we do have to look at
economic policy not just in a bottom‑line fashion. It is not just about balancing the books. We
have to look at how our economic policy is affecting our larger community and
society and how it is affecting our culture.
With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you, and I will
end my remarks.
* (1130)
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased today to rise on Bill 23, because I
think it is appropriate timing because this is a long weekend, and this is
usually the weekend that families gather together and either go camping or take
a day and go on a nice family picnic. If
you look at this bill that is being brought before us here, that is exactly
what it is addressing is what is happening to families. What happens to
families that have teenage sons or daughters who will have to work this Sunday,
that if they do not, their hours will be cut back, and the family will likely
go camping or on their picnic without one or two family members.
That is one of the problems with this is that it has
taken away from the whole value system of a structured family. We all know that with our schedules almost
every family unit in Manitoba, with the hectic schedules that we all lead in
this day and age, you work all day, you come home, you have supper and either
you are visiting with friends or relaxing and reading and then your teenage
children are away with their friends and doing their own sporting activities or
drama or whatever have you. When you have a long weekend, and if you have the
opportunity to go camping with your family, you are all together, you share
ideas, you share concerns and you get a chance to talk to your children and
they get a chance to talk to you in a more relaxed and fun atmosphere.
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, if a child has a part‑time
job at SuperValu, Canadian Tire, Safeway, what have you, and if they are asked
to work on Sunday, you know that they pretty well have to say yes, because the
more times you say no the less hours you will have. That is what will happen. When we talk about this legislation
stimulating the economy, bringing more businesses into
When I was looking at the bill and I saw in the bill
where it said that this also will fall under communities that are part of the
Northern Affairs jurisdictions, I almost laughed when I saw this, because in my
experience in northern
When they brought this forward I do not know what the
government was thinking about, because the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr.
Downey) has been in a lot of those communities.
He will tell you that there are no big stores there. The biggest store you have in a community is
a
If you take a look at your other rural communities that
choose to be open on Sundays, if they choose to, with this current legislation
they are not in competition with Winnipeg Eaton's store,
What you have in the rural communities and in northern
communities is mostly family‑operated businesses. Now what this government is saying is that we
want you now to work seven days a week, because most of those businesses are
operated by a family member with very little outside help. How can you expect people to continually work
seven days every week and to have an adequate family lifestyle? I think it is ludicrous. I think it is doing more harm to our rural
communities and to our northern communities than this government ever thought
of.
If the rural members were able to check in their own
communities and ask their mom‑and‑pop operators and their
businesses in their communities, they would not get all the support that they
figure they have, because that is going to have a direct impact. It is going to take away from some of the
businesses the dollars that they bring in to barely make it from year to year
to year.
What will happen?
We will have more little businesses that are adequately feeding the
family, looking after the family's needs forced to close. That is very scary, because a lot of those
small communities, if those businesses that are run by the individual family
members are forced to close, there is very little opportunity for employment
elsewhere.
We talk about, this will stimulate the economy. How can you stimulate the economy if you are
implementing taxes. They say, no taxes,
but it is taxes. When they talk about,
they have more disposable dollars, we have a senior, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
is now forced to pay a minimum $75 on their property taxes. That $75 would have probably gone to purchase
something from one of those stores.
Well, that is being taken away.
How are you stimulating the economy by all these cuts?
An Honourable Member: George, what does
this have to do with Sunday shopping?
Mr. Hickes: The reason you want
Sunday shopping is that it will create more businesses for the businesses to
stay open on Sunday. You can stay open
all you want. If the customers do not
have disposable dollars, how can they go to the stores to purchase their goods? That is the point. It is a very serious point, because when you
have taxes on baby foods that will drastically affect single mothers, that the
family of that single mother will now have to pay for disposable diapers and
baby food and even school supplies. So
when you take that amount of dollars away from most single women who do work in
retail businesses, when you are taking those expendable dollars away, how can
you be bringing more businesses to the big companies that this bill is trying
to assist? It does not work. If you do not have the dollars, you cannot
spend it. It is as simple as that.
Also, when you look at businesses opening on Sundays full
scale, the majority of the people working in those businesses are women and the
majority of them are single parents. You
are telling these single parents to work on Sundays, but is there adequate
daycare available for these single mothers?
Has that been addressed? Has that
been looked at? I do not think so. I think this was an idea that was ill thought
out and was not really implemented properly, because we had a very adequate
bill. You were allowed four employees.
So if you were going to go to SuperValu, Safeway,
Canadian Tire, Eaton's, The Bay downtown, most of your consumers thought twice,
because they knew that if you go there, you are going to have the hassle of a
long lineup with very little help. So
what did the people do? They would go to
your corner grocery stores or your corner stores if they were open. Some are open 24 hours a day, seven days a
week, but those are small operations, where if you look at your multinational
corporations, your multinational stores and stuff, the volume of goods that
they trade through, they are bringing in businesses about $500 per hour per
employee. Your mom and pop operations
and your corner grocery stores and your small family businesses, they would be
very fortunate and happy to do $50 per hour per employee. So who is this really helping? Is this helping the independent small grocery
stores, independent family businesses?
It is taking away from those types of businesses that relied mostly on
their ability to generate revenues on the weekends and evenings.
* (1140)
Also, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) should be very
aware of this. It says in this bill that
you have the right to refuse to work on Sunday.
That is good to see that printed here, but how effective is that going
to be if you know that the businesses are the ones that control the number of
hours that each employee works. So if
you are a business person and if you ask an individual to work on Sundays over
and over and they keep refusing, normally what will happen is that there will
be some reason found so either that individual will be dismissed or that
individual's hours will be cut back. We
have seen that with various students who have had the opportunity to work in
small restaurants or in fast‑food places.
Any time that they refused hours too many times, their hours were cut
right back. That is what is going to
happen.
You cannot fault a single mother that wants to have a
Sunday with her family. You cannot fault
that, because as long as I can remember most Sundays have always been for
family times. Even in my own life, I
attend functions on Sundays when I am invited, but most of the time my family
comes with me. That is our time
together. This weekend we are hoping to
get away for the weekend. Our family is
all going. We are all going to have a
chance to be together. My son, because
of the nature of our work and of the hours that we all put in, the late hours
and the weekends‑‑I would like to spend more time with my son, but
it is very, very difficult. So Sundays
are usually our family time. So if I was employed at a retail outlet, and if I
was forced to work on a Sunday, that would be taken away.
Like, we have the opportunity here where we can take our
family with us to functions and gatherings and meeting people, but it is
impossible for a person working in a retail outlet or a restaurant or fast‑food
place to take their children to work with them.
That would not go over too well, I would not imagine. So those are the kinds of things that we are
removing from families, we are taking away from families, and I would really,
really like to hear the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) when he
speaks on this bill. Because, like I
mentioned earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot see how this has any impact
on any northern community, on any Northern Affairs community. I do not know, you go to
When the minister has the opportunity to speak, I will be
listening carefully, because I cannot see it.
In the community where I grew up, in the community furthest north in
I wonder where the members from the rural communities are
on this issue, because I cannot see how they could stand up and support this
bill when it is going to affect their own constituents. It will have a drastic impact on their own
constituents.
If you open the multinational stores in
What kind of an impact is it going to have on those
communities? It cannot be positive,
because a lot of those communities that I am referring to are, what, an hour's
drive from here? So families will come
to
Sure it might benefit some of the big multinational
stores here in
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
Is that the whole idea of this bill, to see how many
small retail outlets in rural
You talk to your chamber of commerce in
When they say that it is going to have a negative impact,
how is it going to be positive for the community of
The meeting of the municipalities was a resolution
brought forward not to support this bill.
That is from the rural communities.
That is from the mayors and the councils of those communities. That is not me saying that. That is the mayors and the communities. The mayors and the communities have stated
very clearly, we do not support this because it is going to have a negative
impact on our community businesses.
If you do have those hard‑earned and in a lot of
cases few expendable dollars in those communities that need those dollars to
stay in their communities to survive, being brought out to the big city of
* (1150)
Well, you are talking about tax bills, you know, like
hundreds. The reason I raised that
question today was exactly to do with tax bills, because I have got hundreds
and hundreds of calls from seniors. They
are saying that our taxes have gone up on their property and those dollars that
I am spending now to pay the increases on my property taxes could have been
spent probably at Metro Meats or one of the small corner stores, where a lot of
seniors will go and buy their milk and bread.
A lot of seniors really do not want to take a lot of long trips. They might come uptown on a very few
occasions, but most of their shopping for their milk and bread and stuff is
usually done at corner grocery stores.
So when you look at the impact this bill has on small
businesses, I do not care what anybody says, it is not positive. It is
regressive for those communities, those small businesses, and even the impact
it has on workers. A lot of your retail
outlets that employ part‑time workers are usually from universities or
colleges or high‑school students.
A lot of our teenage family members get the opportunity to work at these
stores and stuff, which is great. I have
nothing against it; I think it is a good idea.
But if we start increasing the number of hours that are open, we are
increasing the number of hours that those children are being away from their
families.
An Honourable Member: They need the money.
Mr. Hickes: Well, sure, they need
the money. We all know that. We also
need family lives, and we talk about this bill saying that we will not force
people to work on Sundays. When you
force people to work on Sundays, that is exactly what you are doing.
They say, well, more people will spend more money
shopping on a Sunday. I think what you
might find in a lot of cases is that same dollar is stretched over a longer
period of time. A lot of times that same
amount of dollars a family spends shopping, whether Sunday is included or not,
will be very, very similar because a lot of families only have so many dollars
available to purchase goods and that is it.
Once you take away the rent and utilities and car
payments and your mortgage, you only have so many expendable dollars. So I do not believe there is going to be a
big rush to purchase appliances and furniture and everything and it is going to
only be done on a Sunday. I do not think
so. I think if a family needs appliances
and have the money to purchase it, it could be purchased either on a Monday
evening, Tuesday or a Friday or even a Saturday. So I do not think that is going to increase
businesses that much.
I know from the meetings my colleague from Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie) had pertaining to this, and the letters we all received from
communities, mayors and councils in opposition to this bill, that the rural
communities are not being listened to.
The rural communities will not have a chance to be heard, and that is
what they want. So that way, when a
member states that my community, I have not heard anything negative and you are
wrong in your statement, well, let the mayors and councils of those communities
have the opportunity to be heard. They
are the ones who are making these statements that this is going to be
regressive and it is going to be very disruptive for families and also it will
not benefit the rural small business people.
That is the letters that we have received from mayors and councils
throughout
So let them have the opportunity to be heard. I think it is only fair. We are having a standing committee here in
Even if you are an MLA for that community, the mayor and
councils are the ultimate individuals who have the responsibility for progress
in those communities. When you have a
lot of small communities, it is the mayors and councils that decide what by‑laws
will be implemented, what by‑laws will be brought in, what by‑laws
will be changed. It is not the MLAs that
do that. So I think that it is only fair that those mayors and councils from
those rural communities are able to have the chance to be heard. I think they would welcome that. They would welcome it.
The only way they will be heard is if they come to
Why is this government afraid to go out into the
communities? Why?
An Honourable Member: George, did you ever
hunt whale on a Sunday?
Mr. Hickes: Oh, any day will do,
as long as you are around. [interjection]
Paul McCartney would be very proud me.
Anyway, when you have community leaders that are writing
letters to us, and my colleague the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) can
verify that he has received hundreds of letters, hundreds of letters from those
communities, why not give them the opportunity to state their case. Maybe they will all come out and support
this. I do not know. Maybe they will. Let them have the opportunity to be
heard. Even the impact in northern
An Honourable Member: 50‑some cents.
Mr. Hickes: 50‑some cents‑‑on
a stamp. Write a letter.
I am glad that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik)
stated this, because it shows the knowledge that he has of a lot of these northern
remote communities. A lot of the
individuals cannot read or write English, so what are you going to do? Are they going to write a letter in their own
syllabics? Who is going to read it? That is a very ill‑thought‑out
comment.
A lot of the meetings that are conducted in northern
* (1200)
An Honourable Member: George, if it is so
hard for them to get to
Mr. Hickes: Well, some people
will come here. The member for
The ones who can afford to come to
When a lot of the people come to the city from the rural
communities, they will be buying suits, they will be buying clothes, they will
be buying appliances because they might save a few dollars. They have the expendable dollars for these
goods. That is taken away from the opportunity of that hardware store in Gimli
or Beausejour to make a few dollars from that individual that has the
expendable dollars to buy even a new colour TV. They could have purchased it in
Beausejour or Gimli or whatever. Yes, they might come to
I am glad he raised that point. It was an excellent point. That is exactly
the kind of thing that will happen. That
is who will be coming to
When you have basic needs, a lot of those goods are
needed by the families and they will purchase them Monday to Saturday. Sure,
they might purchase them on a Sunday, but most of the time that is not the
shoppers that‑‑I have not been to a store on Sunday, but if you go
to the stores, you go to Brick's, hardware or furniture places, the appliance
places, the car dealerships, you know, and that is the time those people who
have the expendable dollars come to the city for big purchases.
No wonder Eaton's or The Bay make about $500 per hour per
employee, no wonder, because those are expendable dollars. The small corner grocery store, if you make
$50 per hour per employee they are very happy, and that is about what they
average.
So, do we really want to take that opportunity away? I do not believe we should.
The other thing is, when you talk about this whole bill,
you know, we talk about leadership here.
If the government has so much confidence and so much faith in this bill,
why are they now saying, well, no, we will not impose it on people? We will let the communities, by community,
make up their own minds. If they want to
have Sunday shopping they can, if they do not they do not have to. If there is so much confidence in this and so
much support from the rural communities and the northern communities, why a big
turnaround? What happened? I do not know.
When the bill was first introduced I thought that the
government had the support of the rural communities and northern communities
and citizens and the small business operators and the chambers of commerce, the
mayors and the councils of those communities and the chief and councils of
those northern communities. That is why
they brought that bill in. I thought
they had checked it out and maybe had some discussions over the phone or the
rural members had meetings in their own constituencies, in their own
communities and that the community had supported it. Then a few months later we see a whole
switch. It says, no, no, we are not
going to impose this. Let the
municipalities make up their own mind.
So is that leadership? You know,
if you are going to be a leader, take some onuses and lead if you really
believe that strongly about it.
We talk about creating more jobs, but the government
misses the whole point. The highest
number of jobs that are created right across
I will give you a good example. I just heard a member say, what about the
Jobs Fund? I will give you an example
about the‑‑
An Honourable Member: This is an antijobs
fund.
Mr. Hickes: I will give you an
example‑‑this is an antijobs fund.
But they said, what about the Jobs Fund?
I will tell you something about my experiences with the Jobs Fund under
our government which we introduced. It
was called the Northern Youth Corps, Northern Jobs Fund. People say, well, it created opportunities
for cleaning up streets. What this
government fails to recognize is that those Jobs Fund jobs were the only, only
opportunity for a lot of aboriginal youth in
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
Under the Jobs Fund, you can go to almost any northern
community under the Progressive Conservatives at that time and under the NDP,
you found a lot of youth that were working.
Under the Jobs Fund, they even had recreation opportunities. They had northern swim programs, and it
employed a lot of the northern youth that do not have the opportunity now. So when they talk about the Jobs Fund, I am
very happy to talk about the Jobs Fund because I saw it first hand where the
northern aboriginal youth had opportunities.
If you go to those communities, there are not hundreds of
restaurants, hundreds of stores that these youth can have the opportunity to
make a few dollars over the summer either for their spending money or to buy a
few nice clothes and stuff like that.
That is a fact, and if you know anything about northern
If you look at the escalation of those community
problems, you will see, yes, there is more vandalism; yes, there are more
sniffing problems; yes, there are more children creating problems in those
communities. Before, their time used to
be occupied in a very, very healthy way.
That has been taken away because of the cancellation of the Jobs
Fund. If you asked any northern leader,
they will state exactly what I am telling you now. So that Jobs Fund, you can knock it all you
want, but I have seen the positive benefits it has impacted on northern
* (1210)
Anyway, getting back to this bill here. I think it is only right to have the rural
communities heard, and it is only right to have at least one hearing in
northern
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Acting
Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak to Bill 23, the government's second
version of this bill, the second attempt at dealing with this issue and that
seems to be indicative of this government.
It sort of reminds me of someone on the road without a road map. I do not think this government or anybody in
it has a clue of where they plan to be in the next couple of years.
I think that what we have over there is essentially a
caucus in crisis. They have members
defecting on them to the federal area.
We have another member who may be going to the Senate very soon, and I
have always suspected, we have always known that Brian Mulroney was not a fan
of this Premier (Mr. Filmon), and I think he may be showing it now. He may be having the last laugh here as he
sinks the
Mind you, one never knows where and when and how history
will unfold. We certainly have some
experience in that area ourselves, Mr. Acting Speaker, so it is certainly
reasonable to expect that a similar type of fate could befall the caucus
opposite. We look with some degree of
interest on what is happening over there in the caucus.
The Rubik's Cube, I guess, is one way of describing the
Conservative caucus. From day to day, we
see it take on different forms.
This particular bill, when it was announced the second
time, appeared to some to be a cute way out of a problem that the Conservatives
were having. I think upon looking at the
bill that what the bill purports to do is turn over the question of Sunday
shopping to the municipalities to sort out.
That may have temporarily solved the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the
government's problems in this regard, but I think it is only a very, very
temporary solution, because what I see here is essentially a blueprint of the
Balkans. What we will have will be
jurisdictions within the province bordering one another, one having one policy
on Sunday shopping and another having another.
I recall a few years ago, I believe it was outside the
town of
What we may have here will be little development zones
sort of similar to the Maquiladora in
That in effect is what is happening. This provincial government was elected to
make decisions on behalf of the people of Manitoba and, by shirking its
responsibilities, by turning its responsibilities over to the municipalities,
who by the way do not want that responsibility, they will essentially in the
end create this patchwork quilt which nobody in the province will be happy with
in the long run. So at the end of day, I
think they will regret having taken this road.
Mr. Acting Speaker, there are many, many arguments that
have been put forward by members in this Chamber supporting both sides of this
question, and our particular side has brought forward arguments which are
opposing Sunday shopping.
I might say that I was one of the MLAs who did a survey
of his constituents on the question of Sunday shopping, and I can tell you that
by far the majority of my constituents who responded are opposed to the idea of
Sunday shopping.
The Liberal Party, on the other hand‑‑I think
there are 15 sleeps until the convention and then it is a permanent sleep after
that. The leadership hopefuls are not in
our midst at the moment, and I was kind of hoping they would be. It took an awful long time for me to tell
them that there are no delegates here. It took literally weeks and weeks and
weeks. Finally I see they have taken the
advice and headed for the hills in search of delegates.
That leadership race is getting I guess a little heated
up now while the delegates are out there.
The point is that the Liberal Party, its little caucus of seven, could
not come up with a consistent policy on the question of Sunday shopping. I believe the Leader, the member for
I do not hold out a lot of hope for the political
longevity of the Liberal Party in this province. As a matter of fact, I am not even certain
that they will run into the next election with four members. There is no question of having four members
out of the next election. The question
is, will they have four members going into the next election.
Having dealt with the Liberal Party, I think we have to
get back to the serious question here of dealing with this government and its
fundamental instabilities that we see across the way. I believe that the caucus of this government,
before it came to a conclusion as to how to deal with the Sunday shopping
question, had some serious problems that it had to face within its own ranks.
I see members opposite here who must have had a very
difficult time in caucus agreeing to and then toeing the line and going on with
what is essentially a very destructive move to businesses in their own
constituencies, because the small businesses in the small towns are the ones
that are going to suffer by this move that the government is making. The businesses that are going to benefit by
this move are the businesses in the big towns, the big cities like
I will tell you, it is no accident that the Chamber of
Commerce in
Another observation that I have is that the government
brought in an initial bill to allow for a trial period. There were many problems that we pointed out
associated with that. It seems to me
that at the end of the day one could not draw a conclusion as to whether this
Sunday shopping experiment had been, indeed, successful. We had companies such as Advance TV in
One would have thought, because of the hype and the
buildup that the Sunday shopping bill got, that the malls would have been
filled with people. What we saw,
particularly going into January and February, was that retailers were being
open, retailers were suffering through the increased overheads of keeping staff
on Sunday and the sales were not there.
They were sitting all day and making little or no sales, and in fact the
sales they were making were sales that they would have made in other days of
the week.
* (1220)
Mr. Acting Speaker, it is not possible to have a better
retail sales picture in the province unless you are to increase the wealth of
the people and increase the disposable income of the people who are going to
spend money in the stores. If a person
has a minimum wage job or has a $10‑an‑hour job or earns $25,000 or
$30,000 a year, they still have only so much disposable income, and currently
they are spending their $10,000 or their $20,000 in the‑‑if you
look at the statistics in this country you will find that over the years people
have had a very easy time spending what they earn already. [interjection]
The member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) tells me he is
listening, and I am very pleased that the member and I can carry on this
dialogue in the House uninterrupted by the other members of the
Legislature. I understand I have the
rapt attention of a future senator and acting Minister of Natural Resources.
The point of the matter is that what we have seen in the
economic statistics in this country, Mr. Acting Speaker, is that people have
got themselves into such a tremendous debt load over the last few years that
they do not have the ability to spend themselves out of the recession.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau):
Order, please. The decorum is starting
to lack a little bit, gentlemen, if we could just bring it back in line. You all have an opportunity to join in this
debate at a future time, but at this time I would like to hear the honourable
member for Elmwood.
The honourable member for Elmwood, to continue, please.
Mr. Maloway: Thank you, Mr.
Acting Speaker. My point was that over
the last few years, if I might try to make it again, people have got themselves
collectively as a society into such a massive debt situation that in fact
people do not have the money to go out and spend more than they have even in
the five days or six days we had to spend.
So adding another day or another series of hours to the amount of time
that people can shop is doing nothing more than adding to the overheads of the
business community. I think the Manitoba
Chamber of Commerce can understand and can see that, and that is one of the
arguments that they use for not going to wide‑open Sunday shopping,
because people are just not able to spend.
If you increase people's disposable income, if you increase a person's
disposable income from $25,000 to $35,000, then consumer spending will
increase. But that is not happening and
particularly not with this government.
This government is driving this economy into the ground with its
taxation policies‑‑[interjection]
Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) is
attempting to get me riled up once again here, and I am not going to permit him
to do it.
I was thinking earlier this morning that mine might be
the last question that he takes as the dean of the House. I do not know that that will be the case or
not. He may have another question on
Monday or Tuesday. I am very pleased to
have been the member having first run into the member back in 1971 when he came
very close. Some would say he should
have won the leadership of the Conservative Party way back in those days. He lost a very close leadership race in his
day.
I do not know what kind of a Premier he would have
been. I am glad we did not stay around
to find out. I was supporting my leader
of the day and a very good Premier, Ed Schreyer. Nevertheless, the member was
elected here in 1966, and he suffered through that Conservative Party all those
years and all the things that they did to him, and I am sure he did a few
things to them, too. I am sure it all
evened out in the end, but he has had a good time.
As much as I do not think much of the Senate and Senators
and so on, I think that if anybody is to be appointed to the Senate out of that
caucus, I would think that he would be a very appropriate choice. If, in fact, the rumours are true, I really
do wish him well in
Mr. Acting Speaker, I realize I only have another two or
three minutes, and I do have certainly enough material here to finish up the
full 40 minutes. I know I will be
getting another 20 minutes in the next day, but I am being admonished by my
temporary House leader here that I must continue. I certainly intend to do that.
Mr. Acting Speaker, we have dealt partially with the
question of consumer spending, that the consumers do not have any more money to
spend. We have dealt with the whole
question of the silliness of turning this whole issue over to the
municipalities who are going to set up a patchwork quilt in this province. We now have to deal with an area that I get a
lot of response on and that is the area of rest for families, a day of rest.
Particularly, in my area I have a Mennonite Brethren
Institute there and I have a lot of people who are religiously inclined and who
are very concerned about this issue. I
have had people signing petitions up at Penner Foods on
I do not know that this particular bloc of voters are‑‑I
cannot guarantee that they will be voting for me in the next election. I would like to think so. I do not know that they are permanently
deserting the Conservative Party. It is
significant that this particular bloc of voters are very irritated, very irate
at this government right now. This
government is getting the heat from enormous amounts of people in their own
constituencies, in their rural areas, from the businesses in their areas who
are very concerned about what they are doing, and they seem unconcerned about
what this is going to do to the fabric of society and people's quality of
living.
It is not only their supporters. I dealt for a moment, Mr. Acting Speaker,
with their supporters, their support base.
I want to deal with people who do not identify themselves as
Conservative voters and the response I am getting from them. A lot of people are telling me that they are
already up to their ears in the rat race.
They have a job that they go to.
They have kids to take care of.
They are working full time as it is. To now have to work on Sundays‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau):
Order, please. When this matter
is again before the House the honourable member will have 20 minutes
remaining. As previously agreed, this
matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Kildonan.
This House now stands adjourned until Tuesday next at
1:30 p.m.