LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday, December 10,
1992
The House met at 1.30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Speaker: I have
reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Crescentwood (Ms.
Gray). It complies with the privileges
and the practices of the House, and it complies with the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read?
To the Legislature of the
WHEREAS each year smoke from stubble burning descends
upon the
WHEREAS the Parents Support Group of Children with Asthma
has long criticized the harmful effects of stubble burning; and
WHEREAS the smoke caused from stubble burning is not
healthy for the general public and tends to aggravate the problems of asthma
sufferers and people with chronic lung problems; and
WHEREAS alternative practices to stubble burning are
necessitated by the fact that the smoke can place some people in life‑threatening
situations; and
WHEREAS the 1987 Clean Environment Commission Report on
Public Hearings, "Investigation of Smoke Problems from Agriculture Crop
Residue and Peatland Burning," contained the recommendation that a review
of the crop residue burning situation be conducted in five years' time,
including a re‑examination of the necessity for legislated regulatory
control.
THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the
Legislative Assembly will urge the government of
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual
Report 1992 for the
Hon. James Downey (Minister responsible for and charged with
the administration of The Communities Economic Development Fund Act): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the
Communities Economic Development Fund Report for the year ended March 31, 1992.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister responsible for the
administration of The Crown Corporations Public Review and Accountability Act): Mr. Speaker, a number
of quarterly reports, many of which have been made public previously, so I am
formally tabling: the First Quarterly
Report of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission ending June 30, the Third
Quarterly Report of the
*
(1335)
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to
Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the
gallery, where we have with us this afternoon, 16 student council members from
the
Also this afternoon, we have twenty‑five students,
Grades 9 and 11, from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Health Care Facilities
Pediatric Bed Closures
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, last year I asked the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) a number of questions on the specific reductions in beds that were
contained within the government's planning, and the Premier refused to answer
the question. Subsequent to that, we
proposed a motion on the floor of the Estimates of the Department of
Health. Unfortunately, the government
defeated a motion to have the specific decisions of cuts that would be
juxtaposition to the so‑called reform in the reform package so that we
could have an intelligent debate about the so‑called plan of action. Unfortunately, the government defeated the
motion supported by the Liberals last May.
Subsequent to that‑‑[interjection] Do not be
touchy, do not be touchy. Subsequent to
that, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health announced some 34 bed closings for
children's services and that number has grown.
Our information is that there will be 17 consolidated new beds at the
Children's Hospital and that will be combined with cutbacks of 48 beds at St.
Boniface Hospital, between six to 10 beds at the
I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon): What is the government's impact study on the
number of beds that will be lost to children in the city of
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my honourable
friend's sudden interest in this issue.
Let me indicate to my honourable friend that some of the
information he is putting on the record is accurate information, but let me
give my honourable friend some background as to how we have been working to
arrive at these kinds of decisions which are system‑wide in their nature,
not driven by individual hospital's desires, et cetera, but rather driven
across policies that apply across the system which delivers health care to a
little over one million people in
First of all, my honourable friend would be interested in
knowing that at St. Boniface Hospital, a number of beds were to be retired and
an Urban Hospital Council decision based on recommendations from October of
1991 have further, Mr. Speaker, led to the consolidation of children's
pediatric beds and services at Children's Hospital. The reason for that‑‑and St.
Boniface I will deal with directly since my honourable friend raised it‑‑is
because at St. Boniface Hospital the occupancy rate of those 48 pediatric beds
was approximately 35 percent. So I think
it is easy to see that there were probably in excess of 30 empty beds for
pediatric service at St. Boniface.
At the same time, Sir, we had Children's Hospital, which
has been in operation for some 10 years as a centre for excellence for
pediatric care, to care for the children of
*
(1340)
Mr. Doer: Mr.
Speaker, this is the problem in this debate.
We had announcements last May; we had asked for specific information
last June; we asked for specific information from the Premier (Mr. Filmon) last
year, who would not give us that information.
I do not know whether this is a government‑wide
initiative led by cabinet or just the Minister of Health, because we cannot get
any answers from the Premier, just the same way as it happened in
We want to know what the overall picture is and what the
impact is going to be, because we have a lot of people at the line level, a lot
of volunteers at the line level who are worried about the impact on children of
the consolidation of 17 beds at the Health Sciences Centre being opened and
some 67 beds being closed for a net reduction of 50 beds in the system. If those numbers are wrong, we would have
asked the minister to provide those before to us so we could operate out of the
same set of figures that he must have somewhere in his files.
Mr. Speaker, how can the government make an announcement
two or three weeks ago and have the numbers change so radically three weeks
later? Is it a result of the budget
decisions that are trickling down into the health facilities, and what impact
will this have on the children of
Mr. Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, my honourable friend touched on the issue of how these changes will be
able to meet the medical needs of children in the province. That is exactly what we have been dealing
with with the Urban Hospital Council and professionals across the health care
system to assure that decisions made will provide good quality health care for
those children in
My honourable friend should understand that while St.
Boniface's pediatric unit was occupied at approximately 35 percent, the
Children's Hospital was being utilized, bearing in mind 11 beds that have never
been brought into service, six beds that were not used currently at Health
Sciences Centre Children's Hospital, the occupancy rate was under 70 percent,
69.5 percent, to be exact.
Mr. Speaker, with the commissioning of the additional
beds, we are able to provide the services to children from St. Boniface, from
Misericordia, from Grace and from the other hospitals and only have, Sir, an
occupancy rate based on past experience of 79 percent at Children's
Hospital. We can assure those kinds of
needs for services to children will be met in the new configuration and what
better place than‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please.
Mr. Doer: There
are people and volunteers at the line level who believe that this reduction of 50
beds for children will have a profound impact, a negative impact, on the health
services available for our children in the province, so we ask the minister to
table his studies on this, because his numbers keep changing from his own press
conference three weeks ago to our questions that our Health critic asked two
weeks ago. They keep changing and
changing.
A further question to the Minister of Health, and we are
trying to be as accurate as we get from the community, Mr. Speaker, because the
minister will not table his material: We
have been informed that the children's rehab centre, which had 20 beds, have
had those beds closed, the beds that are for residential beds for children
needing rehabilitation, and that they are going to change those 20 beds into
day programs. We have been further
informed that there has been no financial decisions made by the government
about funding those day beds in terms of those children.
Has the minister got the impact study of what those
additional 20 beds lost to the system will mean, and what impact will it be on
children in terms of the day program? Is
there funding in place for all those people in terms of those children who
could be adversely affected again by the changing numbers that we keep getting
from the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), we think, more on the basis of
cutbacks than on the basis of reform?
Mr. Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, again my honourable friend does not seem willing or able to
acknowledge that with the consolidation of pediatric programs from all of the
hospitals currently providing that service, with significantly underutilized
pediatric wards in all of the hospitals‑‑35 percent utilization at
St. Boniface‑‑even with that consolidation to Children's Hospital,
the occupancy rate will be 79 percent.
That is sufficient capacity in one institution, which is our centre for
excellence for children's health care.
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend uses the concerns of
volunteers. Maybe my honourable friend
should carefully consider the statement of the acting director of Children's
Hospital who said: Children's health
care will be met at Children's Hospital, and all the needs will be met there
because they have the expertise, the ability and the capacity.
Now, let me deal with children's rehab centre. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the occupancy rate there
was approximately 15 percent; in other words, of 20 beds, there may have been
two, three or four occupied at any given time.
Sir, those services again for inpatient can be provided with the
existing capacity at Children's Hospital.
Surely my honourable friend would not argue against the
enhancement of outpatient services, community‑based services out of the
rehab hospital. That is health care
reform.
*
(1345)
Mental Health Care
System
Community‑Based
Services
Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis (
I would like to ask the minister if he will be totally
forthcoming with the people in this Legislature and outside the Legislature
about the exact number of beds being cut from
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, if my honourable friend had been
present at the official opening today of the psych health building, she would
have heard from myself, as well as from officials there, that the new building
is very much a part of community mental health services because, Sir, part of
the regime of care at the new psych health building is office and central
location for 13 workers delivering community mental health services in the core
area based out of that facility and working in the community, Sir.
In addition to that, Sir, that facility provides
inpatient care for adults, for adolescents, forensic care and teaching roles
which were not able to be adequately delivered in the old facilities.
In addition to that, Sir, there is provision for space
for a mobile crisis team, community‑oriented mental health service to
deliver care in the community.
In addition to that, Sir, I will provide more information
after the next question.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: What the
minister has just said is shocking and appalling. He is saying community‑based services
are going to be housed in an institution.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard), since all the research in the field shows that it is absolutely
imperative for community‑based services to be in the community,
accessible to people and not in threatening institutions, will he give this
House assurances today that any community‑based alternatives he is
developing, and goodness knows we are desperately anxious to see some details,
will he assure us that those services will not be housed in the new psych
health services building?
Mr. Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, I am absolutely astounded at my honourable friend's lack of
knowledge. My honourable friend is
saying that community mental health workers working with citizens in the core
area do not need a base to operate from.
Are they expected to operate from a corner of the street? No, they need office space, and, Sir, that
office space is part of‑‑[interjection] Well, my honourable friend
says they do not. Well, maybe that is her idea of how you provide services,
that you do not have a home base to operate out of.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the community support groups,
the support group of manic depression, of schizophrenia would be very, very
offended by my honourable friend's comment that they should not be part of the
psych health building, because again, as consumer support groups, both of those
groups are going to have offices in psych health to help the people who are
there become part of the community again in must faster order.
My honourable friend's comments would offend those
organizations who are‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please.
*
(1350)
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr.
Speaker, the minister has recommendations on his‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member for
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Let me ask
the minister once more if he will tell us and the people of
Mr. Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, let me deal with two of the issues my honourable friend has
raised. I hope to be able to provide her
with some comfort in these answers.
Mr. Speaker, I think it was in June of this year that we
accepted the Urban Hospital Council recommendation to replace the inpatient
services at
Subsequent to that, in terms of the first phase of the
reform document‑‑and here I will have to stand corrected on the
number, but I believe St. Boniface Hospital has indicated that they would take
from service 24 of their psychiatric beds.
Mr. Speaker, we have agreed with that.
Mr. Speaker, none of those beds have been taken out of
service as we speak. When they are taken
out of services, the range of community supported alternatives will be in
place, like mobile crisis team, housed in the new psych health building, like
community mental health workers, 13 of whom will be home based out of the psych
health, like additional funding to our self‑help groups that we announced
some six weeks ago, much to the light of those self‑help groups.
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please.
MATTER OF PRIVILEGE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
Mr. Speaker, today and in the past we have consistently
been confronted with a minister who will not provide the same information to
elected members here in this House as he is willing to provide to some groups
and individuals outside of this House.
We have heard examples today with respect to pediatrics. Today, I have
asked very specific questions about information pertaining to bed closures and
details of alternative plans.
Mr. Speaker, I will table as evidence, in making this
motion of the minister's disregard for the rights and privileges of members in
this House and his callous treatment of our democratic principles, I will table
material that his department has been circulating among select groups in our
communities about the psychiatric bed closures, clearly spelling out the exact
numbers of beds being closed at St. Boniface, at Misericordia and at Grace, and
that number totals 60. It is our concern‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: This is
not a question of unsatisfactory answers.
This is a question of privileges of members in this House being denied
and our democratic principles eroded.
I would, therefore, like to move that the matter of
discrepancies and the matter of withholding of information that is available to
the public and provided to the public by the Minister of Health is dealt with,
that the breach of our privileges is considered in this regard and that the
matter in fact be dealt with by the Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I refer you to Beauchesne's 415
which says, "A question of privilege or point of order raised during the
Question Period ought to be taken up after the Question Period, unless the
Speaker considers it to be an extremely grave matter."
I also refer to Beauchesne's Rule 416 (1) which says,
"A Minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason
for refusing, and insistence on an answer is out of order, with no debate being
allowed." This is the key
point. "A refusal to answer cannot
be raised as a question of privilege."
Mr. Speaker, this is totally out of order. You cannot even listen to a request for
privilege in a case like this. It is out
of order at this time.
*
(1355)
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, the government House leader
should perhaps also be aware that Beauchesne's is very clear that a question of
privilege must be brought to the attention of the House at the first possible
opportunity. That is Beauchesne's
Citation 115.
We have had matters of privilege raised in this House,
Mr. Speaker, prior to Question Period, during Question Period and after
Question Period, so that in and of itself is hardly sufficient to negate a
matter of privilege.
Also, I would point out to the member that it is not a
question‑‑and also to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), who seems to wish
also to act as Speaker at times in this House‑‑that the matter she
raised was not in regard to inadequate answers.
We know on this side, we would be up on a daily basis if we were able to
raise matters of privilege in terms of inadequate answers, particularly from
the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard).
What she raised as a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I
think is very indicative of the increasingly arrogant attitude of this
government in providing information outside of this House and refusing to
provide that information to members of this House including when that
information is asked for in Question Period. The member for
I say, Mr. Speaker, your ruling as to whether this is a prima
facie case of privilege, I think you should address the question of what role
this Legislature plays when one has a government that is so arrogant they will
not provide information on fundamental important public issues such as health
to members of the opposition. That
should be a matter of privilege.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne's and through the
rules we will see that interference of any kind with the official duties are
breaches of privilege of any member. I
think it is primarily your responsibility to ensure that in fact there was no
deliberate withholding of information that MLAs of this Chamber should have
had. One would like to believe all
ministers and members are honourable, that their intentions are good and that
information that is necessary for all of us to be able to have in a very open
process, that we should do away with the games playing.
It is more important that this information, because it is
in fact a privilege that we do have inside this Chamber, is provided for us, so
my opinion, Mr. Speaker, given the seriousness of this particular matter of
privilege, is that you take it under advisement and come back with whether or
not you believe that this is in fact a deliberate withholding of information
that in fact MLAs would be entitled to.
Mr. Speaker: I would
like to thank all honourable members for their advice on this matter. Indeed, as I have done in the past, I will
take this matter under advisement, consult with the authorities and come back
to the House with a ruling.
Health Care System
Information Release
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Health.
Mr. Speaker, the health action plan has the right goals,
but a flawed process can undermine even the best intentions. The normal newsletter of the MMA reports of a
meeting between the MMA and the Deputy Minister of Health. It reports that the Deputy Minister told the
MMA that the government has various studies which will outline the number of
bed closures, but these studies will not all be released to the public and the
physicians.
Mr. Speaker, we want the health action plan to succeed.
People are concerned, but we want the minister to tell us why, when the beds
are being closed, the information is not being made public.
*
(1400)
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Well, Mr. Speaker, the information is being
made public. That is why we had, first
of all, the action plan which identified a number of beds which were going to
be closed to two teaching hospitals.
Subsequent to that, last month, we identified the nature of 264 of those
beds in a very open process. In addition
to that, in approximately May of this year, we indicated to the House that we
were accepting the Urban Hospital Council recommendation, for instance, on the
closure of the psychiatric beds at Misericordia and replacement with community‑based
services.
That is the question my honourable friends have been
asking me, and every step of the way, we have been providing them with as much
advanced notice on decisions around bed closures and refocusing of the services
as we can. That was the process a month
ago. The process yesterday was on the
complete consolidation of pediatrics.
Mr. Speaker, there are no hidden agendas when we have the
information that we can share with integrity, when we are assured that we are
going to be able to deliver those services adequately in the system in a
reconfigured bed structure, community service alignment structure. We make the announcements and announce the
intentions to retire from service certain beds.
That has been the most open process in
Pediatric Bed Closures
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, we would like to believe that,
but that is not the case. It is a very
serious matter when the minister is saying the process is open when one of the
deputy ministers would go to a meeting and would tell them it is not open. It is a very serious matter. We want him to succeed, but people must know
how the services are going to be delivered.
Can the minister tell us how the services in the
Children's Hospital are going to be delivered as an outpatient as well as the
relocation of other resources when we are dislodging so many patients, which
everyone thinks is a good plan, but we must have the right answer to implement
that plan? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, on the specifics of the
pediatric beds, I simply want to give my honourable friend as much assurance
around this issue as I can because, Sir, you have to appreciate that this was a
topic that the Urban Hospital Council gave consideration to. Mid‑year last year, it was agreed that
there was an opportunity for consolidation of pediatric services to Children's
Hospital.
Subsequent to that, the CEOs and the caregivers have
analyzed the opportunity to consolidate to Children's Hospital. They believe that they can offer the quality
services in at least as fine a fashion as was currently provided at other
hospitals, entirely at one centre of excellence, namely, Children's
Hospital. That, in essence, is what the
acting director indicated in the media yesterday, because as the director of
that Children's Hospital facility, she has every confidence that they can meet
the children's in‑patient needs in children who have currently been
carried out in several other facilities.
That is why I accepted the recommendation.
Bed Closure
Protocol
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, many experts in the field are
not questioning the goals of the minister.
They simply want more information.
Mr. Speaker, one of the recommendations in the health
action plan was to put protocols in place six months prior to closing of
beds. Can the minister tell us today,
where are those protocols? At least,
patients should know what kind of services they are going to receive, where
they are going to go, and more importantly, people who are going to deliver
services have to know how they are going to be functioning.
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, let me deal with that in two
parts.
First of all, emergency services at hospitals will still
be able to provide emergency care to children if presenting at various
community hospitals, including the teaching hospital, St. Boniface. The only service that is being consolidated
to one centre of excellence is the in‑patient services, the actual
services that require the admission to an acute care bed.
Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence that the protocols
that have been used for admission across the system for children will serve the
admission needs of children in one centre of excellence, Children's
Hospital. We in fact, with that facility
can meet the longstanding goal of providing excellent service in one centre of
excellence, the Children's Hospital.
That is why it is the Children's Hospital‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please.
Pharmacare
Claim Deadline
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the honourable Minister
of Health, this Progressive Conservative government is like a hard master,
heartless and cruel, who likes to reap where its trod not, and who likes to
gather where he has trod not.
There are now a growing number of Manitobans, Mr.
Speaker, who found out too late that because of arbitrarily changing of the
rules on the filing of medicare, they have lost their refund claim of at least
$300,000.
I have with me a set of 12 letters from different
organizations which I would like to table, protesting this move.
My question is:
Will the honourable Minister of Health, in the face of this mounting
opposition, reconsider the rules about deadline of filing medicare claims?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, in, I think it was, late
December last year, I made the announcement that the deadline for filing of
April 30 would be a finite deadline.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that some Manitobans, for
whatever series of reasons, did not file before April 30. That is regrettable, but to revisit the issue
and to reopen that issue would be something I cannot consider now. I do not think the decision was an
unreasonable decision, because bear in mind that the Pharmacare receipts that
are needed to make the claim are in the individual's possession on December 31
of any given year. We have allowed four
full months, Sir, to make that application for refund, and we have urged
Manitobans to apply as soon as possible after December 31‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please.
Mr. Santos: Mr.
Speaker, we are all human.
Will the minister admit that he has made a wrong decision
and reverse this in the next fiscal year's budget, or at least will the
minister accept extreme illness or death in the family as reasons for
justifiable delay?
Mr. Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, I am compelled to indicate to my honourable friend that again every
receipt necessary to achieve a refund is in the individual's possession as of
the end of December of the filing year.
You know, we have made the provision of four months thereafter to make
the refund at their leisure, and we would fully reimburse the individuals.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer for circumstances of why
individuals were unable to meet that filing deadline four months into the next
year, after they have had the receipts.
Sir, it is with regret, but government has to have programs available to
all Manitobans with some consistency of approach, and with regret, I have to
say the decision is one that we will adhere to.
Mr. Santos: My final
supplementary, Mr. Speaker, will the honourable Minister of Health cease and
desist from being a willing agent of this cruel and heartless government in
imposing this confiscation of entire funds instead of just claiming some kind
of a late penalty?
Mr. Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, my honourable friend has really got me in a terrible box with that
question, because to even acknowledge the question, would admit to the
premise. There is no one other than
narrow‑minded New Democrats who would ever call this government cruel and
heartless.
*
(1410)
Education System
Funding Formula
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, the member for Pembina (Mr.
Orchard) should have been at Waskada last night. Some 300 people were
congregated in the
My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier now acknowledge that the
funding formula that this government has put in place is offloading education
costs on a continuing basis to school divisions, to property owners in
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, of course, the preamble by the
member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) is absolute nonsense. The goal of this
government is to have a fair and a reasonable funding formula. Fairness and reason were never
characteristics of the government that he was a part of, so I know that he
would have difficulty understanding that.
The funding formula has been hailed by people throughout
the province as providing‑‑
An Honourable Member: Name
them.
Mr. Filmon:
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please.
Mr. Filmon: ‑‑have
been hailed for bringing forward, not only a fair and a reasonable, but a
sensible way of funding for the public schools in
Mr. Speaker, if we continue to provide funding for the
public schools in excess of inflation, and they continue to spend well beyond
those levels, the reality is that they then have to face their taxpayers and
justify why they want to spend that money well over and above, not only
inflation, but well over and above the funding levels that are given by this
provincial government.
This provincial government has provided fairness and
equity that was never seen from the New Democrats when they were in government.
Mr. Storie: Mr.
Speaker, the only school divisions in the province of
Mr. Speaker, in the notice that was sent out to the
parents who attended the
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member for Flin
Flon (Mr. Storie), time is extremely scarce.
Put your question, please.
Mr. Storie: Mr.
Speaker, will the First Minister now acknowledge that this funding formula is
making property tax owners in every constituency in every school division pay
more, while this government continues to offload millions of dollars‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please.
Mr. Filmon: Mr.
Speaker, as usual, the member for Flin Flon is either ignorant or is
misrepresenting the facts, and in most cases, it is both. The reality is that this government has
continued to fund public schools in this province to more than the rate of
inflation increases. The reality is that
if school divisions want to insist on spending more than that, if they want to
go not only beyond inflation but beyond the increases beyond inflation that
they are given, that is a choice that they make. They then have to face their
own ratepayers in order to justify that choice.
Mr. Speaker, we have been fair, we have been reasonable,
we have been equitable, something that was never done by the former New
Democratic government.
Mr. Storie: Mr.
Speaker, the fact of the matter is and the Premier knows it, that increased
support to private schools‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member for Flin
Flon, kindly put your question, please.
Mr. Storie: My final
question to the First Minister: Will the
First Minister now, perhaps with the support of the Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey), call together a committee consisting of the Manitoba Association of
School Trustees, The Manitoba Teachers' Society, the Manitoba Association of
School Superintendents, to correct the flaws that are apparent in the school
funding formula that is going to increase property taxes in communities like
Waskada by 40 percent over the next two years?
Mr. Filmon: Mr.
Speaker, this government has consistently provided additional funding to public
schools over and above the rate of inflation.
This government has provided increases in health care, in education, in
family services, not only that exceed inflation, but indeed by substantial
amounts in many cases. As a result, in
this budget year, we are spending a greater portion of our budget on health,
education and family services than ever was spent by the New Democrats when
they were in office. They cannot argue
with those facts because they are true.
Workers Compensation
Board
Physiotherapy
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
I received a letter that causes a great deal of concern
for all of those injured workers in the province. As the minister is aware, there are
negotiations currently that are ongoing between Workers Compensation and the
private practice of physiotherapists.
There is a threat out there that they will stop treating Workers
Compensation patients if the dispute is in fact not resolved. The primary reason, from what I understand,
for this is because Workers Compensation is imposing that they pay a set fee
for a particular condition such as capitation.
Mr. Speaker, physiotherapists directing Workers
Compensation patients to the hospital is an alternative that they are looking
at. My question to the minister is: Will the minister report on the status of the
negotiations and tell us why the WCB is dictating to the physiotherapists without
enough opportunity for consultation?
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister responsible for and charged
with the administration of The Workers Compensation Act): Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the member
for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) that certainly the concern that he has about
provision of services is always one that I think the Workers Compensation
Board, their chair, the administration and certainly this government shares
with him.
But I would point out to him, when there are negotiations
going on between any agency, business or organization and the people from whom
they are purchasing services, there is always information that flows out, that
often opposition critics are used as a vehicle to intervene in those
negotiations.
I have great confidence in the board. I have great confidence in the new chair of
that board, Professor Wally Fox‑Decent, that the best interests of the
Workers Compensation Board and their claimants will be looked after. I think it is probably best not to become
involved in a public debate, which what is in essence a collective bargaining
situation, that is best settled at the bargaining table rather than in the
public realm.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr.
Speaker, if an agreement is not reached, you are going to have injured workers
who are going to be put in a situation where they have to go to the hospitals,
if this dispute is not resolved by the end of the month.
My question is to the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard): What arrangements has the
Department of Health made to accommodate this potential increased demand for
the services of physiotherapists working in the hospitals, given that by the
end of the month, there might not be any agreement within Workers Compensation
and there is already a current backlog in the hospitals?
Mr. Praznik: Mr.
Speaker, again I would point out to the member for
I would just suggest to him, in the interests of the
claimants of Workers Compensation, of the Workers Compensation system and in
the interests of collective bargaining, that those issues are being dealt with
by the board.
As I have indicated, I think members of this House should
have confidence in the chair of that board, Professor Wally Fox‑Decent,
to ensure that the claimants of the board are properly looked after, and yet
the interests of the board in their negotiations are not compromised by making
or taking issues and trying to create the public hype that fuels one side in
those negotiations.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr.
Speaker, there is a six‑month waiting list in order for an injured worker‑‑if
they are put in a situation of having to go into the hospital. That is in fact in the best interests of the
worker, that something is being done.
Mr. Speaker, my question then is, in the cases of
extended treatment, that the physiotherapists attempt to recover their fees
directly from the patients involved, that is one of the things that is at least
being talked about.
Can the minister give us some assurance that in fact the
worker will not have to pay for any potential fees from a physiotherapist
because of a change in system from this current board?
*
(1420)
Mr. Praznik: Mr.
Speaker, I can assure the honourable member that whatever entitlements under
The Workers Compensation Act that claimants are entitled to, they will be
provided.
Surely the member for
Those negotiations are going on. The board will ensure that the claimants
receive proper medical attention. If he
is suggesting to this House that the board should be instructed to write a
blank cheque, that would not be in the interests of anyone.
Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation
No-Fault Insurance
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
minister responsible for MPIC.
When this minister was in opposition, Mr. Speaker, he
left the impression with the public of
Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is, on behalf of
the people of
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration
of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which page of
which year the member is quoting from, but it has always been my position‑‑and
I hope that I have conveyed it consistently‑‑that I am prepared to
look at all aspects to make sure that we make insurance as reasonably priced
and as practical for the people of this province as much as possible.
The member for Brandon East knows full well that when we
have seen increases in the last three to four years that were as low as 2.5 and
varied in the 5 percent range, they were reasonable and practical results for
the people of the province. We are
seeing some very disturbing trends, however, this year.
Mr. Speaker: Time for
Oral Questions has expired.
Speaker's Ruling
Mr. Speaker: I have a
ruling for the House.
During Question Period on December 2, 1992, the honourable
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), in posing questions, alleged that the Premier
buckled: ". . . in to a lobby led
by insurance agents, spearheaded by his own Minister of Government Services
(Mr. Ducharme) . . ." and that the minister in question was taking credit
for doing so.
Subsequently, the Minister of Government Services rose on
a matter of privilege and moved that the member for Thompson produce any
evidence supporting these allegations or apologize. After receiving advice from
the House, I took the matter under advisement.
The honourable minister fulfilled the first condition of
privilege by raising the matter at the first available opportunity. As to the second condition, that of
establishing a prima facie case, I am ruling that this is not a matter of
privilege.
Privilege, as defined by the authority, Joseph Maingot in
his book, Parliamentary Privilege in
In Beauchesne, Citation 25, Speaker Fraser of the House
of Commons says that privilege is what sets honourable members apart from other
citizens giving them rights which the public does not possess; parliamentary
privilege does not go much beyond the right of free speech in the House of
Commons and the right of a member to discharge his or her duties in the House
as a member of the House.
Beauchesne, Citation 69 states, and I quote: "It is very important . . . to indicate
that something can be inflammatory, can be disagreeable, can even be offensive,
but it may not be a question of privilege unless the comment actually impinges
upon the ability of Members . . . to do their job properly." Privilege,
Maingot asserts, is concerned with the special rights of members in their
capacity as members in their parliamentary work, not in their capacity as
ministers or party leaders, whips or parliamentary secretaries. Therefore, allegations reflecting on the
conduct of a minister in the performance of his or her ministerial duties do
not come within the purview of parliamentary privilege.
Bourinot from the Fourth Edition at page 51 states and I
quote, "libels or reflections upon Members individually have also been
considered as breaches of privilege which may be censured or punished by the
House; but it is distinctly laid down by all the authorities that to constitute
a breach of privilege such libels must concern the character or conduct of
Members in (the) capacity" as MLAs in their parliamentary work as distinct
from a minister. To constitute privilege
there must be some improper obstruction of the member in performing his or her
parliamentary work in either a direct or constructive way.
However, Beauchesne Citation 481(f) stipulates that one
Member must not make a personal charge against another. As I indicated in my ruling on August 3,
1988, it is unparliamentary to make a personal charge against another
member. I am, therefore, ruling that the
words used by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) were unparliamentary and am
calling on him now to withdraw those words unequivocally.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I note that it is not a matter of
privilege according to your ruling. That
is unfortunate, in a way, because I would have had the opportunity to provide
further information to members in regard to matters that were raised. If you are saying that, indeed, any comments
that I have made were unparliamentary, I have always had one rule in this House
since I was elected in 1981 of 11 years, and if I have inadvertently ever used
any language in the past I have always withdrawn that language. If any of the words I used were
unparliamentary, I certainly would withdraw them and would certainly abide by
your ruling. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: I thank
the honourable member for Thompson.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
Mr. Jack Reimer (Niakwa):
Mr. Speaker, may I have permission to make a nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the
honourable member for Niakwa have leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
[agreed]
Mr. Reimer: Mr.
Speaker, today in the city of
December 10 is a significant day to launch the
declaration of the International Year of the World's Indigenous People because
today is also International Human Rights Day.
I think it is essential to us as members of the Manitoba Legislature to
recognize this day in the upcoming year as one of great importance.
In
I also feel it is important that we examine the theme of
the International Year of the World's Indigenous People: Indigenous People, a New Partnership. This is the key to resolving and addressing
problems that face indigenous people all over the world and especially in
I want to encourage all Manitobans to join the members of
the Legislative Assembly to recognize 1993 as the International Year of
Indigenous People, and I want to call all Manitobans to join together to form a
partnership with the aboriginal people of our province and around the world to
address the problems that are being faced each day so that we can come up with
more workable solutions.
* * *
*
(1430)
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Speaker: Does the
honourable member for
Ms. Barrett: Mr.
Speaker, today is International Human Rights Day. It is important for us to recognize all of
our rights, especially the rights of youth and children on our planet who will
inherit the responsibility for and the dealing with the world that we as adults
leave to them. I think it is important
that we recognize that all children and youth throughout the world have equal
rights to freedom, to exist and live once they are born, to clean water, air
and food, to love and safety, to education, food, shelter and clothing.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that our challenge as adults
in this world on International Human Rights Day, dealing with the children of
our planet, is to ensure not only that the children of our planet have a
healthy, ecologically sound world to inherit, but that the rights of all of the
youth in the world, in Manitoba and Canada and throughout the world, are
respected.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would ask if you could call
for second reading Bills 2, 6, 7, 8 and 10, and then if you could please call
for continuation of debate on second reading Bill 4.
SECOND
Bill 2‑The
Endangered Species Amendment Act
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move, seconded
by the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), that Bill 2, The
Endangered Species Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les especes en voie
de disparition), be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this
House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Enns: Mr.
Speaker, honourable members will recall that this is a relatively new piece of
legislation on the statutes of
The amendments before you are minor, Mr. Speaker.
Understandably, the language used in an act of this kind has to conform with
the language used in other legislation, particularly the federal legislation
dealing with the CITES convention. It
would appear that in the initial drafting of our legislation, we did not always
adhere to those terms and terminology that were established by the Committee on
the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, and it has been suggested or
recommended by us, by those persons who watch over these matters, that these
relatively minor changes be made to the language contained in our act so that
they conform with the definitions that are used nationally and internationally
in dealing with the subject matter of endangered species.
That is the purport of this legislation, Mr.
Speaker. The other relatively minor
amendment to the act may cause some honourable members some concern, because it
does grant the minister some additional authority in dealing with animals that
are so designated, that is, endangered or threatened, to allow some
organizations or persons to collect or to hold live members of endangered or
threatened species for scientific purposes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure honourable members that I
again have been advised by professional staff that on occasion an endangered
species‑‑it has happened just in the last little while. Members will be aware that we have introduced
such endangered species like the peregrine falcons back to the
So for those very technical reasons and the appropriate
reasons, when these situations arise, as they may arise from time to time, the
minister is empowered to authorize under permit the handling or the control or,
in fact, the holding in captivity for a period of time an endangered or
threatened species.
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure honourable members that
this minister certainly does not want to hold or entrap endangered species and
that the reasons I have given for this amendment are precisely those that I
have mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, those are the two relatively minor
amendments to the act. I can indicate to
the honourable members that there may be some interest‑‑this is not
major legislation, but it is very important legislation. I think we are very pleased to have this
legislation on our books in that it enables us to make some serious effort at
hopefully reversing the trend to extinction of endangered species, and that is
why we have this legislation on our books.
I can report to honourable members that we have a
committee comprised of half a dozen individuals who meet on a regular basis to
take up the question of whether or not specific species ought to come under the
protection of this act. Honourable
members may recall that it was just a few weeks ago that a press release from
my office indicated that some additional five species were put on this
endangered list. I would like to be the
eternal optimist, Mr. Speaker, and suggest that if this group was really
successful that they would do themselves out of a job and out of business. But
that is not going to happen.
Regrettably, the continued conflict over habitat in most instances and
the various wildlife and other species that are of concern under this
legislation‑‑that conflict will continue. What we will try to do, and what this act
empowers us to do, is to do our very best with a host of different programs
whether it is in our parklands legislation, whether it is our commitment to endangered
spaces, whether it is our commitment to the ecological reserves program.
All of these programs make it possible for us to deal
with some confidence legislations like this, with some confidence place the
protection of The Endangered Species Protection Act on individual species, both
fauna and flora, and wildlife. Hopefully, our children and their children will
have an opportunity to have them in our midst, because it is an accepted fact
by most Manitobans that our lives are enriched by preserving, by making every
effort to ensure that represented species of the flora and fauna and wildlife
that abound in this province continue to exist for future generations in truly
a sustainable manner.
Mr. Speaker, with these few comments, I commend
honourable members this legislation for their consideration. I might say that I will make it a point of
having some of my professional staff available, specifically, chairman of the
Endangered Species Board, Dr. Merlin Shoesmith, who is more capable, quite
frankly, of providing some of the professional information that some members
may wish to have with respect to endangered species here in Manitoba and across
the land. I make that undertaking to
honourable members opposite and my critics both in the New Democratic Party and
that of the Liberal Party that these staff personnel will be available to
honourable members when this bill goes to committee.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
With those words, I know that honourable members will accept
this bill as one of those forward, visionary, progressive pieces of legislation
that they are accustomed to getting from the member for
*
(1440)
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that we adjourn debate.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 6‑The Real
Property Amendment Act
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), that Bill 6, The Real Property
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les biens reels, be now read a second
time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General): Mr.
Acting Speaker, I thank my‑‑
Point of Order
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Acting Speaker, on a point of order. I simply rise‑‑I can understand
the circumstances, but the motion was introduced by the Minister of Labour (Mr.
Praznik), and I do not know whether it is now appropriate for the Minister of
Justice to get up and begin.
We can have a debate on it, but the explanation should be
by the minister who introduces the legislation.
Now, if I am wrong‑‑but I believe those are‑‑[interjection]
I am not trying to be an obstructionist.
I am just saying those are the rules of the House, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Mr. Praznik: Mr.
Acting Speaker, on this point of order, I introduced the motion. You are calling for debate. The member for Brandon West, the Attorney
General, has risen to speak, and he will be completing the remarks. He will be making remarks on the bill. I have moved it, yes, but the member wishes
to speak on it, unless the opposition have a problem‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson): The honourable member for Brandon East does
not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. McCrae: Mr.
Acting Speaker, I thank some of my colleagues in this House for their
assistance, and the honourable member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) as well, in
seeing to it that during a moment of indisposition on my part matters of
extreme importance respecting the introduction of this bill were adequately
taken care of.
I cannot quite understand the point raised by the
honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans). I am sure that, if he were to take the time
to talk to the Justice critic for the New Democratic Party, he would know that
Bill 6 would have the effect of better serving the people of
(Mr.
Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
I really do not quite understand the reason for the honourable
member's intervention, unless after some 22 years of service to the people of
Needless to say, however, I am here and I am prepared to
speak ever so briefly to introduce, at second reading, The Real Property
Amendment Act, Bill 6.
These amendments to The Real Property Act are intended to
confirm existing land titles practices and remedy some procedural deficiencies.
One of the amendments will confirm long‑standing
land titles practices concerning the effective date for registration of
title. In our land titles system the
effective date has been the date that the document is presented for
registration and given a serial number.
This will now be stated more clearly in law. At the same time, the change will remove some
confusion that may have crept in with the introduction of land titles
computerization. In the paper system,
only the registration date is shown. The
computerized system shows both this and the date the registration is
completed. The amendments make it clear
that the earlier date is the effective one.
We are also proposing changes that will increase the
accountability of judgment creditors who register judgments that may affect
land. In some cases at present,
judgments are registered and affect land that once was owned but no longer is
owned by the debtor. Since the judgments
are a lien on the land, they can cause inconvenience and even damage to the
actual landowner.
Under these amendments a creditor will have to check more
carefully before registering a judgment.
This is to ensure that a debtor does have an interest in the land
against which the judgment is to be registered.
In some cases, a district registrar will be able to reject the filing of
the judgment.
The amendments also provide that a creditor may have to
compensate anyone who suffers loss where the registration of the judgment or
its continuance is found not to be reasonable.
This provision already exists for wrongfully filing or continuing a
caveat on land.
The Real Property Amendment Act is generally a
housekeeping measure. The only other
amendment of note will remove the requirement that a notary witnessing a land
title signature be a Canadian notary.
This will facilitate the signing of land titles documents outside
I regret any inconvenience or disposition that my
immediate attendance upon this House to move for myself the motion for second
reading of Bill 6. I thank the
honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) for standing up in my place and
regret any inconvenience to him or any other of my colleagues on this side of
the House, or indeed the Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), that the debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 7‑The
Builders' Liens Amendment Act
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General): Mr.
Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey),
that Bill 7, The Builders' Liens Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur le
privilege du constructeur), be now read a second time and be referred to a
committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. McCrae: Mr.
Acting Speaker, the purpose of this very brief legislation is to enable The
Builders' Liens Act to be applied in a manner consistent with its intent.
The purpose of The Builders' Liens Act is to protect
people who work on or supply materials for such things as building
projects. This is done by requiring the
creation of a 7.5 percent holdback, the retention of those funds for 40 days
after a project is completed, and giving the right to register a lien in the
event of nonpayment and enforce the lien.
The intent of the act is that a builders' lien must be
registered in order to be enforced.
However, the Manitoba Court of Appeal ruled in 1991 that registration
was not required for enforcement.
Consequently, to ensure the intent of the act is maintained, we are
clearly providing that builders' liens must be registered in order to be
enforced.
We consulted with the private bar, Mr. Acting Speaker,
and I would like to inform the House that they favour the changes.
With these brief remarks, I recommend this bill for
second reading. Thank you.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
*
(1450)
Bill 8‑The
Insurance Amendment Act
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to thank the
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) for his applause, and also for Osborne
(Mr. Alcock) for his.
I would like to move that Bill 8, The Insurance Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances, be now read a second time and be
referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr.
Acting Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill 8 and to provide the members with
the principles behind the suggested amendments.
They are basically amendments to bring the act more in line with the
technological age in which we now exist.
There are three principal areas that are covered in these
amendments. We are going to be reducing
potential time delays in the binding of crop hail policies. Changes will also be addressed which will confirm
some technical industry practices without any adverse effect to policyholders. There is also a minor change requiring
harmonization with federal legislation.
Under the current legislation, Mr. Acting Speaker, crop
hail coverage takes effect at noon following the date that it is mailed to the
insurer. A delay in coverage of up to
four days can possibly occur under this system from the time a farmer applies
for coverage through an agent to when it is stamped by the post office. I know that all members can appreciate the
risk that can be involved in this kind of delay which is really not the fault
of any particular individual, but rather of procedure.
This suggested amendment will bind coverage at noon the
day following the date the application is taken, and agents will be required to
notify the insurer by facsimile transmission or by telephone the day the
application is taken. Of course, these
new technologies make it possible for this speedier and more effective service
to the consumer to take place. It also
provides some certain measure of comfort to agents who now can take advantage
of technologies that are at their disposal.
There are also certain features of The Insurance Act, Mr.
Acting Speaker, that are out of date with current practice and offer no
substantive benefit to the general public.
For example, existing legislation requires agents to countersign
contracts, whereas new technology in business practices allow insurers to send
policies directly to consumers. We would
make that change to avoid unnecessary time and unnecessary cost in the sending
of policies and returning of policies to consumers after they have been
accepted.
It is suggested, Mr. Acting Speaker, that The Insurance
Act be amended, as well, to conform with changes made at the federal level
respecting federally incorporated insurance companies. The federally incorporated insurers are no
longer required to file deposits directly with the federal government. This will not, in any way, negatively affect
consumers, because it only changes the manner in which deposits are held. As members will recall, the provinces have
worked co‑operatively with the industry to have industry‑funded
compensation plans established, and I know members opposite are familiar with
that type of compensation fund.
We have a few other changes in there as well, Mr. Acting
Speaker, correcting grammatical errors, redundancies, repetitive clauses. Also, we have made a conversion into plain
language from certain sections; Clause 290(1) for example, which was
cumbersomely worded, is now worded in a plainer fashion but has not been
changed in its intent.
We have other changes that are updated to reflect changes
in equipment that are outdated in the act and no longer apply. For example, we always had the requirement
that certain things be done in red ink because it was written at a time when
electric typewriters were the general piece of equipment used. Now people use computers, so we are changing
that so that it can be in 12‑point bold, that type of thing.
[interjection] That is true. The Attorney General says we already have too much
red ink around here and I quite agree with him.
So we are going to go boldly and make it into a certain
bold print that will stand out, the key being that we want certain things to be
identified and stand out, apart from other sections so that we have full
disclosure, the intent being to require that disclosure, the method reflecting
the technologies available to make things stand out in print. So we have a number of changes like that,
that we believe will update the act, make it current with existing
technologies, improve service to consumers and facilitate ease of work for
agents and companies.
I will leave my comments at that, Mr. Acting Speaker, and
look forward to debate from my critics in the opposition on this issue. Thank you for your time and attention.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood):
Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Brandon East (Mr.
Leonard Evans), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 10‑The Farm
Lands Ownership Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), that Bill 10, The Farm Lands
Ownership Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur
la propriete agricole 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. Findlay: Mr. Acting
Speaker, I would like to spend a few minutes just talking about the amendments
to this particular act. They are
relatively minor, designed to improve the efficiency of the operation of
government and decrease the costs that citizens of this province are put
through in terms of dealing with this particular act and The Revenue Act.
There really are four purposes to the amendments we are
proposing. The first purpose is to
address the discrepancy in the definition of "family farm
corporation" as contained in The Revenue Act and The Farm Lands Ownership
Act.
The second purpose is to reduce the expenditures, in
other words the cost, of the annual report that the Farm Lands Ownership Board
has been putting out and certainly the need to increase the exemptions
involving family members.
Thirdly is to provide for recovery of board costs when
considering applications for exemption, and fourthly, to change the definition
of "the majority of shareholders" in a family farm corporation.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the definition of the "family
farm corporation" will be broadened in this process of amendment in
accordance with the exemption orders granted by the Farm Lands Ownership Board
and the remission orders presently given through the land transfer tax granted by
the Department of Finance.
Subsection 35(1) of The Revenue Act under the Minister of
Finance provides that the land transfer tax is not payable on the transfer of
farm land where the land will continue to be used for farming and the purchaser
is a farmer, spouse or family farm corporation.
To maintain consistency between the acts, The Revenue Act and The Family
Farm Ownership Act, we will provide that the terms "farmer" and
"family farm corporation" have the same meaning.
Mr. Acting Speaker, there are instances where de facto
family farm corporations which do not fall within the legislative definition of
family farm corporation have been allowed to purchase farm land under the act
by the board. These corporations
subsequently applied for remission of the land transfer tax which had been paid
upon registration of title at the Land Titles Office, and since these instances
fall within the intended spirit of the legislation, the remissions have been
granted.
*
(1500)
The proposed amendments to the definition of family farm
corporation include the extension of eligible family shareholders to include
related persons extending broadly from grandchildren to grandparents. As well, the requirement that a two‑thirds
majority of shareholders be actively involved in the farming operation is to be
changed to a simple majority, in other words, 50 percent plus 1 in recognition
of the extended nonactive family members eligible to hold shares in a family
farm corporation.
The board is also responsible for preparing and
presenting a separate annual report of its activities. These proposed amendments will delete this
requirement. The report of the board's
activities will continue to be included in the department's annual report.
The final amendment to be considered will provide the
opportunity to establish fees primarily relating to the applications for
exemption.
Mr. Acting Speaker, in conclusion, the objectives of the
proposed amendments are simply to eliminate the need for purchasers to
initially pay the land transfer tax and subsequently apply for remission orders
in order to receive a refund for the amount of the tax paid; secondly, to
reduce the number of applications which the board would be required to consider
because of the changes to the definition of a family farm corporation; and
thirdly, to provide a more cost‑efficient method of administering the two
acts.
I have already given my two critics the flow sheets for
the proposed amendments to The Farm Lands Ownership Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act. I would like to look
forward to their comments, and I would hope that they see the opportunity to
increase efficiency for both government and for the family farm corporation
members. Thank you very much.
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 4‑The Retail
Businesses Sunday Shopping (Temporary Amendments) Act
he Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), second reading of Bill
4 (The Retail Businesses Sunday Shopping (Temporary Amendments) Act; Loi sur
l'ouverture des commerces de detail les jours feries‑‑modifications
temporaires), standing in the name of the honourable member for Brandon East
with 28 minutes remaining.
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Acting Speaker, as I was saying yesterday
at the conclusion of my remarks, this is a matter that has divided
Manitobans. Particularly people in rural
As I was indicating, when we make criticisms on this side
of the House, we are voicing the concerns of many, many Manitobans of all
political stripes. So I would hope that
the members opposite would appreciate that.
As I was saying yesterday, Mr. Acting Speaker, those
rural MLAs in the House by now should have received a letter from Mr. Clare
Tarr. I do not know the gentleman, but
he lives in the
I would say, Mr. Acting Speaker, although the government
can do polls and show that thus a large majority may be favouring Sunday shopping,
there are many parts of this province and, I would dare say, many rural
constituencies where there is total opposition to this move by the government.
By way of example of rural opposition, I note in the
Winnipeg Free Press of Sunday, November 29, a report about what happened in
Steinbach. I am sure the member for
Emerson (Mr. Penner) is quite aware of what has happened, but there was a phone‑in
program about Sunday shopping. According
to this article, the phones went crazy as the local radio station CHSM logged
549 calls in a four‑hour phone‑in period. Of those 549 calls there were only seven
callers supporting Sunday shopping, Mr. Acting Speaker, and the rest were
vehemently opposed to what this government is doing. I would say that is a message that the member
for Emerson should carefully consider in his actions in this House.
There are quotes from people who live in that community,
such as a grocer by the name of Mr. Wally Penner, who says that regardless he
will not open on Sundays. He has put in
a full-page add, and he said he has calls all morning supporting the stand that
he has taken.
At any rate, Mr. Acting Speaker, I am wanting to point
out to this government that there are some people in our community, some very
concerned people, who are upset with this government and oppose the move of the
government. I will not say oppose the
move to the Legislature because this has not been voted upon or approved by the
Other examples:
This is from published reports, and I am quite happy to table these if
anybody wants them. Mr. Art Kerr, who is
the General Manager of Garden City Shopping Centre, as saying there is no way
they want to do this, namely, to keep open on Sundays. He goes on and says that he and other mall
managers admit that it might be commercially successful; nevertheless, it will
be hard on the retailers. He says: Sure I can say it is great because I can sit
at home Sundays, watch TV and have a beer‑‑this is the quote from a
Mr. Kerr‑‑but it is the little guy who would like to spend Sundays
with his family. It is the employees who
will not be happy.
Then the article goes on to quote various other shoppers
who express concern for the workers.
There is reference, and I mentioned this briefly yesterday, about church
officials being very saddened with this news.
There is a reference here to Pastor Roland Marach, of the
There is a public statement made by Mr. Stan Halbesma,
who runs Harry's Foods on
I do not know this gentleman. I am quoting what he has told the press. He says:
My mother and father own the store and they look at it from the
religious aspect. They do not feel people
should have to work on Sundays. I look
at it from the family value aspect. I
need my time and employees need their time with the family Sundays.
[interjection] Well, he is not going to open.
He has put an ad in the paper, and he said, he is not going to open.
What I am pointing out, Mr. Acting Speaker, I am trying
to make the point that there are very many people out there who are upset with
this move by the government. They are
concerned, and they oppose it, and they do not necessarily vote for the New
Democratic Party or the Liberal Party. I
do not know who they vote for. Many of
them may vote for the Conservatives. I
do not know. But that is beside the
point. The point is that there are
people out there who have expressed opposition, and I am pointing out.
Here is the manager of D'Allaird's store in
Her ladies clothing store sold only four items by
midafternoon yesterday. That was
referring to November 29, the first day that stores were allowed to be open
with more than four employees; at any rate, she made that particular statement.
*
(1510)
Then there is reference in this article to various
employees who‑‑a Sherry Ladanyi, a student and part‑time
employee, said she refuses to work on Sundays.
Sunday is my day. I go to church on
Sunday. She is a 19‑year‑old. She says:
It is the only day I have to myself.
In this case the manager can get a replacement, but, as I
was saying yesterday, I talked to a young woman who happened to visit us in our
house in Brandon a couple of weekends ago who said that there is no way that
her manager could get a replacement for her because she knew the particular
part of the business and you just could not simply take somebody and replace
her in what she was doing. So she was
going to be forced to work Sunday, even though the legislation says the manager
cannot force the employee to work Sunday.
Nevertheless, she felt a responsibility.
She had to, but she did not want to.
She was very, very upset, and I am not going to repeat some of the words
that she used to describe the government's action in this respect.
Here is somebody else, Donna Fiel, who is the assistant
manager of the Agnew shoe store: I do
not want to work Sunday. I have a lot of other things to do on Sunday. I know I would not come out here to
shop. People just do not need another
day to shop when stores sit empty, she added.
These are not my words.
These are people who are out in the community who are in the retail
business.
Another example is Phyllis Piontkowski, who is the
manager of the Agnew shoe store. She
agreed smaller stores will be losing more money than they make because a lot of
employees will not want to work Sundays, so new staff will have to be hired and
trained. This is in
Then go over to
He went on to say that the nasty, insidious part of the
move by the government is that the present legislation, the one that allows
four employees to be employed by any establishment on a Sunday, was passed
unanimously by all members of the Legislature, while the present new rules are
being pushed through unilaterally by the government with the legislation having
to be retroactive to the starting date.
I made that point yesterday, Mr. Acting Speaker, that this is an
arrogant move by the government.
The last time this was introduced, this measure was
brought into the House, it was done with full debate and finally agreement by
all sides. Mr. Gaynor reminds us that it
was passed unanimously in the House to allow stores to stay open with instead
of three, which was the first legislation in this matter brought in under the
Schreyer government, it was increased to four when the
In this case, you have given orders. The government has told the retail
establishment it is open Sunday and to hell with what the Legislature
thinks. That is what it amounts to. Who cares about the Legislature? Who cares whether it is debated here? Who
cares whether the members of the public have been able to come to the
committee, when it goes to committee hearings after second reading, to make
their views known and so on, whether all these people in the retail business or
the people from the churches or the social agencies or whoever they are or
wherever they are from, without giving them an opportunity?
It has become de facto law. Yet it has not been blessed by this
Legislature. It has not been passed by
this Legislature and, ultimately, the police are not doing their job if they
are now not laying charges against retailers who have remained open on Sundays
with more than four employees. They are
breaking the law.
The law is made by this Legislature, not by the
cabinet. The police of this province are
not fulfilling the law. They are not
upholding the law if they are not levying charges against those large stores
that have more than four employees working on Sunday. That is the conundrum facing this government,
and I say it is a sad day for democracy when we have to work in this fashion.
Mr. Acting Speaker, when I say that it is not just the
members of the New Democratic Party who are voicing concerns that we have
dreamt up, we are voicing the concerns of organizations out there. We are voicing concerns of Manitobans who are
working, Manitobans who own stores, Manitobans who happen to be involved with
religious organizations, Manitobans who live in rural
The Union of Manitoba Municipalities, the largest
municipal organization we have in this province, is now officially opposed to
Sunday shopping. There was a great deal
of debate, as members should know, at the convention a few weeks ago, but they
did oppose Sunday shopping. Again, you
have another major provincial organization, the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce
has also passed a resolution condemning the idea, saying it will hurt
businesses in the communities near the city of
Now this is not my argument. I think there is an element of truth. This is a statement made by the Manitoba
Chamber of Commerce which I am repeating for the edification of members of this
Legislature. So, Mr. Acting Speaker, as
I said, this particular move by the government, this arbitrary move by the
government has caused a lot of concern; a lot of opposition to the government's
move has been caused by the decision of the government to open Sunday shopping.
It is interesting how the various rural papers have
written many editorials, you read many editorials on the subject, and I think
you will find that a lot of them come down on the side of being opposed to
Sunday shopping. In fact, here is one
that was written in September before the government made its position
known. This is an editorial from the
Stonewall Argus/Teulon Times on Wednesday, September 16, 1992.
I quote one paragraph:
The majority of the provincial Conservative caucus was elected by rural
Manitobans who will not take kindly to seeing
I might add, Mr. Acting Speaker, as I pointed out
yesterday, the Brandon Chamber of Commerce is also opposed to this move by the
government. The Brandon Chamber of
Commerce debated it and came to that conclusion. I confirmed it two weekends ago when I had an
opportunity to talk to the president of the Brandon Chamber of Commerce. He said, yes, this is our position. We are opposed to open Sunday shopping.
At any rate, Mr. Acting Speaker, just a final paragraph
in this article, this editorial, entitled, Rural versus urban, quote: It would be most unfortunate if the
provincial Conservatives shoot themselves in the foot over open Sunday
shopping, since the benefit to urban interests would be small compared to the
damage done to rural interests.
Now that is interesting.
This is not my observation, although I repeat it and I think there may
be an element of truth in it. It is the
editorial of the Stonewall Argus/Teulon Times which said that the benefit to
urban interests would be small compared to the damage done to rural interests.
It is interesting that the member for Lakeside, the
Natural Resources minister (Mr. Enns), spoke quite openly of the problem that
this issue could give members of the government side, because in the Free Press
of Sunday, September 13, the Natural Resources minister confirmed that many
rural MLAs strongly opposed liberalizing the laws, adding that while the issue
has not been on the cabinet or caucus agenda for several months, it is talked
about. He said‑‑this is a
quote in the article‑‑rural members by and large do not see it as
helpful to rural communities, unquote, said the member for
So I do not know what happened. There was debate, there was consideration on
that side of the House in their caucus, I presume, then all of a sudden, bingo,
the government issues a statement that there is going to be wide open shopping.
*
(1520)
I go on, in this article they referred to the Minister of
Natural Resources saying that the rural Tories think any liberalization would
benefit
Mr. Acting Speaker, it is obvious that this issue is, as
I said, dividing Manitobans. Certainly,
if Mr. Enns's observations are recorded correctly here, if his views are
reported correctly, it would seem that there is a lot of division right within
the Conservative caucus.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I could go on referring to people in
the retail business who have a lot of concerns and are opposed to what the
government is doing. Again, in
Stonewall, of the Stonewall retailers, there is a Mary Geisbrecht of Mary's
Draperies who said that those people who want to shop in
Now that is not the observation of the New Democratic
Party, without any consultation. This is
a retailer, a manager‑owner telling us that there will not be any more
business. There will not be any extra
business, in her view, and I think we should respect her views.
We could go on at length talking about many, many other
retailers. There is a woman in Selkirk;
she is a co‑owner of Packer's Ladies Wear, a Ms. Helen Sutherland, who
reflects the wide and sometimes contradictory range of responses that are
expressed by many store owners. She
says, I have always said that if I have to work on Sunday, I will put a
"For Sale" sign on the door.
That is the thing she says. If I
open Sunday, I am here working and I do not want to be. I am in the store five days; on the sixth
day, I am out doing our buying. I am not
going to work on Sunday, and I know that the staff I have now is not going to
work on Sunday.
An Honourable Member: She is a
strong Conservative.
Mr. Leonard Evans: She is a
strong Conservative, my colleague from the constituency of Selkirk tells me.
Anyway, Mr. Acting
Speaker, the main argument that has been put forward is that the loss of retail
trade to other jurisdictions is occurring on Sundays, and the only way to
counteract it is to have open shopping as the government has intended.
The fact is‑‑and Mr. Gaynor, a retailer in
Selkirk, put it very well‑‑that this is a false argument. This is not an argument for Sunday
shopping. People go to other
jurisdictions, including in this case, I suppose,
Of course, Sunday shopping in the
Why do we have poor retail sales? There are some very fundamental reasons why
we have poor retail sales. One of the
major reasons is that we have a very poor economic situation at the present
time. We are still in a major recession,
Mr. Acting Speaker. We have
extraordinarily high unemployment that is reaching to 10 percent, to the double
digit. Looking at it in terms of where
the jobs are, because people will shop if they have jobs especially if they are
fairly good paying jobs and there is some security in them, we will have more
retail shopping.
The fact is that we are not getting new jobs in this
province. In fact, for this year January
to November, the 11 months that we have of the year 1992 compared with 1991, we
find that we have a negative situation.
We have lost jobs. There was a
2.1 percent decline in the number of people working in this province. That is directly opposite of what the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) forecast earlier this year when he brought
down his budget. He, in his budget,
forecast employment to grow by 1.1 percent in this year 1992 but instead of
that growth we have had a decline, minus 2.1.
We are in one of the worst positions of all of the 10
provinces, not the very worst,
Certainly another reason for poor retail sales obviously
is the GST, the goods and services tax.
If you want to stimulate retail sales and you want to stimulate the
economy, get rid of the GST.
Free trade certainly has not helped us in this
province. It is well documented the
number of jobs that we have lost in manufacturing. We have lost‑‑[interjection] Mr.
Acting Speaker, the key reason for increasing sales to the
We know because of free trade we lost Toro industries out
of Steinbach. They packed up and they
went back to
At any rate, Mr. Acting Speaker, deregulation, which this
government supports as well, has also caused a loss of jobs in this
province. Our trucking industry has been
hurt. Our railway industry has been
hurt. Our airline industry has been hurt
because of deregulation. So there are
some very basic reasons for that.
What I suggest is that we need policies to counteract
that, and we need to stimulate the economy.
I will admit that the government has a hard row to hoe because of the
federal government and its fiscal policy.
Unfortunately, this government agrees with the economic ideology of the
Mulroney government, but the fact is we still have unduly high interest rates
in this country vis‑a‑vis the American interest rates. In terms of real interest rates, if you look
at it and compare it with the rate of inflation, you will find that our
interest rate level is inordinately high, and that has a negative impact.
Certainly, unless you have some stimulus at the federal
level coupled with some stimulus provincially, you will continue to have this
recession. The irony of it is, Mr.
Acting Speaker, Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Mazankowski indeed, perhaps Mr. Manness in
this House, are waiting for Bill Clinton in the
*
(1530)
So, Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to say that unfortunately
this trial period usually will become permanent and a lot of people in
Mr. Jack Reimer (Niakwa):
Mr. Acting Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today to speak on the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.
Stefanson), Bill 4, The Retail Businesses Sunday Shopping (Temporary
Amendments) Act. The line itself is long
enough.
It is my pleasure really to stand today and put some
comments on record regarding the proposed Sunday shopping, and it seems
appropriate at this time of the year because of the fact that we are so close
to Christmas, that shopping becomes a very prominent and a very prevalent
matter on everybody's mind.
In fact, on a personal note, I guess I have to get busy
and do my own Christmas shopping because there are presents that I still have
to go out and find. It seems, like
everything else, you sort of procrastinate, and then when the time comes
around, you realize that there are people on your list that you forgot or you
still have not got around to get the presents for.
This time of year is quite an eventful time, not only
here in the Legislature, but for everybody, because it gives us the time to
reflect back on the year and also to look forward to what we optimistically
look at as a better time in 1993.
The legislation that has been brought forth by the
minister in one way is a response to the people who have been asking for a
better venue or a better avenue of shopping and a better way to get into the
fact of wanting to shop and expand their shopping and their presence in the
market. The market dictates, really,
what the person wants, and the market is saying that here in
(Mr.
Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
The old adage in business, one of the most successful
adages that you hear from business, is the fact that the customer is always
right. When you are servicing the
customer, the customer is the one who dictates how and what you sell, when you
sell, and now they are asking for the time that they want to sell.
The fact that we are now opening up shopping to the
public on Sunday on a trial basis, we are bringing forth restricted hours,
restricted times on Sundays when the shops may decide to stay open, and again I
must point out that if they choose to stay open, it is totally up to the
individual shop owners or the person who is in the retail trade whether they
decide they want to stay open on this particular day, on Sunday. They can stay open if they want.
The times they are permitted to stay open are between 12
noon and 6 p.m. In riding around the
city on the last couple of Sundays, I have had the opportunity to look at some
of the malls and some of the stores just for the sake of my own edification as
to how it is being taken, and not all of them are open from 12 till 6. Some are open from 12 till 5, which is their
choice. Some are closed, some are open.
In the malls that I went into, some of the stores are
open and some of them are closed, so it is strictly up to the retailer and it
is up to actually the customer demand and the customer presence as to whether
there is a demand for them to stay open.
So really, Mr. Acting Speaker, it comes down to the old
adage that the people and the market are dictating a choice. The word is hard to say at times here on this
side of the House in a sense, because we are familiar with the lobby group of
the NDP which they called Choices, which seems to always come out on the
negative of everything that is brought forth, but at the same time with the
legislation that we are bringing forth now, we are actually letting the public
make that decision whether they want to shop or not.
The previous law, if you want to call it, regarding
Sunday shopping was restricted to four people, and if you had perchance the
time to go into some of the large department stores or chain stores or Safeway
or some of the big stores when you wanted to buy something, with only four
people on staff it created a lot of anxious moments, I would think, for some of
the store owners for the fact that there is not that element of security and
safety in the stores regarding the handling of merchandise and the servicing of
customers, because to be in business today one of the things that you have to
have is customer service.
Customer service is one of the keynotes. It is the backbone of any type of
business. If you can service your
customers and you can find the right attitude to be nice to your customers and
to have the attitude that your customers are first, they are foremost, in fact
it is the customers who are really paying the bills.
The customers, when they are satisfied with the service
that is being offered, in all likelihood they are going to come back to that
store, and service always is the keynote in any type of retail business. We often say, well, if there are sales on or
convenience or things like that, these things come into play, which is true. There is no doubt about it. There is an element of convenience with any
type of shopping, but it is service that the customer wants. It is the service, the individuality, it is
the contact, it is the interplay, if you want to call it that, between the
clerk and the customer that makes the person feel that they are wanted and they
enjoy being in that store, and the time and effort that is put forth is going
to come to fruition.
The workers, as someone has commented across the way‑‑if
you go to a successful store, the management will always say that the success
of any store is the people who are working in that store. It is the people in the store themselves,
that if they have the sense of accomplishment, if they have the sense of worth
and they have the sense that they are contributing, they will enjoy working in
their retail store or any other place.
People have to have that self‑worth of work in any
type of endeavour, and the success of any business is always fueled by the
people who work there. If you talk to
any successful businessman, he does not necessarily attribute the success of
his business because of his managerial forte or anything like that. Ninety‑five
percent of the time, or almost all the time, he will say that it is the people
who are working for him that have made his business successful.
So the people who are being served and the people who are
in the service industry are the people that make business grow, make business
prosper and profit.
(Mr.
Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
Profit is naturally what that businessman is there
for. So the profit is something that all
business enjoys and should enjoy, and as government, we should encourage
profit, because if there is more profit, that means they are spending money,
and that means that we are collecting taxes.
As government, our responsibility is the allocation and
the distribution of taxes in the fields that we feel are very, very important,
which we have always emphasized, which is education, health and family
services. The support that we receive
from the retail trade is tremendous, and the taxation that is collected. So as
much as we talk about taxes and we complain about taxes, this government relies
very, very heavily on the taxes and the tax revenues that are generated by the
retail business and by all business, whether it is retail or the service end of
it or manufacturing, all sectors in our economy.
*
(1540)
I guess when we think of the agricultural market, it is
sort of like looking at‑‑well, things will be better next
year. I guess that is the optimism that
they sort of look at. At the same time,
the agricultural economy here in
That is part of the backbone of the
In the studies that have been conducted, because we are
not the only province as you know that has introduced Sunday shopping‑‑there
are other provinces that have come forth, and in fact here in Canada there has
been expanded shopping. Sunday shopping
is also in
We have to look at it in an open area, and we have to
look at what the public is asking for.
We have seen that in the fact that the amount of people‑‑and
it has often been said about the amount of people who are going down to the
United States for shopping, and the amount of money that has been lost, if you
want to call it, revenue that we lose here in Manitoba. Our best example is North Dakota, their
shopping, and in fact if you look periodically in the paper, we get whole
sections in our daily paper advertising for people to come down to Grand Forks
or to Fargo to spend the weekend. We
have them offering all kinds of incentives and all types of packages to come
down for cross‑border shopping.
Some of the figures that we have been made aware of are absolutely astounding
when you look at the amount of money.
The amount of money that has been estimated to be spent in
This is all money that we are losing, in a sense. In fact, some of the figures, if we combine
It is true, as was alluded by the member for Brandon East
(Mr. Leonard Evans), that some of the shopping may be down because of the
dollar and the exchange rate, but at the same time we have to recognize that a
lot of it is because of the convenience of people going down there and just
taking some time to do the shopping.
With the Sunday shopping open here now, it opens up a lot of
optimism. The Manitoba Hotel Association
is quite optimistic that there is a chance that when people come into town now
on bus tours and the fact that they can spend an extra day or two here in
Winnipeg and do some shopping and take advantage of some of the stores that are
open, this is all money that is going to be generated in our economy.
Another factor that is looked at in the rural area too is
some of the sporting events that are put on here in
In the rural area you get a lot of time that there is a
survey done. Prairie Research Associates
finished doing a study recently, and they are saying that support for Sunday
shopping, when there was application of conditions which we imply, which I
alluded to earlier‑‑we got in the restricted hours and the fact
that there is legislation also protecting the workers, that if the workers do
not choose to work on Sunday they can give 14 days notice. The fact is that the labour code will protect
these workers if they are wrongfully dismissed, through the Labour Board, and
the fact also that stores in large malls where they have certain leases,
because of the magnitude of the mall‑‑there are large anchor stores
there‑‑may give the impression that they have some sort of control
over the small shops that they have to stay open. There is protection for these small merchants
that they do not have to stay open.
So when we look at these types of restrictions and
applications, the percentage of support, as mentioned regarding the recent
survey by Prairie Research Associates, more than 75 percent of the respondents
favoured this type of shopping under these types of conditions.
We feel very optimistic that this is, being on a trial
basis, where this is going to be only in venue until April 5, 1993, a good
trial period. It will give good exposure
to the various swings, if you want to call it, in shopping, because of the
tremendous shopping surge during Christmastime, when a lot of business actually‑‑some
businesses, it will account for upward of 30 and 40 percent of their sales
during this period. It also gives the
availability of comparison for the slow months, which are what they call the
dog months, in February and March when things sort of slow down.
We will have a good cross‑section of times for
analysis for how Sunday shopping is brought forth. During the whole time we must look at what is
happening, as I was saying, that in the rural area this is going to affect the
rural market.
The research that was done at the time said that 97
percent of the rural Manitobans surveyed said that Sunday shopping would
neither change their shopping habits and they would continue to do the same
volume of shopping in their own town‑‑97 percent of the
respondents. I mean, you have to look at
every survey and say that there is good, strong support there for Sunday
shopping in its present format that we have brought forth, so that the doom and
gloom that we hear from the other side that there is going to be a total
collapse of the economy in the rural area or the fact that the large urban
areas are going to all of a sudden become sponges and suck up all the rural
shoppers and spenders of money just is ludicrous.
The loyalty of small towns here in
It has been mentioned that the way that the bill has been
brought in in some way is some sort of highhanded manner but, at the same time,
the legislation that we are proposing is the same legislation and the same way
that it was brought in in
In
It seems that we are in agreement, and it is hard for me
to say that there is a certain agreement between this government here in
*
(1550)
In
That is a very interesting comment, that the people who
are working on Sunday favoured Sunday shopping.
The highest degree of support was among the single parents. These are working women and those who worked
irregular hours.
It is passing strange, if you want to call it, that on
the other side of the House you have my honourable friends the honourable
members of the NDP party coming out so vehemently opposed to the Sunday
shopping, whereas in Ontario there is a strong indication that what the NDP
government did there has a strong degree of acceptance.
As I say, it is passing strange that the NDP in this
province are at complete loggerheads with their counterparts in Ontario who
have introduced it, and we are doing it the same way, as I repeat, and that
there is such a negativism on that part but, then, that is not surprising in a
sense, because I would think that the NDP in Manitoba are maybe just a little
bit behind other provinces and maybe a little bit behind in a lot of their
philosophies in how they perceive what is aggressive and what is progressive in
their thinking.
I cannot help but go back to the comment that was made
and the instructions‑‑and I apologize to a degree, Mr. Acting
Speaker, for repeating something that I have mentioned before, but it just
seems that it is so apropos now, the fact that the instructions to the NDP
youth in going back to reading the Regina Manifesto of 1930 as being a guidance
for them to go forth in the '90s, it seems that they always seem to look back
in some sort of myopic way to a better beginning, and that beginning has passed
a long time. Now when they cannot get
caught up to the new‑think, if you want to call it, of the '90s, they
seem to always look back and think that things can be better the way they were.
Unfortunately, times change, conditions change, and this is
one of the factors that they have to become aware of, that the public and the
people in
In going back to, as was mentioned, Ontario, the study
that was conducted by Goldfarb in regard to family and how Sunday shopping
would affect family and family values, it should be pointed out regarding the
study that was taken recently in Ontario, after Sunday shopping, that 90
percent of the respondents said that they do not spend any less time with their
families because of Sunday shopping. In
fact, when we look at the family unit today, the family unit not only in
Manitoba but I guess in all factors of Canada and indeed, I guess, the world,
the family unit as we like to perceive it and the way we interpret it has come
under increasingly more tension, more demands and more diversification.
What we would call quality time with family becomes quite
diminished to an extent because of the situations that a lot of families find themselves
in. We have more and more two‑income
working families where you have the man and the woman both working, and I guess
to an extent also you have the children if they are older they try to get into
some sort of part‑time work. So everyone has a different type of venue
that they go to from time to time, and the time demands for the family become
very compressed, so that any type of time together really is quality time. Now you could say, well, quality time together
is an interpretation of either sitting around home or something that can be
imposed, but at the same time quality time can even be interpreted as going
shopping together. This becomes a time
to be together with your family, because anytime that you are together with
family or children, whether it is going to a theatre or going to a movie or
going to a play or going to church, that is all time together. At the same time, time together can be
interpreted as even going shopping.
So shopping to an extent‑‑granted it is sort
of like drawing a long bow in trying to say that is one of the contributors,
but it can help to enhance quality time with family. I would think that especially at this time of
year when family becomes such a very important focal point because of the
Christmas season that shopping can become quite entertaining and quite
enjoyable in a sense of going out.
People who have to work on Sunday, as mentioned, have got the
choice. They can work if they have the
choice. They have the choice to work
Sunday. They have the choice not to work
on Sunday. The comment has been made
that this is imposing on the people who are working on Sunday, but if there is
a choice made available to them and they make that choice I would think that
the imposition is diminished that way.
The findings, because of Sunday shopping, are naturally
quite contentious not only here in
As mentioned, the employee is protected under The
Employment Standards Act because of the fact that they can give 14 days notice
if they want to opt out of working on Sundays, and it also prohibits employers
from discharging staff based solely on their refusal to work on Sunday. The monitoring of this will be very closely
watched by not only the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.
Stefanson), but also the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) who is very aware of
the circumstances and the ramifications of any type of workers' rights and the
fact that they have to be complied with.
The Minister of Labour and the Minister of I, T and T will work very
closely in watching this trial period.
Going back to some of the rural concerns, and naturally
that concern has been brought forth a few times, as the member for Brandon East
(Mr. Leonard Evans) was talking about some of the quotes and what was happening
in some of the rural areas, I would like to just quote also from the Dauphin
Herald regarding Sunday shopping.
*
(1600)
They too did some talking to some of the consumers and
some of the managers there. I would just
like to also say‑‑in quoting one of the managers of one of the
stores in Dauphin, and they are saying, we are having a very successful
day. They feel that it was a very
successful move in staying open on Sunday.
They say that they were having a very successful day on it. The manager was questioned a little further,
and she did not hear any negative comments about being open on Sunday. She went on to say, a lot of people think it
is good for business because not everyone has Saturday off anymore‑‑which
is an interesting comment, because a lot of people, because of the swing shifts
and the fact of working, do have to work on Saturday, and they do not have the
luxury of getting their time to do the running around or buy the staples; so
with Sunday opening, it gives them that opportunity.
The manager goes on to say, what it boils down to is a
lot of families need some place to do their shopping on weekends. This is from what we call a smaller urban
area, Dauphin, and the people there, some of the stores there, are looking at
it in an optimistic way that this can help them.
So the members across, as mentioned before, seem to look
on this as some sort of a sinister plot against the workers of Manitoba and
workers of some of the large stores, but really the pressure that is being felt
by the New Democratic Party is that the large union bosses are coming down and
saying that they cannot see the value in it.
So the union bosses are again dictating how the NDP is going to react
and how they are going to come forth with all their doom‑and‑gloom
scenarios, and just like always, the tail is wagging the dog, and the NDP is
running after the union bosses and saying, oh, yes, we will support you. They will run after, and the big union bosses
will say, well, this is no good for you.
I would actually caution them on that side because there
could be a scenario being played out because the increase in workers who would
be working possibly, say, at some of the large food stores, even though they
are working part time, do have to buy a union membership. Once they buy a union membership, they then
become part of the union and then they become exposed to the union philosophies. So I would think that the union should be a
little careful. They must be shaking in
their boots really in the sense that because when they get the new workers
working who could be hired because of Sunday shopping, there is going to be an
increase in union membership and these new workers are going to see the folly
of some of these union bosses' philosophy, so there could be a groundswell of
revolt.
The fact is possibly some of these union bosses, their
jobs may be in jeopardy, because of the fact that they will have to have all
these new part‑time employees working and paying union dues, getting to
know the union philosophy of the union bosses, and then all of a sudden they
will realize that they can vote them out.
Then there could be quite a change in this whole union movement here in
So there is a different way of interpreting some of these
things. In retrospect, it is really the
union bosses who are over there just wagging the tail, over there, of the dog,
and now they are jumping up and down and saying that it is not good for the
people, it is not good for Manitoba and it is not good for the family and it is
not good for the people of any type of religious persuasion.
We have to also take into account that for some people
Sunday is not a religious holiday. You
know, there are religions here in
There are other areas that can be pursued on a religious
basis, but that is up to the individual and I feel that if there is a
willingness for a person to have his religious commitments met that they will
find the wherewithal and the time to have that type of involvement with their
religion. But, as pointed out there are
other religions here in Manitoba that do not celebrate Sunday as being a
religious day, so we cannot blanketly say that we are doing that.
Mr. Acting Speaker, being open on Sunday, it really is a
matter of choice as mentioned before. It
is the people who want choice, the people who want to be able to go out. They want to be able to buy, they want to be
able to spend. They want to be able to
pursue things that they need whether they are going out to buy a snow shovel‑‑being
wintertime here‑‑or they are being able to go out and buy their
Christmas presents, or they are going out to buy groceries or shopping for
everything. We are giving them the
opportunity to make a choice. We are
giving the storekeepers an opportunity to make a choice. We are giving them the fact that it is a
trial period. We will be monitoring it
on a basis through the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism and also the
Department of Labour to make sure that there is a compliance.
So we feel that the whole issue of Sunday shopping really
is one that has been brought forth in a very conscientious and a very thorough
manner in trying to address the concerns of all factions, whether it is labour
or the stores or it is the public but in public demand and the fact that we are
surrounded by provinces and the United States that are open on Sunday.
In fact, in the
As has been pointed out, when we looked at the other
provinces around us, we cannot be an island and put up fences. We cannot put up
barriers that say that just because we feel there is a faction saying that it
is not right that there is total compliance on that because of the fact that
the public are asking for it. We see the
public, as mentioned before, going down to the
Mr. Acting Speaker, I see that my time is running
out. I would just like to conclude.
I feel that Sunday shopping is a very positive aspect for
*
(1610)
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Acting Speaker, it is a pleasure tonight
to rise and speak on this issue affecting
A very unpleasant issue though it is is this government's
forcing on the Manitoban public Sunday shopping. It really is a knee‑jerk reaction on
behalf of this government. It is a desperate
act from a desperate government. What do
they say? Something like, our retail sector is down? What do we do? We shop on Sundays. Well, this is it. This is what is going to revive the
As I was stating, again, it is just a reaction on behalf
of their old failed policies in this province and throughout this country. Our right‑wing government in this
province, led by their federal cousins in
Mr. Acting Speaker, we know this really is a desperate
act, and it was a last‑minute announcement. I think I have the press clipping someplace
here, November 20, it was announced just a few days prior to the opening of the
session. They are forcing it on the
residents of
Someone mentioned Stalin over there. I am not certain who they are referring to,
but it is pretty obvious that this is a dictatorial approach this government
takes to economic issues here in
Anyway, Mr. Acting Speaker, this will definitely hurt the
rural economy. As someone who represents
a constituency in rural Manitoba, especially a community such as Selkirk, which
is very close to Winnipeg, in driving distance to Winnipeg, we will see a
negative impact upon the businesses there, in Selkirk, Stonewall, Gimli,
Beausejour, Morris. All these
communities will see their businesses suffer, and it has already happened
especially in Selkirk, where there a number of small, small retail businesses
that have already closed, and that is, of course, due to some of the policies
of this government.
I see the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) is here. Well, the Minister of Health closed the
Their own actions have devastated the Selkirk community,
so what are they going to do? Well, we
will open Sunday shopping. We will let people shop on Sundays. This will be the end‑all to all of our
problems. So many businesses have closed
in Selkirk since this government has taken office‑‑
An Honourable Member: How many?
Mr. Dewar: Well,
there are at least 10, maybe even a dozen.
We had Finesse, which was a women's clothing store‑‑it was
in our Selkirk mall, it is closed; More Than Kitchens, which is a kitchen
cupboard store‑‑closed; we have the Husky gas station; the Esso gas
station; Riverside Furniture; Francines, which was another store that was in
our Selkirk mall, is closed; Nite Owl, which was a small convenience store‑‑closed,
Stepping Out footware; Sportscard goods; we have MacLeod's that was closed in
our community.
You can drive up and down the streets of Selkirk, and you
can see the sort of glaring example of this government's economic
failures. You can drive up and down our
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
We noticed the other day, somebody was mentioning
maps. Of course, this government has a
real love with maps, as we have noticed. [interjection] Constituency maps,
exactly. We have decentralization, where
they moved apparently 19 jobs to Selkirk, and then they closed the training
plant, they closed the School of Nursing, so we have 19 jobs‑‑apparently
there are 19 new jobs in Selkirk‑‑and they took out 20, 22.
Then we have the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik). Once again, he is speaking, I suppose, in
cabinet‑‑he is lobbying cabinet to move Highway jobs from Selkirk
to Beausejour. He cannot create any jobs
in his own community, so he is going to take jobs from outside of his community. He is raiding jobs. He cannot create any jobs in our community,
so he is raiding jobs from outside.
He likes to come to Selkirk and portray himself as a
local boy, but I tell you, they are getting wise to his tricks. I was raising this just at a public meeting
the other day, and they are very disappointed with him because of some of the
actions that he and some of his government have taken in our local community.
An Honourable Member: How
could anybody be disappointed with Darren?
Mr. Dewar: I am
sorry, but there are a few, believe me.
The other thing I am certain that the member for
Point of Order
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Just a point of order, Mr. Acting Speaker, I
may be wrong here, but I thought we were debating Bill 4, the Sunday shopping
legislation, and I am not sure what the relevance of the Lockport bridge is to
Sunday shopping legislation. Perhaps I
am wrong, but I fail to see the connection.
Mr. Dewar: It is very
relevant naturally because we are talking about the rural economy, and I am
talking about tourism. We are talking,
oh, Sunday shopping is going to be this great tourism draw. Well, the community of
Mr. Praznik: Mr.
Acting Speaker, I still raise the issue of relevancy, given the fact that in
* * *
Mr. Dewar: So
because this government has no plan in place to deal with the closure of the
bridge‑‑in fact, they were not even admitting that it was going to
close last week‑‑hopefully, they have had a chance‑‑oh,
here is the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) here now. We are just talking about the pending closure
of the
They have no plan in place to deal with all the small
businesses that will be negatively affected by the closure on both sides of the
An Honourable Member: Who, we
or the feds?
*
(1620)
Mr. Dewar: No. What I am saying is you have no plan to deal
with the tourism industry in the
Again we are asking the minister to put a plan in place
to help those businesses that do not care about Sunday shopping. They are
fighting for their very survival, bearing in mind we know that they survive
because of their proximity to the structure, but now that the structure will be
closed, they unfortunately are going to have to deal with the consequences. But
we are asking the government to put a plan in place to help the businesses
adjust to the problems they will find when the bridge is closed.
Mr. Acting Speaker, some of the arguments that one can
use against Sunday shopping is that it is satisfying the demands that this
government has from the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. You know, someone was making mention about
our union connections with organized labour.
Well, their connection with the chamber of commerce is very strong
indeed. You know that the Manitoba
Chamber of Commerce is opposed to this, and the Union of Manitoba
Municipalities passed a resolution recently at their annual convention
condemning the closure. I would like to
read that in.
Resolution 13‑‑WHEREAS the
WHEREAS opening stores for an extra day per week will not
generate extra income as a family has a limited disposable income which is
generally spent before the sixth day comes around; and
WHEREAS owners of small businesses are already working
six full days a week and opening Sunday will only increase their workload and operating
costs without guaranteeing an increase in income; and
WHEREAS Sunday has been considered a day of rest and the
family day, staff would have to work on Sunday, would have to face additional
pressures and already delicate family units.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Union of Manitoba
Municipalities oppose the implementation of Sunday shopping.
This was from the R.M. of
Not all retailers in this province like Sunday
shopping. I can read several incidents
into the record, but I think I will be doing that later. One of the problems, of course, is that the
recession is the cause in the drop of retail sales. When you have 51,000 Manitobans out of work‑‑
An Honourable Member: 56.
Mr. Dewar: Is it
56? I stand corrected, unfortunately,
but 56,000 Manitobans are out of work.
They have no money to spend. It is just a fact of life, Mr. Acting
Speaker, and opening one more day will not entice them to spend any more money.
Again, the tourism industry is declining in this province.
Well, it has been recognized by all involved that the GST and the lack of a
plan for promotion is the cause. As I
was suggesting, the merchants in
Consumers do not have any more money to spend. Once you spend your budget for the week, you
are not going to go out and spend more just because the stores are open one day
longer. Does this government believe
that Manitobans are going to rush to the bank to take out more money to spend
on Sundays?
Plus, this will force retailers to increase prices to
deal with the increase in overhead costs.
Now because of the seventh day, they still have the standard costs of
operation, so they are going to have to, unfortunately, again raise their
prices to deal with the increase in overhead costs.
Now stores are already open over 100 hours a week. The supermarkets in Selkirk are open from
about eight in the morning to eleven o'clock at night, six days a week right
now, and that really does provide ample opportunity to shop. It is 108 hours a week they are currently
open, and Sunday has been recognized as a day of rest. In fact, this will affect my family
personally. My sister will have to work
on Sundays. She called us up to voice
her concern. Unfortunately, this will
cut down on the time that she has to spend with her young family.
As I was saying, it is going to be hurting small
businesses. Small retailers in rural areas will be forced out of business by
the large chains. You are going to see
this in an area like Selkirk where the consumers now will be coming into
I was reading a list into the record earlier about some
of the small businesses which closed, and there was a small convenience store
that closed in Selkirk because of the large chains. Now we are going to see even more of this as
the big retailers in Selkirk and in
Sunday shopping will hurt nonunionized labour, who will
be fired if they decide not to comply with the wishes of their employer but,
more importantly, I think they will not be hired. If you come into a situation
where you are applying for a position and if the employer asks you if you are
interested in working on Sunday, if you do not respond in a positive way, that
employer may not hire you. He or she may
hire someone else who will work on Sundays, and this will seriously hamper
nonunionized labour, who will now have to really be under the pressure, whether
or not they decide to work.
Like I said, there has been no public debate, no public
hearings on this issue. There is a retailer
in my community who told me that he was promised by the Minister of Industry,
Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) that this would go to public hearings, that
the public of Manitoba would have a chance to voice their concerns on this
fundamental change, but we see none.
We see the legislation before us now. Actually, you can go shopping on Sundays, the
Sunday coming up, although the legislation has not been passed by this
Chamber. You will see in a couple of
years of wide‑open Sunday shopping, people will be driving in from
Stonewall, Gimli, Beausejour, especially from Selkirk, where they will be
driving into Winnipeg to shop on Sundays, and most of those areas are
represented by members opposite.
As I say, the small convenience stores will do their
best, but unfortunately they are going to have a very, very tough time on their
hands. They are going to be struggling
to deal with the large chains. They
cannot compete price‑wise. At
least when they were open on Sundays, the big chains were closed, I think they
were living off the income they made strictly on that one day, because it was
the only option we had available, especially in Selkirk, anyway, for consumers.
The other thing is that the government said it is going
to be reassessing this in a number of months.
Well, I do not think anybody actually, really, truly believes that they
will be doing this. We have the
situation now where they said, well, this is a trial basis, but it will be
interesting to see five months from now whether or not they will follow through
on this.
I am certain in five months they will make it permanent,
and they have only said that to appease those who opposed this particular
measure. I do not think they will be
rolling it back. It really is an attack
on the fabric of our society. It is a
knee‑jerk approach to a knee‑jerk problem. It is a short‑term solution to the
economic problems that we are facing here in this province, problems again
fostered by the Conservative philosophy and the Conservative government approach
to this particular issue.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
Like I said, the government falsely assumes that the
consumers will have more money to spend.
We are in a recession right now, and it is a recession across this country. We have people earning minimum wage or no
wage. In my community, like most
communities, there is a scourge of unemployment and individuals now are forced
upon social assistance. We have a food
bank in our community and, unfortunately, it is doing a booming business.
*
(1630)
As we approach the so‑called festive season in our
community, the call has gone up again for individuals wishing to contribute to
the hampers and the distribution of foodstuff at this time of year. Well, those individuals do not care if they
can shop on Sundays or not. The reality
is that they do not simply have the income now; they do not have the income to
shop now when they‑‑like I say in Selkirk, with the stores open 100
hours a week. So they are going to be
opening one more day, but it does not matter to them because they cannot shop
now. Six more hours on a Sunday will not
matter to them. Like I said, the
businesses though are going to have to increase their prices. The cost of business is going to go up,
because their overhead will go up. There will be more labour, there will be
more expenses that you will have to pay on Sunday. So we will see an increase in prices, as
well, which I do not think was the purpose of this government bringing in this
particular legislation.
I think their purpose was to try to stop the cross‑border
shopping. We are seeing that is
basically taking care of itself. We have
gone throughout the province; we have talked to individuals and more people are
taking pride and shopping in this country.
They realize that when they do cross‑border shop they are taking
money out of the community, they are spending it in other jurisdictions. There is a realization, I think, that is out
there that this is harmful to our local economy.
So that basically is taking care of itself in a way, plus
the fact that the dollar is very high.
Anybody who is interested in purchasing American currency now would know
that it is quite an expensive proposition.
It is a deterrent to individuals cross‑border shopping and really
it is a false saving because you end up paying money to go down, say, to the
United States. You pay for rooms; you
buy your meals and so on. You purchase
an item that may be a little bit less expensive than it is here, but in the
long run you do two things. You end up
spending money going down there, the cost of the trip, and then you take away
valuable government revenue and you take away income for store owners here in
the province.
The people are realizing that opening the stores for one
more day will definitely not turn this economic situation around. I was mentioning before, the Manitoba Chamber
of Commerce is opposed to it; the municipalities in rural Manitoba passed a
resolution opposing this; there are church groups opposed to it; the labour
groups are opposed to it.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the opposition is very, very
strong. I understand that there are
members within the government ranks itself who are having a hard time dealing
with this particular issue. Rightly
so. Several of them represent
communities that are adjacent to the city of
Again I say this government decides to listen to large
business, to large retailers here in the province. They fail to listen to the small merchants,
and it really is a terrible thing. You
are going to be seeing small merchants, especially, like I was saying, in my
community‑‑and I know that Selkirk was one of the communities which
led the opposition to it and pushed for the resolution from the Manitoba
Chamber of Commerce opposing that full‑scale shopping that this
government is going to bring in. I
believe the chamber has passed a resolution condemning the idea, saying that it
would hurt communities near the city, again, Steinbach, Selkirk,
In Selkirk, again, like I was stating, Mr. Gaynor who
owns one of the supermarkets in Selkirk, an independent, he is very much
opposed to the government's action. He
was led to believe that the government would be holding public hearings on this
issue which would give him and his staff and other merchants across the
province the chance to voice their concerns about this important issue. As he stated, he feels that this is really a
nasty move on the part of the government.
He was satisfied with the present legislation which was unanimously
passed by all members, and he feels that this government will be pushing
through these new rules, and it will have to be retroactive back to the
starting date.
He feels that it is underhanded. He was assured by the Minister of Industry,
Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) that there would be consultation on this
important issue. He feels that the
province here is buckling under intensive pressure by multinational
corporations, the large retail chains and the hotel association. He feels that the trial period is a smoke
screen in an effort to get rural MLAs onside.
As I said, the Selkirk Chamber of Commerce led the
opposition against Sunday shopping at the recent chamber of commerce round
table, where they introduced the resolution which was supported by every
community outside the Chamber of Commerce of Winnipeg. The president of the
Selkirk Chamber of Commerce was quite upset with this government's moves, and
they could see and they will know that this will have a negative impact upon
small businesses in the community.
Some of the retailers are open; they tried it out
recently. One of the women's clothing stores in Selkirk, Packer's, has been
there for many, many years, and now they are really concerned about what impact
this is going to have on their business.
In fact, the owner, Helen Sutherland, was quoted as saying: I have always said that if I have to go to
work on Sunday, I will put up a "For Sale" sign on the door.
She is saying that she works now, five, six days a week
as the owner of the store, and she is going to be forced to now work seven days
a week.
She feels, as I said, that the time that she normally
would spend looking after the affairs of her business or spending time with her
family, she will now be forced to open on Sundays, to, as of yet, a very
unresponsive customer demand. Of course,
it is still in its early stages but, so far, the community has not responded, I
suppose, as the government would hope.
They may, however, be leaving the community which is a
concern I am raising and the concerns raised by members in the rural Chamber of
Commerce, and so on, which would be unfortunate because consumers in Selkirk,
because of the proximity to Winnipeg, there has always been a temptation
naturally to shop in Winnipeg, but it does not help our retail outlets in our
community.
There is another interesting quote here from a member of
the business community in Selkirk, a fellow by the name of Ernie Smith, where he
says: I think it is a terrible
policy. He decided not to open his store
on Sunday‑‑I have more important things to do. He condemns the policy in general.
*
(1640)
There are other businesses which are trying it for a
trial period. Obviously, now, this is
the Christmas rush where most businesses will see their largest demand, so I
would assume then, hopefully, they will see an increase in sales throughout the
week, but right now, they do not see the need to open an extra day.
Most businesses in Selkirk have found that to be the
case. In fact, I think even some of the Conservative members themselves have
mentioned that they are not particularly satisfied with the issue of Sunday
shopping.
I believe the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns)
confirmed in a recent article in the Free Press that many rural members
strongly oppose liberalizing the laws.
As he said, rural members, by and large, do not see it as helpful to
rural communities. This is a quote from
the Minister of Natural Resources. He
thinks any liberalization would benefit
As I have mentioned, at least a dozen businesses in
Selkirk have closed since this government has taken power. Now, small business, just by the very nature
of their occupation, there is a relatively good turnover rate because
businesses fail for a number of reasons.
But this is an inordinate amount, a very, very high amount since this
government came to power.
You can drive up and down the streets of
As Harry Enns goes on to say, it is no secret, rural
Here is a quote from the Stonewall Argus where Mary
Geisbrecht‑‑she owns Mary's Draperies‑‑was saying that
those people who want to shop in
Consumers just have‑‑I know myself and I am
certain there are many others the same way, you budget a certain amount for the
week, and you spend that amount in the allotted hours. You see, now you have 100 hours where you can
go shopping. Stores are open in Selkirk
from 8 until 11, and there are some that are open all night. So you have plenty of time right now to do
your shopping. Any liberalization of the
law will not be a huge benefit, I do not think, to the problems faced by
Manitobans. In fact, I know that several
members of my colleagues here will be voicing concerns about the same issues,
how it is going to be impacting on their communities.
For those of us, again, who live close to this huge
elephant called the city of
Some of the government's punitive actions against our
community is taking a pretty negative toll as far as the economic livelihood of
some of the businesses in town. We had a
MacLeod's store that closed. Clothing
stores have closed, shoe stores and so on.
It would be really unfortunate, but this government seems to be really
interested in shooting itself in its foot.
The benefits would really be small compared to the damage that it would
do to rural areas. It will be helping
the larger chains in
But, again, communities such as mine, unfortunately there
will be a negative impact in areas like that.
There are even stores in Winnipeg‑‑I believe Harry's Foods
have decided not to open on Sunday. They
felt that the issue was forced upon
We are forcing this legislation down the throats of
Manitobans without any consultation, without any public hearings. Manitobans will not forget this action by
this government, especially those who represent constituencies in rural
We had the Minister responsible for the lotteries
announce that VLTs would only be in rural areas, and now she has rescinded
that. She went back. She betrayed rural
I mean, as he stated to me, it remains to be seen whether
or not the bridge is even going to be closed.
There was an ad in the Free Press warning motorists to prepare for the
closure, but they do not even recognize the fact that it is going to happen. It
is a shame; it really is a shameful thing.
I just wanted to put those few words on the record. I wanted to again condemn the government for
this action, knowing well that it is going to be hurting a community such as
mine. Obviously, I will be opposing this legislation. Thank you.
Mr. Harold Neufeld (Rossmere): I am pleased to stand and add a few remarks to
the bill in front of us. I should say
from the outset that I have no ideological reasons for opposing this bill or
for that matter voting for the bill. I
think it should be remembered that this is permissive legislation and not
compulsory legislation.
I might also say, inasmuch as the member for
Mr. Acting Speaker, I will frequently repeat frequently
during my few words that this is permissive legislation inasmuch as there may
be those on the other side of the House who may be thinking that I am going to
vote against the legislation.
There are only so many shopping dollars available to all
of us, and let us divide the shopping dollars into two areas. Let us take groceries first. [interjection] I
said, I do not know how I am going to vote.
The member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) wonders whether I am going to vote
against the legislation. I have said, I
have not made up my mind how I will vote.
I will not vote against it. I
have not made up my mind whether I will vote for it, but that is something that
I shall do.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I have said already that this is
permissive legislation, and I will be repeating that frequently. Let us take
first of all the monies available, the dollars available to most of us for
grocery shopping. Opening on Sundays is
not going to stretch the number of dollars we have available. I can recall when
we used the same arguments we are using today for night shopping. At one time, the shopping day was Monday
through Saturday till six o'clock. All
the shopping was done. We then opened evenings on a number of days during the
week. That did not stretch the number of dollars available to us.
*
(1650)
Stretching the hours that a store is open will do one of
two things. It will increase the cost of
delivering the goods that are being sold or it will decrease the service, one
or the other. It cannot do both, because
there are no more dollars available. As
far as groceries are concerned, I defy anybody here to tell me that the total
number of dollars spent on groceries in
We have two stores in my neighbourhood. It is the Foodfare and Penner's, who have not
opened on Sundays. True, I have talked
to one of them, and they are going to be monitoring the situation, but they are
planning not to open in the near future. They think their customers will come
to them in the six days that are available to them.
I cannot argue with that decision, Mr. Acting
Speaker. I do believe that they will
indeed sell as many groceries in the six days and three or four nights as they
have in the past. If I go into the other
areas of shopping, clothing stores, appliance stores, et cetera, the thought
has been that perhaps there will be less cross‑border shopping.
I cannot buy that argument, Mr. Acting Speaker. I do not think that opening on Sunday is
going to stop anybody from crossing the border to do their shopping. The shopping that is done on Sundays is not
the kind of shopping normally that people go across the border for, but I have
to repeat again, this is permissive legislation. Nobody is making the Sunday opening
compulsory, and nobody is telling anyone they must shop on Sundays, and I think
we have to remember that.
We have a lot of Sunday shopping now. Those people who are opposed to Sunday
shopping would be awfully annoyed if they ran out of gas and there was not a
gas station open. Those people who are
opposed to Sunday shopping would become awfully upset if they needed Pharmacare
services, pharmacy services, and there was not a drugstore open.
I do believe that the argument used so frequently by the
opposition that employees should be given a day off does not hold a great deal
of water. No employee must work on
Sunday. They will not have to work on
Sundays. The legislation is clear and,
as the member for
Again, Mr. Acting Speaker, I do believe that we have over
the years spoiled our customers. We have
spoiled our shopping customers by opening the hours we do. I was in Europe recently, and in
So I am not concerned about not enough time for shopping
if we do not open on Sundays. I am not
concerned about not enough time for shopping if they close in the evenings, Mr.
Acting Speaker, but I have to repeat over and over again that this is
permissive legislation. It is not a
must. It is the government's thought
that people who wish to shop on Sundays may then shop on Sundays. If a store wishes to open on Sundays, they
may open on Sundays, but there is no compulsion. They can stay closed; they can monitor the
situation.
I do believe, in the long haul, the monies that are spent
are not going to increase if they are open seven and a half days a week or
seven days a week plus a number of evenings.
Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, the number of evenings that stores are now
open makes it almost a seven‑and‑a‑half‑day week.
I would like to think, Mr. Acting Speaker, that most of
the shoppers can shop on Saturday afternoon as well as on Sunday
afternoon. I have talked to people who
have said that the shopping centres have been crowded on Sundays. That is probably very true, but the shopping
would also get done if Sunday afternoons were closed.
I heard one of the members say that they would not shop
if they were not able to shop on Sunday afternoons. I am sure that we can all find time. We spoil ourselves by opening the hours that
we do. I would like to repeat again that
if we open an extra day and there is no additional money spent, then we are
either increasing the costs of the goods we sell or we are reducing the service
of those who sell them.
I have one great concern, Mr. Acting Speaker, and that is
that the stores in outlying areas to
As I said earlier, it is permissive, and I want to remind
this House again and again that it is permissive legislation. There is no
compulsion. Government perhaps should,
and the opposition has in other areas indicated very frequently, governments
should allow people, the voters, more flexibility. In this instance, they are
trying to take away from their voters some flexibility and take away the
possibility and the availability of Sunday shopping. I think that is a little bit contradictory to
the position they have taken in many other instances. I have mentioned cross‑border shopping. I personally do not go across the border to
shop, so I am not sure just how many people do or how much they might shop in
An Honourable Member: You do not go anywhere to shop. You do not like shopping.
Mr. Neufeld: I find
myself in the position of being heckled by my colleagues. It is quite true, Mr. Acting Speaker, I do
not do a great deal of shopping, but I will this Sunday go through a number of
shopping centres to see whether there are an awful lot of people that are
taking advantage of the Sunday open hours.
An Honourable Member: Do
not buy anything.
Mr. Neufeld: No, I
will not buy anything, but I will take a look and see how many people are
buying and how many people are shopping.
There is a difference, I think.
I have spoken, I have told you, with a couple of owners
of grocery stores in my area. They have
chosen to stay closed, but again that is their choice, and they believe that their
true customers are going to honour their staying closed and shop on the days
that they are open with them. I spoke to
one particular store owner and he says he has been scouting the other grocery
stores in the area that are open to see if any of his customers are there. I think that is a good marketing strategy.
An Honourable Member: Was he
working on Sunday?
Mr. Neufeld: No, he was shopping.
So I think that is good marketing strategy, and he will
in due course determine whether or not he is suffering, or his business is
suffering by not opening on Sunday. I
think again that those are business decisions, and he will make the right one
for him and his business. I think that
is the flexibility, Mr. Acting Speaker, that we should all be allowed. It seems to me that the opposition should
permit such flexibility to the store owners and the shoppers of
I have heard time and time again the opposition tell us
we should not have as much government direction, and I tend to agree with that. I will probably say, I think it is a good
idea that we allow Sunday shopping as long as we do not tell anybody they must
shop on Sunday and as long as we do not tell anybody they must open on Sunday. It is a free country and, Mr. Acting Speaker,
we are making it freer by giving the people the option to shop either on
Saturdays or on Sundays.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I will close my remarks with that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., it is time for private
members' hour.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Acting Speaker, I think that there may be
a will to call it six o'clock.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Is it the will to call it six o'clock? Agreed.
The hour now being six o'clock, this House will stand
adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).