LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Monday, December 14,
1992
The House met at 8 p.m.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 4‑The Retail
Businesses Sunday Shopping (Temporary Amendments) Act
Mr. Speaker: Continuing debate on the proposed motion of the
honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), Bill 4, The
Retail Businesses Sunday Shopping (Temporary Amendments) Act; Loi sur
l'ouverture des commerces de detail les jours feries‑‑modifications
temporaires, the honourable member for Emerson, who has 39 minutes remaining.
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the
opportunity to put some comments on the record on this, which I consider a very
important bill, important from the fact that it will affect and the way it will
affect many, many people in our province and some of the issues that have been
mentioned in many of the debates in this House that pertain partially, I think,
to this bill.
I want to speak today to this bill
from a rural perspective and how people will be, in my view, affected by this
bill. Bill 4 is not what I call a Sunday
shopping bill, as some would perceive it to be.
I consider Bill 32, which was passed in 1987, as the forerunner
legislation of what we are continuing today.
Those who have stood up in this
House and defended either their parties or their own personal positions on
this, which I consider an important issue, have done so rather frivolously at
times. We have heard one of the members
sing a song. Some of the members quote
Biblical verses and even some parts of the commandments, and yet the real issue
has very often been ignored in the debates here.
The real issue in my view, or the
real consideration, is not cross‑border shopping or what this bill will
do to cross‑border shopping because, as most of you know, I represent the
southern half of this province that borders the
* (2005)
Yet we talk in this House about what
we should do and what kind of legislation we should pass to stem the effects of
what those communities have felt very directly over the last half of a decade
or more. These are the communities and these
are the businessmen who have faced the competition from their American
counterparts day in and day out. We have
allowed the people of this province virtual free access for many years to the
large commercial centres in the
I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that our
federal government has seen fit to impose the same taxes and the same duties on
those goods coming into this country that our local citizens are subjected to
if they buy locally. That has done more
to stem cross‑border shopping than any other issue that I know, and that
in itself will not stop the traffic north and south.
There are many other issues at play
here. We have become accustomed when we
have a weekend off or a few days off to going somewhere. Our people in
Do people today, with our current
dollar value being where it is, bring back large amounts of goods? I do not think so, not anymore. That is over, and our dollar in my view, our
Canadian dollar having been allowed to drop to where it is today, is reflective
of the true value that it should have.
That, again, is another reason why people are not buying many goods and
bringing them back here. I think our
sales in the city of
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker,
and all members of this Legislature that some of the increase in spending that
we are seeing in this province today is largely reflective of two things, the
drop in the dollar value and the imposition of taxes and duties on goods coming
back into this country.
Will our business community and
rural
Why did they not? Because those people in many of those
communities, as well as many business people in this city of
* (2010)
Was it because they did not believe
in working seven days a week? Was it
because they believed in abiding by the Sabbath, as some have stated? I really do not think so. In some areas, it might have been, but
remember that there are in virtually every community in this province
businesses open on Sundays. We have
convenience stores in our towns, and in virtually all the towns in my
constituency, that are open on Sundays.
We have service stations that are open on Sundays. We have restaurants that are open on Sundays,
and yet we take that as an everyday occurrence and pay very little attention to
their being open on the Sabbath.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
I say, and it is my view that this
bill, Bill 4, will only allow those businesses that were restricted from doing
business fully, as I believe is their right if they choose to do so, to do
business on Sunday as all other businesses are able to do.
Should we as a government make the
distinction between big and small in law?
Should we? I do not think so, Mr.
Acting Speaker. That is not our
business. We should, however, in my
view, make a clear decision.
Are we in favour of seven‑day‑a‑week
business or are we not? Personally, I am not, quite frankly. I simply believe that there is a reason why
the seventh day was set aside, and it was not only for spiritual regeneration
and all those kinds of things, in my view.
It is allowing the individual to spend time with his family, friends,
worship, rejuvenating one's own personal self.
That, of course, must be a very
private decision. I do not think there
is a government in the world that can legislate those kinds of moral
decisions. Even if they should try, they
would not be effective, because we all make personal choices and personal
decisions.
What was the impact of implementing
Bill 32? Did we in fact cause what some
here have said during this debate? Did
we in fact cause significant family disruptions? Maybe we did in some cases. Did we put in place in Bill 32 any
requirements that would indicate that the employer would dialogue with his
employees whether they wanted to or did not want to come to work on the
Sunday? Did we put in place any
mechanisms that would ensure that mothers and fathers would have a place to
leave their children while they were keeping mom and pop's store open? We did not.
We made no consideration in this building, in this House when we made
that decision to allow for Sunday shopping.
Now we stand here and we become
somewhat protective of the decisions that were made at that time, maybe not so
much protective, but we portray a degree of cynicism. There is no wonder the people of this
province and of this country and of other places in the world view politicians
the way they do, because we are not honest, we are not honest with the people.
That applies to all of us, including myself.
* (2015)
If I really practised what I am
referring to today, I would never buy a gallon of gas on Sunday, nor would I go
to a restaurant on Sunday, nor would I buy a loaf of bread on Sunday. I dare
say that any member of this Legislature cannot stand in his place and say that
they have not acquired anything on Sunday.
Should we expand then the Sunday
shopping provision? Quite frankly, I do
not think this government has a choice but to.
I cannot understand how members opposite will stand there and condemn
the provisions that are being applied in this act to expand Sunday shopping
unless it becomes a very personal conscious decision to them. This bill really does nothing but provide the
same provisions that were made under Bill 32 in 1987 and expand them to the
large as well as the small businesses in this province.
So what are we talking about? I talk about a personal, conscious decision
that each one of us must make and that is where therefore I have said very
clearly, very openly, that I will find it very difficult to support this bill
this time, because I simply do not believe that we should pass legislation in
this House that will expand. Rather I
would be in favour, quite frankly, of decreasing our Sunday shopping
provisions, no matter how unreal that is because once you have done it, you are
never turning back and simply‑‑[interjection] The honourable member
for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) says that is what you think about this trial. That is what I think of passing Bill 37. That is when the doors were open. That is when the barn doors were open wide to
Sunday shopping in this province. There
is no question. I only ask the members
opposite who the government of the day was that implemented it, remembering
full well that it was probably a unanimous decision of the day. However, the government that is in power
brings forward the legislation and proposes the legislation, and they are the
ones who take responsibility for that decision.
We have communities that have a
fairly significant industrial base in this province, rural communities I call
them, yet they generate a tremendous amount of commerce in this province and
contribute very substantially to the well‑being of all Manitobans. We have a large agricultural base in this
province. That agricultural base is one of the largest generators of wealth in
this province. Yet there are very few
farmers who today do not use virtually all the days required to put their crops
in, whether it is six days, or seven days, or even eight days a week some days.
* (2020)
We as a society have over the last
century or two virtually evolved into a society where the seventh day as a day
of rest and worship has lost much of its value.
There are many of those who stand in this House and profess to be proponents
of retaining the seventh day as a day of worship‑‑and I respect
that‑‑who are being somewhat hypocritical. Had they really believed in what they were
saying here during the last couple of days of this debate, they would have
voted differently or their party would have voted differently in 1987. I find it strange that especially an NDP
administration will stand here and discuss the moral issues of buying something
on Sunday, yet be proponents of abortion clinics.
How can we, on one side, support
aborting little children, the unborn, and on the other side, not allow them to
buy anything on Sunday? Pure hypocrisy,
Mr. Acting Speaker, and I simply cannot understand why the opposition party
would try to use the moral debate in this House as the real issue because that
certainly is not what is being debated here today.
Let me tell you, Mr. Acting Speaker,
that those kinds of hypocritical type of arguments that have been put forward
from not only one speaker, but from many speakers opposite will not fly well
with the general public, because the general public is able to see through the
charade that the opposition had put forward as an argument.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the communities
in my constituency have indicated clearly to me on many different occasions, in
very differing forms, whether through meetings with chambers of commerce,
meetings with councils, meetings with church groups and other organizations
that they would like me to voice my opposition to the Sunday shopping issue,
and I have received large numbers of petitions that clearly state their
opposition to the Sunday shopping issue.
However, there are seldom ever that I have heard the moral decision
needing to be made, or the position put forward that the government should
legislate into being morality. Clearly,
our people have said that it is a matter of personal preference, very clearly‑‑a
matter of personal preference whether they shop on Sundays or not. If everybody in this province who is or
professes to be opposed to Sunday shopping would in fact refrain from Sunday
shopping, I wonder how many stores would need to be open on Sunday.
So the issue is probably again
something that individuals need to address more clearly than government needs
to address. If they in fact are as serious about their opposition to Sunday
shopping as they say they are as individuals, then I challenge those people to
in fact practise what they profess.
* (2025)
So, Mr. Acting Speaker, I wanted to
put my views on record on this, which I call a very important piece of legislation,
and suggest to many of my constituents, to all of my constituents, that are in
fact in opposition to Sunday shopping that if they feel as strongly as they
apparently do, then I would ask them to refrain and demonstrate in that manner
their opposition to the Sunday shopping law.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
If they in fact do and if all of
rural
Mr. Speaker, with that challenge I
leave you, and I thank you for the opportunity to put some of my views on
record.
Mr. Speaker:
Prior to recognizing the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), I would like
to advise the House that I have been informed that the honourable member for
Flin Flon will be the designated speaker on Bill 4 on behalf of the Leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Doer).
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by
commenting on the speech that we have just heard. The member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) has
spoken on many occasions, and I always listen with a great deal of interest to
the member's words, but I am left a little dumbfounded by the remarks that we
have just heard, because the member was quite eloquent in talking about this
issue as some sort of moral imperative in terms of government decision making.
He begged, in effect, his own
colleagues to make the right decision when it came to Sunday shopping, and yet
he has not had the courage to tell us where he stands. He said he opposes it, but that begs the
question of whether he is going to oppose it by standing in the Legislature
with some others of us and vote against this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, there is so much in
this legislation that begs to be opposed, and I want to start I guess by
talking about some of the reasons that the member for Emerson raised in his
remarks.
We all know that certainly on that
side of the House and in many of the rural constituencies, many constituencies
across the province I guess, quite honestly, there are significant numbers of
people who oppose this legislation on religious grounds. I am not saying that that in and of itself is
sufficient grounds for us to make a decision to oppose this legislation. The fact of the matter is, that is one
argument that is being used by people who are opposing this legislation and
people who are speaking to our caucus.
Mr. Speaker, there is another, I
think a perhaps more sinister, reason.
That is that members of the government caucus and certain members,
obviously the urban members, have chosen to dance to the tune of a number of
large enterprises and the
I can understand why the member for
La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) and, I
suspect, a number of other rural members are having a great deal of difficulty
when it comes to making a decision on this issue.
An Honourable Member: How about Jerry?
Mr.
Storie: Mr. Speaker, the member for
I felt much the same as the member
for Emerson (Mr. Penner) and perhaps other members that there was a certain
inevitability to what was being proposed in 1977 when the four‑persons‑employed‑in‑a‑business
rule was first discussed and the legislation that was a compromise in 1987
which was introduced to deal with a Supreme Court ruling dealing with
individual freedom.
I have come to the conclusion that
there are a number of very important moral reasons for opposing this
legislation. I want to start‑‑it
is perhaps unusual‑‑but I am going to talk about the environment in
the Sunday shopping debate. I want to
read something that I found fascinating, and I think it is something that we
should not forget. It came from the
sustainable development
* (2030)
Everyone here I am sure knows that
the Brundtland Commission was the United Nations commission on environment and
development, and I want to read a paragraph that has been quoted in a number of
other venues which, I think, somehow talks to Sunday shopping, if we will just
listen.
It says that this commission set out
to formulate a global agenda for change, and I quote. This is directly from the commission: There are those who wanted its considerations
to be limited only to environmental issues.
This would have been a grave mistake.
The environment does not exist as a sphere separate from human actions,
ambitions and needs. An attempt to
defend it in isolation from human concern have given the very word
"environment" a connotation of naivete in some political circles. The word "development" has also
been narrowed by some into a very limited focus along the lines of what poor
nations should do to become richer, but the environment is where we all live,
and development is what we all do in attempting to improve our lot within that
abode. The two are inseparable.
It goes on to say: It was therefore determined that a new
development path was required, one that sustained human progress not just in a
few places for a few years, but for the entire planet into the distant
future. Thus sustainable development
becomes a goal not just for the developing nations, but for industrial ones as
well.
Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say that
development must not be at the expense of the environment.
How does the question of Sunday
shopping relate to the environment? It
struck me when I listened to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.
Stefanson) introduce this topic, when he started talking about this as an
economic primer, that Sunday shopping would create economic development, that
it would stimulate people to buy more.
I said, you know, for certainly 40
or 50 years now, the main engine of development in the western world has been
consumerism. Everyone has to consume more, bigger is better, conspicuous
consumption is the prime goal of people's lives.
Well, then you ask yourself one question. What has been the ultimate result of
conspicuous consumption? To answer that
question, Mr. Speaker, you need only turn to The State of
Why are we going to spend another
day consuming? Why are we going to
dictate now that not only should you consume six days a week, but you should
consume seven, and after you have consumed 10 hours a day, seven days a week,
then you should consume 24 hours, seven days a week.
Mr. Speaker, where in the world do
people do this? It is fascinating stuff,
because you know what, I listened to the member for Rossmere (Mr.
Neufeld). If you listen to some members
on that side, every once in a while they come up with gems of wisdom. Sometimes it is conventional wisdom repeated,
but it is wisdom. The member for
Rossmere, who has surprised me on a number of occasions with his wisdom said,
and I quote, on page 460, December 10, 1992, said in the House, "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."
He went on to say he had been in
Mr. Speaker, the idea that consuming
more is better for our economy, our environment, our world, our families, our
lives, is a North American concept. In
fact, if you want to get right down to it, it is even more specific than
that. It is an American notion. It is the Americanization of Canada again,
the idea that we have to consume seven days a week.
The Minister of Rural Development
(Mr. Derkach), of course, does not want to participate in this debate in any
way, because the minister responsible is the one that is sacrificing rural
There are many laws that we have
devised in the last few years that have been designed specifically to tell
people what they need and what is realistic for them to have rather than what
they want. The EPA guidelines of
gasoline consumption are only an example.
At one time, it was customary for everyone to want a 440 hemi‑head
engine that burned eight miles to the gallon‑‑[interjection] 440,
whatever it was, the Dodge engine of some years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I had a 1962 Ford
Fairlane with a flathead six. The member for
I want to commend the member for
Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) for his thoughtful words on Sunday shopping. It was that and a number of other things that
have occurred in the past few years for myself, and I think other Canadians and
other Manitobans, that have led me to conclude that a decision by the
provincial government to eliminate Sunday shopping, to at least limit it to its
absolute necessity would be the best course of action, because we have to, I
think, become more responsible consumers‑‑not more conspicuous,
more responsible. I do not think there
is anything to be achieved by consuming more and encouraging people to consume
more. [interjection]
Mr. Speaker, I should not have to
tell the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) this, but I just explained
that in other countries of the world, in fact in major countries, our
competitors, including
I read as an opening to my remarks
the comments from the
Mr. Speaker, I talked about the
environment and I am concerned about this because no human activity, I do not
care how menial, how apparently insignificant, is without consequences on the
environment. Everything we do consumes
something that came from the earth, somewhere or another, including preparing
for this speech, where I have used dozens of sheets of paper. I am recycling this book.
So I would like to just sort of
outline what we have done by all of this conspicuous consumption, by all of the
gas‑guzzling cars we drive, by the industries we support who are
polluting our rivers and polluting our streams.
Where do we start? Well, let us
start with ozone‑‑[interjection] Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the
jibes from across the way, I expect it, but I hope some people over there will
reflect on what they are doing and take a look at the larger picture. First of all, the problem that they think
they have identified that is going to be addressed by this bill is not going to
be addressed by the bill. Quite frankly,
there are larger fish to fry, and I think looking at this as an environmental
issue is one of them.
* (2040)
One of the first issues that is
dealt with in this book as a global problem is the question of ozone
depletion. Of course, ozone depleting
substances are probably in every car of every member on that side of the
Chamber. I am sure that the vast
majority of them have air conditioning in their car. [interjection] My hat is
off to the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau). The fact is that since 1955 the ozone in the
Antarctic has gone from an average mean of plus six or seven until today, in
1990, it is approximately 23 percent depleted, 23 percent deviation from the
norm.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to show you
how narrow‑minded the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach)‑‑he
wants to know what it has to do with Sunday shopping. The fact of the matter is that when we speak
in second reading we are supposed to be debating the principle. The principle of this bill, I hope no one
will disagree, is conspicuous consumption.
That is what we want. We want
people to consume more because we believe somehow that is going to create
economic growth.
I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, every
vehicle that is used, every component in every vehicle that is used, every
good, every service that is purchased, whether it is gasoline or whatever, is
consuming resources that this earth produces, whether you like it or not. Every additional day you spend shopping, every
additional mile you drive, every additional good you use in pursuing this
consumption is making our world worse for tomorrow and for our children and for
our grandchildren. That is how it is
tied in.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the
Chair)
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are depleting
the ozone. We are going to create skin
cancers and cataracts and other problems for vegetation in the province‑‑[interjection]
Yes, they still cannot get it, that consumption, that our use of the earth's
resources, our use of chemicals and energy is creating this problem‑‑[interjection]
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would urge
the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) to read the background of the
environmental tragedy that is part of our heritage in this country.
I am going to continue just sort of
outlining one by one the problems that we are creating for ourselves. I will get off the environment. I know that it is a concept which is quite
foreign to members opposite. It is a
concept that they apparently do not want to deal with. It is a concept that the Minister of Rural
Development (Mr. Derkach) cannot even relate to shopping, which is quite
pathetic.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the production
of CFCs, never mind the international agreement, the international convention,
continue to grow. In 1960 the production
was approximately 200,000 tons per year.
In 1987, the production was four times that‑‑four times the
production of a substance that is known to deplete the ozone layer. What is happening in terms of our
atmosphere? Is our atmosphere any
healthier today than it was in 1960?
Well, I am sorry to report that since 1960, the amount of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere has tripled. The
amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone from approximately three
billion tons to approximately six.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if we talk
about forestry, are we doing any better?
The fact of the matter is‑‑and members opposite may have
seen this on one of the journal programs not too long ago that talked about the
number of thousands of hectares that are disappearing from the rain forest
every hour. It talks about the Canadian
record. In
What are we doing in
The domestic demand for primary
energy in
In fact, in every sector energy
consumption has increased. All of that energy consumption is doing one thing
for the environment. It is increasing
the amount of carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere. Let me add some additional information to the
record of our society as consumers, because virtually all of the statistics
dealing with the pollution of our environment have to do with our consumption,
the building of our homes, the building of our highways, the building of our
automobiles, the use of our automobiles, the use of energy.
We are polluting our air; we are
polluting our water; we are deforesting our countries all in the name of
progress. Virtually all of that activity
has been done to facilitate consumerism, to make sure that our wants, our every
want, our every whim, our every conceivable whim could be met.
What about the water? Well, at 360 litres per day, which is what
the average Canadian consumes, we have the second highest water consumption in
the world‑‑360 litres a day.
In 1989, 30 percent of
* (2050)
Madam Deputy Speaker, 360 litres of
water a day, the average Canadian‑‑it is going down the
toilet. It is being used in a thousand
different ways. Canadians are the
heaviest energy users in the world. Here
is something else, and this relates directly to the Sunday shopping: Canadians are the world's leading producers
of waste, and most urban areas are out of space for sanitary landfills. Canadians produce more waste per capita than
anybody else in the world. Well, how is
Sunday shopping going to help us there?
Are we going to produce less waste because we shop on Sunday? The facts of the matter are clear, our
pattern of consuming, our pattern of waste of energy, our reliance on our
abundance of our natural resources is wearing thin. The evidence is all around us, and this
report on the state of
Madam Deputy Speaker, so what are we
about to embark on in
Madam Deputy Speaker, so we are
going back now more than a decade and a half, a Conservative minister talking
about amendments to the act, identifying the fact that a day of pause, a day of
rest was a good idea, recognizing that there were legitimate needs in a society
as complex as ours for some shopping on Sunday, that some necessities had to be
made available. As I read through the
debates, of course you stumble upon some interesting comments by some
interesting, in this case, former members, and I read with interest some
comments that the former member for Sturgeon Creek put on the record back in
May of 1978. What did Mr. J. Frank
Johnston say about Sunday closing? What did he say about the proposed
amendments to allow for small businesses or businesses with four staff to
remain open? He says, let us not single
out one particular group. You know the
honourable members on the other side seem to have some fantasy in their minds
that they can hurt the big businessmen or do him some harm or stop him from
operating.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you do not
hurt large businesses. The member for
Sturgeon Creek raised the point that I think probably has provoked the
government into introducing this legislation, because that is who this
legislation is designed to accommodate, not small businesses in the city of
Going on, the Minister of Labour of
the day concluded her remarks by saying that this was a compromise and that it
was the best compromise that they could devise at that time and proceeded to
put limits on Sunday shopping. So then
what happened?
Well, we move on to 1987 when, as a
result of a court challenge to the‑‑I am not sure if it was the
business closings act or the Lord's day act‑‑however, a judge
interpreted‑‑[interjection]. I do not know which one it was. It is referred to in a number of speeches,
but they do not outline exactly the details of the court case, and I did not,
quite honestly, go back to find out.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I completed my
research enough to know that the amendments which were introduced in 1987 were
as a result of a court case, at which time a judge ruled that the Charter of
Rights, which was in place in 1982 but not in 1978, I guess led to some
questions about the legitimacy of the 1978 legislation, and the provisions of
the Charter of Rights were deemed to hold precedence over what was seen as
limiting individual freedom to shop as a result of the holiday closings act.
In February of 1987, the government
House leader got agreement from all three parties to introduce the amendments
so that we could maintain the integrity of that act.
I want to begin by reading what the
opposition House leader, the former member for St. Norbert and now a judge, had
to say about the proceedings, the House business of the day: Madam Deputy Speaker, before us is the
question in House business to the government leader. Could he confirm that this morning, after
brief speeches by the mover and seconder of the throne speeches, that
legislation will be introduced with respect to Sunday closing legislation which
will allow for amendments to be passed today because of the court ruling?
The House leader for the government
went on to say: I also have to indicate
that the amendments with which we will be proceeding have been developed in
consultation with all members opposite, and I would like to thank them publicly
for their co‑operation and their helpful suggestions in how to proceed
with this matter.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, what
happened in 1987 was an attempt to deal with the concerns expressed by an
individual judge about the way the law was written and how it was impacted by
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Then we could look at some of the
words of my colleague and then Minister responsible for Consumer Affairs, who
again in his speech outlined how the negotiation process had proceeded. For members opposite, that was the honourable
Minister Mackling, who was the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs and the former member for St. James.
Again, he indicated how appreciative he was of the support that he had
received from the then opposition.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I also want to
read into the record what the former member for St. Norbert, the House leader,
had to say when his turn came to speak to the legislation. He said: There is no question that it is
important that workers have a day of rest, but it is also important to the vast
majority of Manitobans that Sunday is not only a holiday but that it is a holy
day, and the legislation does, of course, as we passed it originally, provide
for those people to observe another religious holiday other than Sunday, and we
uphold that right as we did when we passed the legislation.
*
(2100)
I think it is extremely important
that we recognize this bill is important for families, whether they be two‑parent
families or whether they be single‑parent families. There is only one day of the week as it now
stands virtually in almost every family, and that is Sunday when they are able
to get together. That is extremely
important to our society. In the case of
single‑parent families, of which we are all aware there are so many more
of those now, it is wrong in my view to have a situation where a single‑parent
mother, for example, is forced to work on a Sunday when she may only have that
one day otherwise or up until this point in time to be with her family. It is very important to families, again
whether they are two‑parent families or single‑parent families.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that was what
the Tory House leader of the day, the opposition House leader, had to say on
Sunday shopping. I think if members
opposite listened at all to what had been said by their own caucus members and
by members over here, that in fact is what the sentiment still is amongst many
of their constituents and many of my constituents. But there are other issues, clearly.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for
St. Norbert was not the only member who spoke on that day. There is another individual here who many
will recognize, the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae), who had some words
that he also wanted to put on the record.
I want the member for Brandon West to know that when I talked about my
trip to
Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister
has probably told many people many things, and it is only if you tell the truth
all the time will you remember what you told people.
An Honourable Member: You better be careful here.
Mr. Storie:
Do not scare me. I want to read
what the member for Brandon West said in opposition about Sunday closing. I want to read into the record so that he
will have this on his mind when the time comes for him to vote. On Friday, February 27, 1977‑‑1987,
pardon me, you would have been here a long time if it had been '77.
He said first: I appreciate the government House leader
rising and helping to extend the hours of the sitting. For my part, I certainly will not abuse that
privilege because I plan to speak for only a moment or two. I am pleased also that this legislation is
moving to protect the law that was passed some time ago and to protect the
intent of that law and to cause the larger operators in this province to respect
the intent of our laws in this province.
Now they will have to respect the letter of the law.
He goes on to say: With respect to public input, no one could
ever object, Madam. He goes on to
say: The City Council in
The member for Brandon West (Mr.
McCrae) thought only a few years ago that the law was sufficient, that it
protected the interests of consumers, that it protected the interests of
families.
Madam Deputy Speaker, just for your
information, I have been given approval.
The Speaker read the notice some time ago that I was the designated
speaker.
Members opposite may appreciate
this, I am not sure the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) will, but I also had
to remind the member for
Madam Deputy Speaker, what did she
say? Well, first of all, she
acknowledged that there had been consultation, that she had been pleased to be
part of it. She said: I do not believe in Sunday shopping, and I do
not want to see the proliferation of Sunday shopping. That is what she said, I do not want to see
the proliferation of Sunday shopping.
Now she is prepared to see it. She went on to say, though, she did not quit
there, I want to assure you. She went on
to say, I am concerned that we are losing our value system. That is what she was concerned about. It was not concern that additional shopping
on Sunday was going to contribute to it.
I also have found that‑‑this
is a somewhat of an aside, you will forgive me, but I recall during the
Only a couple of weeks later she was
telling us that, yes, well, in principle she was opposed to Sunday shopping, but
she was going to do what her constituents wanted. It struck me, I said, now is this consistent?
I think we can have it both ways on
this debate. I think we can do what our
constituents want, and I think we can do what is right. I think we can leave the law alone. I think we can probably even work in more
subtle ways to discourage shopping, and I think that is what we should do, but
you can imagine my surprise when I continued my search of what members of this
Legislature had to say about Sunday shopping.
An Honourable Member: What else did you find?
Mr. Storie:
Well, I certainly do not want to take any pleasure in saying that I have
found yet another hypocrite. The member
for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) also blessed us with his contributions on this important
topic. So what did the member for
Pembina have to say? Well, the member
for Pembina had a great deal to say about Sunday shopping, and none of it is
going to be consistent with the way the member for Pembina votes on this piece
of legislation when it comes to a vote.
The member for Pembina said: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few
brief comments on this bill. You know we
are talking about an issue that past Progressive Conservative governments
addressed in legislation through the court process, which through the court
process was found to require this amendment.
I have changed my position from when we passed that legislation some
eight years ago, and I approached this from maybe a different perspective
representing rural
What the member for Pembina said
was, I am now concerned as a rural representative about the impact of wide‑open
Sunday shopping, because the member for Pembina said in 1987, I know what is
going to happen. What is going to happen
is that we are going to see the loss of jobs, the loss of opportunity in rural
He goes on to say, Madam Deputy
Speaker: I have to tell you as we try to
tell the Minister of Agriculture today that rural Manitoba cannot stand to lose
one more job, one more business, one future investment in the community. I am trying to point out to the minister
responsible‑‑
* (2110)
An Honourable Member: Who said this?
Mr. Storie:
The member for Pembina. So, Madam
Deputy Speaker, how did the member for Pembina conclude?
But, Madam Speaker, I cannot support
wide‑open Sunday shopping because of its impact on my constituency, jobs
in my constituency and the people I am elected to represent and protect in here
as much as possible.
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, tomorrow
when we see the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) with the big "H" on
his forehead, we are going to replay this little speech that he gave in
1987. We are going to ask him in all
honesty whether he still stands with his constituency. Is he still worried about the jobs in his
constituency? What has changed?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that
is an eloquent defence against this legislation. I guess that we could all wish that we were
flies on the wall when this matter was discussed in caucus. I, for one, would
like to know what the Minister of Health said. I, for one, would like to know
whether in fact he is now distancing himself from his words of only a few years
ago. I am wondering whether his
constituents are going to be very happy that he has done this flip‑flop.
I notice the member for Arthur (Mr.
Downey) being extremely, extremely intent on studying his doodling. I do not think the member for Arthur can be
very happy about this legislation.
I know that we already have two
Conservative members, the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) who has said that
he will not vote against this legislation, but he is not sure he is going to
support it, and the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) who has said, I am opposed
to this legislation.
It would only take one or two individual
members of principle to defeat this legislation and do what is right. That is all it would take. If I were a gambling man, I would never bet
on the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) to keep his word. I would never gamble on taking the Minister
of Health at his word. I know that this
is probably just a piece of paper to the Minister of Health.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I can tell you
that when I next go to Morden, when I next go to Winkler or
Rural members of that caucus have
lost the battle. They have lost the
battle. What is even more disappointing
for rural constituencies and rural communities is not only have they lost the
battle, but they have capitulated. They
have given up on too many issues.
The member for Arthur, the Deputy
Premier (Mr. Downey), and I were just at a meeting in his constituency where
300 people were saying this government has lost touch, and they were not very
happy, and this was not on Sunday shopping, I can assure you.
Although I cannot say I am
particularly surprised that the Minister of Health may have changed his opinion
on Sunday shopping, that he may not have meant what he said in 1987, his logic
in my opinion was impeccable. The fact
of the matter is, the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) at that time and today
was right. That is what is going to
happen.
I look at the paper. The first Sunday after the government
announced its intention to go to wide‑open Sunday shopping, what did we
see in a full‑page ad in the Winnipeg Free Press? Well, we have an advertisement for what the
member for Pembina then called SuperValu; it is now called Superstore. What does it say? Now open Sunday, full complement of staff,
purchase $250 worth of groceries and get $30 dollars off. Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑only good
for Sundays.
If I ran a Foodland store in
Winkler, or if I ran an IGA or a Lucky Dollar or some other store in Steinbach
or Gimli, or Penner Foods, I would think this was predatory pricing. I would say that this was designed for one
thing and one thing only. It was
designed to close the little grocery store in Anola or the little grocery store
in Grunthal or the little grocery store in
The member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard)
was right when he said in 1987 that the next people they are coming after are
the people in rural Manitoba, when the member for Pembina said: I approach this from a different perspective
representing rural Manitoba, because there is no question that SuperValu, and I
will name them as one of the competitors, and indeed Safeway as one of the
competitors, will get their next market share from rural shoppers.
That is what he said. So we no sooner have the government
announcing their intention than we have this full‑page ad.
We have another ad that came out of
The Brandon Sun. This was The Brandon
Sun, December 6, 1992. So the SuperValu,
or the Superstore, in
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have to
ask you, where are the additional customers for SuperValu in
Madam Deputy Speaker, the nonsense
being spouted by the member for Arthur (Mr. Downey) does not even sell in his
own constituency. He need not try it
with members opposite, because it is not logical, it does not follow, and it is
not true, as his own colleague the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) just told
him, if he had listened. It does not
follow. So here he is saying, wake up
and smell the coffee. That is what I am
asking the members opposite to do. Wake
up and smell the coffee, because you are selling your own constituencies down
the economic, competitive river.
An Honourable Member: Wakey, wakey.
Mr. Storie:
Wakey, wakey. The river of
competition, it will sweep you away.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)
was quite right in his prediction. It is
going to be interesting to see whether the Minister of Health now has the
intestinal fortitude to stand up and do what he said he was going to do in 1987
and protect his constituents. That is
what he is going to do.
The member for Steinbach (Mr.
Driedger) is sitting there rocking in his chair, because no one should be more
nervous about this proposed legislation than the member for Steinbach, because
we all know what the business community in Steinbach has to say about Sunday
shopping. So maybe I will be sending
some more information out to the member for Steinbach's constituency reminding
the community of Steinbach and the surrounding communities what the government
is doing for them lately.
* (2120)
I wanted to spend a few minutes
talking about the speech that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.
Stefanson) gave when he introduced this legislation, because this speech is
perhaps as indicative of the style of this government as any.
It reminds me very much of the
minister's statement on NAFTA, on the North American Free Trade Agreement,
because it says on the one hand we have this and on the other hand we have this,
but nowhere do we get a definitive look at the truth.
What ostensibly is the reason for
the introduction of this legislation?
What does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism believe this
legislation is going to do? I think it
is important that before we pass legislation, before we consider legislation,
we try to appreciate its genesis.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
What really created this
interest? Well, Mr. Speaker, I spent
some time going over the minister's speech.
His first comments were kind of instructive. He said that this was a trial basis. In other words, he began by assuring us that
this was only a trial. There was no need
to be concerned, no panic. He said, we
are only doing this on a trial basis. He
does not start off telling us why we are going into a trial, what would prompt
us to start this trial, but he tells us, it is a trial, nobody panic, it ends
in April, do not be excited, please do not adjust your set.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter
is that the reason, the logic behind this comes from a select few individuals
who probably have access to only the ears of the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the
ears of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), because
the government went to great pains to hide its intention. The government hid its intentions with
respect to this legislation up until the announcement.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you may ask‑‑I
am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
An Honourable Member: Deliberate strategy on their part to hide.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, it is a deliberate strategy to
confuse me to keep changing people in the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, the minister went on to
assure us that this trial period was only going to allow limited shopping. Well, it is unlimited shopping, but it is a
limited time period.
Anyway, I know that the government
hid its intentions because only a few days before the government's announcement
I had an opportunity to speak to the former president of the Canadian
Federation of Independent Grocers, a group who are very concerned about Sunday
shopping and more particularly concerned about the impact of the large chains,
the Superstores if you will, in the grocery retail business.
He told me that despite lobbying for
many months the government on Sunday shopping that he had not been able to get
a commitment from the government but was not expecting the kind of announcement
and the timing of the announcement when it actually came.
Mr. Speaker, at the time he was
trying to solicit support from opposition members, and I am sure he had been in
contact with the second opposition party to solicit their support, but he
indicated that he did not expect the government to act, that he did not believe
that there was any imminent danger of the government moving to produce this
kind of legislation. We have had no
realistic explanation, and certainly the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) does not give us any explanation about why the
government chose to act in the way it did.
Normal practice in this Legislature for
many years has been, when you are contemplating a change to an act or the
introduction of new legislation, that you consult broadly with those that are
going to be affected. Normally, if the
minister was going to change The Retail Businesses Sunday Shopping Act or The
Employment Standards Act or The Payment of Wages Act he would have consulted
with groups that would have been affected.
To date, I have not been able to
find any group among those who are affected who were consulted. The only groups who came on side almost
immediately, if not immediately, to support the government's initiative was the
Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. I can
assure you that the principals of Canada Safeway and probably, more particularly,
Superstore, have supported this from Day One.
Some of the major chains, the multinationals who are going to be the
winners in this legislation, may be supporting it, but since the government
announced its plans, I have heard from the Union of Manitoba Municipalities.
In fact, I will be talking about
their opposition in a minute, and I will read the resolution that they passed
at their convention. The member for
Arthur, the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey) knows what it says. The UMM represents hundreds of small towns,
villages, municipalities in rural
We know at the same time, and I have
already indicated that the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers expressed
their concern, have written letters to members opposite. Certainly, I have a letter that I will read
into the record a little bit later that went to the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
expressing their concern. I want to just add at this point that one of the
lines in the letter says that the
Mr. Speaker, the minister went on in
his remarks to‑‑now we still have not gotten to the reason they are
introducing the act. It is not clear
yet, but he has told us that they are going to amend some acts, and he has told
us that it is going to be open limited Sunday shopping, and he now gives us
another clue as to part of the government's agenda.
He says, on page 391, on December
9: Based on assessment of this trial
period, government will decide whether to proceed with Sunday shopping on a
permanent basis and, if so, under what conditions, what would be appropriate
terms and conditions.
Mr. Speaker, that causes us a great
deal of concern. I have absolutely no
faith that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) was at
all serious or sincere when he made that commitment. We do not know to this day, and I am certain
that we will never know what criteria the minister intends to use to do this
assessment.
We have already asked him for any
research that his department has done or any department of government has done,
the Department of Rural Development, and we have received none.
Mr. Speaker, you will forgive
members opposite if we are somewhat suspicious of the modus operandi of the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism.
When the free trade debate was going on, when the NAFTA negotiations
commenced more than a year and one half ago, we asked the minister to prepare
Manitobans by doing an objective assessment of the potential impact of such an
agreement.
I asked the First Minister (Mr.
Filmon), I asked the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), I asked the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) on numerous occasions to give us the
information. Tell us how they were doing
this assessment. How will we know how
many jobs would be gained or how many jobs would be lost? We knew the record of the Free Trade
Agreement when the Premier stood in his place and promised us 15,000 jobs and
instead we have lost tens of thousands of jobs.
* (2130)
Mr. Speaker, despite assuring us
that the research had been done, despite my calling the bluff, the Premier's
bluff on a number of occasions saying, I do not believe the Premier, he has no
studies, to this day, we have not received one‑‑not one‑‑empirical
study done by the government of Manitoba that would tell us where we were going
to win or lose.
When the Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), who is going to look at a five‑month trial
period for this legislation, tells us that, and I quote: Based on assessment of this trial period, the
government will decide, I have absolutely no faith that there will be any real
objective assessment. This is rhetoric
for public consumption and that is all. [interjection] Well, the very brave and
eloquent member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) says from his seat that he
would not expect me to understand it. I
do not claim that I would necessarily be able to understand it, but I defy the
minister or any of his government to table any objective information to allow
me to try, because they do not have the guts to do it. They are lying to people about whether they
are doing it. In fact, that is the truth
of the matter. There will be no objective
assessment.
If the member for Sturgeon Creek
(Mr. McAlpine) wants to stand up at some point in the future and read into the
record some objective analysis, then I will apologize, but there is very little
chance of that‑‑very little chance.
The fact of the matter is, on
virtually every opportunity this government has had to do something on the
basis of facts, it has chosen to do it on the basis of ideology‑‑on
virtually every opportunity.
Maybe the member for Sturgeon Creek
knows something I do not. Maybe the
member for Sturgeon Creek will stand up when I finish my remarks sometime in
late March and tell us the criteria the government is going to use to do the
assessment. Perhaps I can give the
member for Sturgeon Creek a hand; perhaps I will give the member for Sturgeon
Creek some ideas. Now I know that the
member for Sturgeon Creek is on the periphery of the urban caucus, but maybe he
can talk to some of his rural colleagues.
Maybe in some of his more quiet
moments he can speak to the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard). Maybe he can ask the member for Pembina what
he meant in 1987, when he talked about protecting the interests of his
constituents. Maybe he can talk to the
member for Pembina and ask him what he meant by not losing another job to the
economic magnet that
Maybe he can ask the minister
responsible for Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) or the minister responsible for
Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) to include as part of the analysis
the number of jobs that are being lost, the number of businesses that are being
lost in the communities surrounding these larger urban centres, around Winnipeg
and Brandon perhaps, around some other centres if we see that that has
happened.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member
for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) what the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism is going to table. He is going
to table another opinion poll. I can
assure the member for Sturgeon Creek that we are not going to see any
leadership on this issue. What we are
going to see is the capitulation of a government to the interest of a very few,
the
Mr. Speaker, that is not just my
idea. Those were also the words of the
member for Pembina in 1987, the words of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities,
the words of the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, the words of the
Manitoba Chambers of Commerce, the words of Manitoba Federation of Labour, the
words of a lot of church and community leaders across the country.
I am going to read into the record
over the next little while letters from communities across this province,
communities that members opposite are representing, perhaps communities that
the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) represents. [interjection] Well, Mr.
Speaker, I may not read one from Sturgeon Creek and not from a business, but
there are going to be individual letters. Actually, the member for La Verendrye
gave an interesting speech, and I think maybe if I could categorize his
attitude, it is quite indifferent to this legislation. I did not sense a great deal of support. I hope that does not diminish your chances of
cabinet position; but be that as it may, the words are out.
Mr. Speaker, I should go back to the
minister's speech. I am only on page 1
and there are 20 pages. I have never
strayed from the bill, I can assure you, because that would be a breach of the
rules. I want to go back to the
minister's speech which, again, was quite entertaining but not very
enlightening. The minister talked about
doing the assessment for this trial period.
I want to give the minister an opportunity to do something, I think,
very constructive and worthwhile and also, I think, give him a solid basis for
determining whether this experiment works.
On Wednesday of last week, on my
tour through some of southwestern
Mr. Speaker, I do have some
background information on research that the institute has done, and they have
done a whole range of studies on rural economic development. They have studied the rural economic
strategies in other provinces and other parts of the world. They have studied various projects and
undertakings on rural economies and they have a great deal of expertise in that
area.
So I would like to suggest that the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), in consultation with
the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), that they contract with the
Rural Development Institute to do the kinds of assessments that would at least
put some meaning to their word, because we cannot simply have legislation
implemented based on some sort of survey by Prairie Research Associates or by
Angus Reid, for that matter.
What would be wrong, at least intellectually,
with doing some sort of study to attempt to get us to a point where we can
understand what is going to happen here?
We all know that rural
Why would it be so wrong to say,
okay, let us take a five‑month shopping period, I mean, that is what the government
has decided to do, let us try and find out what the impact is. Let us get‑‑[interjection]
Well, no, Mr. Speaker, the only way you can assess the impact is if you know
what was there before the trial began.
The member for Arthur (Mr. Downey) says, that is what we are doing. I can assure the minister that there is no
base‑line data for this experiment, and that is what it is, it is an
experiment.
Before you can assess the results of
this experiment you need to know base line.
You need to know how many jobs are in places like Morris or in smaller
communities like
* (2140)
Mr. Speaker, at least if the
government would give part of this research, part of this assessment to an
independent, arm's‑length body like the Rural Development Institute at
Brandon University, it would have some credibility, because, frankly, anything
that the minister tells us from his chair or from his mike in this Legislature
without providing us hard copies and firm data are going to be suspect, and I
think justifiably suspect.
So I think that there is a
legitimate argument for the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach)
spending some of the money, the windfall he has received from video lottery
terminals from rural Manitoba, which is in the millions of dollars. There is nothing wrong with taking some of
that money and using it to do this kind of assessment if it is going to be
meaningful.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard a couple
of members opposite comment on the existence of Sunday shopping in other
jurisdictions. Well, I want to make one
point to begin with. Just because it is being done in other jurisdictions does
not mean it is right. The fact is, and I
go back to my‑‑[interjection] That is the democratic process. The point I made earlier in my speech about
the environment is something that is only beginning to be considered by levels
of government across
Mr. Speaker, the experience of other
jurisdictions when it comes to Sunday shopping has been quite instructive. The member for Arthur (Mr. Downey) from his
seat a little earlier was saying, well, do you not want to stop cross‑border
shopping?
The Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) was commenting not more than a few weeks before this
piece of legislation was introduced and this policy announced, he was talking
about the fact that cross‑border shopping has declined six percent in the
last few months, all based on the decline of the value of the Canadian
dollar. It had nothing to do with Sunday
shopping.
The member for Emerson (Mr. Penner)
I think was quite right in his discussion of the problem of cross‑border
shopping. It is based on destinations
across the border being exotic. It is
based on the desire by Manitobans to do something different. It is not based on the inability of
Manitobans to find what they need on a Sunday.
It is not based on what they need probably at all.
The member for Transcona (Mr. Reid)
says, why could we not create that at home?
Well, I think we can do that in two ways. Number one, I think that we
can change people's expectations about what they need in terms of themselves as
consumers. I think that we can promote
Mr. Speaker, during his speech, the
minister also talked at some length about the one organization that had come
forward and supported the Sunday shopping legislation apart from the Winnipeg
Chamber of Commerce which, I do not believe, was even referenced in his
speech. He talked about the Manitoba
Hotel Association.
He cited the hotel association as
one organization that believed that Sunday shopping would be good for
them. In fact, the hotel association, I
am sure, would make that case if the hotels represented, the city of
With all due respect to the hotel
association, they also have members in rural constituencies who are going to
lose by this initiative. They are going
to see their members closing their hotels in rural communities because people
are coming into
I think everyone believes that there
may be a net economic benefit for
The minister also talked about the
facts, he called them, that he had about the need for Sunday shopping, and he
referenced a number of polls, and he also referenced the
Mr. Speaker, if I were interpreting
these statistics, I would interpret them much more cautiously because, in fact,
the complete disapproval for Sunday shopping ranged as high as 26 or 27
percent. The complete approval was approximately
32 or 33 percent‑‑not that big a difference. It is like any argument. If you want to pander to one person's view or
one group's view, yes, you can find arguments to support it. There will be bogus arguments like this one
suggested by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey) that this is going
to stop cross‑border shopping.
That is simplistic and probably even untrue. Cross‑border shopping
has been a problem facing Manitobans and Winnipeggers for a long time.
Mr. Speaker, the new member for
Mr. Speaker, I talked to hundreds of
people. The Portage Chamber of Commerce
has opposed this. [interjection] Well, the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr.
Pallister) has confirmed that he will be opposing the Portage la Prairie
Chamber in the Legislature when he stands up to vote for this ludicrous
legislation. That is what he just
said. He just said he was elected only a
few months ago to come here and support and represent the people of
Mr. Speaker, we long for the days of
Ed Connery in this House again. That is
what we long for. [interjection] The member for
Mr. Speaker, we are amused, we are
amused. The member for
* (2150)
I did not intend to provoke the
member for
I point out that the minister also
talked at great length about the fact that the polls showed that a vast
majority of rural Manitobans did not intend to change their shopping habits.
I come from rural
At the time, if you had asked the
people of Baldur, Manitoba, do you intend to take your business elsewhere, do
you intend to shop elsewhere, do you intend to get your groceries from
SuperValu in Brandon, the answer would have been no, just like it is no
now. People want to support their
communities, but economic imperatives are going to take over, and these
communities are going to lose jobs.
Maybe the member for
The sad fact is, Mr. Speaker, not
only will this not do what the minister suggested and the member for Arthur
(Mr. Downey) suggested and stop cross‑border shopping, but there will be
no net economic benefit as a result of this.
We know that as of today that there
are fewer Manitobans working today. We
know that they are earning less. I do
not believe for a minute that changing the legislation on Sunday shopping is
going to create additional jobs, it is simply going to transfer them from one
part of the province to the other. It is
going to create hardship in communities that are already hard‑pressed,
and it may create some additional part‑time jobs at the expense of other
workers and their families in
Mr. Speaker, just for your
information, I want you to know that not very far from
An Honourable Member: It is in the Speaker's riding.
Mr. Storie:
It is the Speaker's riding. Well,
I know that if the Speaker could‑‑[interjection]
This comes from an individual from
the
It is signed by a resident of the
town of
The fact of the matter is, and I do
not know whether the member for
I also wanted to read from a letter
that was directed to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) from the Canadian Federation of
Independent Grocers and signed by the President John Scott, wherein he talks
about the danger and the damage that this legislation is going to do to
independent grocers.
We know that in rural
This letter urges the government not
to proceed with this legislation. I want
to read just part of this letter at this point, and it talks about the concerns
of Sunday Shopping, particularly, the experience of Sunday shopping in other
jurisdictions. It is also important to
consider the issue of who benefits from Sunday shopping. In
Well, I do not know about your small
communities, but I know that in rural northern
Mr. Speaker, I ask them to make a
list of their constituency. List all of
the little communities in your constituency and then start stroking them off
one at a time, because the government has given up on them. That is what the government has done. The government said this little community
does not matter, that little community does not matter. We are going to give it all away for Sunday
shopping, for an ideal which is wrong.
Our world does not need more
consumerism. Our world needs less; that
is the fact. Before my time expires this
evening, and I will continue, I want to read the resolution that was passed by
the Union of Manitoba Municipalities.
Resolution 13, which came from the
R.M. of
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 where owners of small business are already working six days a week and
opening a Sunday would only increase their workload and operating costs without
guaranteeing an increase in income; and
WHEREAS Sunday has been considered
the day of rest and a family day, staff that would have to work on Sunday would
have to face additional pressures on already delicate family units;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Union of Manitoba Municipalities opposes the implementation of Sunday shopping.
Mr. Speaker, there was a vast
majority of councillors who attended this annual convention who opposed this
legislation. The unfortunate and the ironic circumstance is that we have in the
front benches of this government, and some backbenchers, who represent rural
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The hour being 10
p.m., this House now adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow
(Tuesday).
This matter will remain standing in
the name of the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).