LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Friday,
April 23, 1993
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Marlene Antonio, Linda Smith, Frances Spooner and others requesting the
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) to consider restoring funding of
the student social allowance program.
* * *
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Susan Comeau, Doran Reid, Diane Reid and others requesting the Family Services
minister (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider restoring funding for friendship centres
in
* * *
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and
present the petition for Fiona Muldrew, Carol Popiel, Lorraine Moore and others
requesting the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider
restoring the funding for the student social allowance program.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Darla Tenold, Susan Banks, Allison Dewar and others requesting the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider restoring funding of the student
social allowance program.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Hickes). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition
read? Does he want it read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the United Nations has declared
1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme,
"Indigenous People: a new
partnership"; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to
friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services
and programs provided, such as:
assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially
disadvantaged, families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural
programming, housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance,
advocacy;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Ms. Wowchuk). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the United Nations has declared
1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme,
"Indigenous People: a new
partnership"; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to
friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services
and programs provided, such as:
assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially
disadvantaged, families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural
programming, housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance,
advocacy;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Martindale). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the United Nations has declared
1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme,
"Indigenous People: a new
partnership"; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to
friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services
and programs provided, such as:
assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially
disadvantaged, families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural
programming, housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance,
advocacy;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* (1005)
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us
today His Excellency Tajeddine Baddou, who is the Ambassador of
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
Also with us this afternoon, we have the
Honourable Penny Priddy, Minister of Women's Equality from the government of
I would like to welcome you here this
afternoon.
Now we have from the St. Adolphe School
forty‑two Grades 7 and 8 students under the direction of Ms. Lois
Quesnel. This school is located in the
constituency of the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson).
Also this afternoon from the Applied
Linguistics Centre, we have 36 students under the direction of Ms. Ruth
Klippenstein and Ms. Greta Gibson. This
school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for St. James
(Mr. Edwards).
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Core Area
Agreement
Renewal
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First
Minister.
In 1990, the Premier in the election
campaign committed himself and his government to renewing a third tripartite
agreement, the Core Area Agreement for the city of
In December of this year, we asked the
Premier again after the minibudget came out, and the Premier agreed with us
that the minibudget from the federal Conservatives was full of holes for
The Premier again said he would raise it
with the Prime Minister. In fact, it was
on his public agenda when he met with Prime Minister Mulroney in early
December.
My question to the Premier is: In the budget next week, on Monday, can we
expect to have the renewal of the Core Area Agreement for the people of
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, of course, the member knows full
well that if matters of public policy were to be raised prior to the budget,
obviously that could create an issue for the budget, and so I would not know
whether or not it is in the budget because I would not have knowledge of the
contents of that budget. In fact,
anybody who would have knowledge of the contents of that budget could jeopardize
its approval process, so I could not give him an answer to that.
What I can say is that we have had some
encouraging indications of an interest on the part of the new lead minister for
* (1010)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the Premier well knows that
federal‑provincial agreements are announced all the time outside of the
federal budget. In fact, the last
renewed Core Area Agreement‑‑[interjection] Well, the Premier
commented about its lack of inclusion in the minibudget on December 3, 1992,
and the Premier then said that he would raise it with the Prime Minister.
I want to ask the Premier: When can we expect a new Core Area Agreement
for the city of
We have been waiting for two years since
the Premier promised it. It is an
internationally renowned program that has trained thousands of Manitobans in
the inner city, has renewed many parts of our physical structure in the inner
city. It has received international
awards.
When can we expect the Premier to fulfill
the promise that he made to the people of
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, the member asked if it was going
to be in the budget of next Monday. I
answered that question specifically, and then he responds that it could be
announced even outside of the budget.
That is precisely why we have the three
ministers who will be responsible ultimately for the negotiation and the
drafting of such agreement working. We
have the three levels of government headed by Mayor Susan Thompson, the
Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) and Mr. Charlie Mayer, who is the lead
minister for the
They have been working on it. They met as recently as last week, I believe
it was‑‑it might have been the week before‑‑and
progress is being made. So I say to him
that we are more optimistic today than we were in December, Mr. Speaker.
Training
Programs
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): The federal Conservative government has
systematically cut back on their training commitments to the
The provincial government has also reduced
its commitment to access programs in its own budget this year, Mr. Speaker, and
I would like to ask the Premier whether the new Core Agreement will include
increased training and development programs for people in the inner city, for
people across
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Given that all of the elements of the agreement
are currently under negotiation amongst all three levels of government, I can
only say that the Leader of the Opposition will have to wait until the
agreement is negotiated and finalized to find the answer to that.
Children's
Advocate
Minister's
Clarification
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Premier.
Yesterday, the Minister of Family Services
(Mr. Gilleshammer) is quoted as saying that the Children's Advocate speaks on
behalf of individual children. I would like
the Minister of Family Services to reread the Children's Advocate bill, which
says that the duties of the Children's Advocate are to advise the minister on
matters relating to the welfare and interest of children and services relating
to children, to review and investigate complaints that he or she receives
relating to children and relating to services provided to children, plural.
I would like to ask the Premier to clarify
this statement by his minister, that the Children's Advocate investigates complaints
regarding individuals in spite of the fact that the act refers to children in
general. Would the Premier clarify,
please?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, that obviously would be a
question of clarification that should be addressed to the person who made the
statement, and he may want to do that in due course.
But I will say that it is interesting that
the members opposite argue that the Child Advocate would somehow not be
independent and spent hours and hours and days and months debating a bill
saying that the Child Advocate would not be independent, and now that we have
the first public action of the Child Advocate demonstrating clearly the
independence, that is not recognized or acknowledged by the member opposite.
Recommendations
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Could the Premier explain to me then, please,
why he is criticizing our position when the Children's Advocate printed a
letter making a recommendation to the minister which the Legislative Assembly
was totally unaware of until we obtained a copy of this letter, in spite of the
fact that I asked the minister in Estimates if he had made any recommendations,
and the minister refused to answer the question?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, we do have an opportunity to get
advice from people from a wide variety of sources. The Child Advocate obviously did not address
the issue as to how it could be that
Perhaps the Child Advocate would want to
address some of those issues and would want to look at the policies of New
Democrats in government and the lack of support, perhaps, that they provide for
their children.
* (1015)
Proclamation
of Bill
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, can the Premier tell the House
when his government plans to proclaim, by Order‑in‑Council, the
Children's Advocate bill?
The Children's Advocate needs the mandated
authority to carry out his mandated duties, and he needs to have the act in
place to back up his authority to carry out investigations.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as
notice on behalf of the minister.
Taxicab
Board
Government
Confidence
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
My question to the Minister of Highways
and Transportation (Mr. Driedger): Does
he have confidence in the current board, in particular in Mr. Norquay, when
there is an onus, there is a responsibility that the public's interest does
have to be best served and you have to see co‑operation? How can we see that there is co‑operation
when we have a bill of this nature that has been introduced‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I had asked the member
yesterday to have a little bit of patience.
Within the half hour I will be giving second reading to the bill, and I
will be giving additional information to the members of the House in terms of
what we are trying to accomplish with the bill.
I want to assure members of this House, as
well as the people in the taxicab industry, that this legislation that we are
proposing, if there are areas that are going to be of concern in terms of how
the industry is run, I am prepared to discuss that further. However, the cost‑recovery aspect of it
is something that I am not prepared to have any give on.
At the present time we recover only 50
percent of the costs of running the taxicab industry. We are going to full cost recovery on that. Part of the legislation will allow that to
happen, and that is one area where I am not going to compromise on.
Bill 24
Amendments
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Can the minister tell me: Will the minister be looking at introducing
amendments to Bill 24?
Point of
Order
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would
indicate to you that I will be calling the bill that the minister referred to
in Orders of the Day. Indeed, if there
are rules that we are trying to follow, I would say that already asking the minister
to indicate whether or not he is going to bring amendments down, when indeed
the minister has not even put second reading on the record, I say is highly out
of order and I would ask the member to withdraw the question.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the
honourable government House leader, he has indeed informed the House now that
they will be calling that said bill this afternoon after Question Period, so
therefore the honourable member's question is out of order. The honourable member may rephrase his
question if he so wishes.
Legal
Notice
Government
Policy
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his
question. Order, please. You have put your question.
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I hate to belabour this, but
I find it ironic that we are trying to debate the bill before we have even
given second reading on the thing. I
mean, we went at this yesterday and did the same thing, and that is basically‑‑he
is taking issues out of the bill before I have given second reading.
I have asked him, have a little
patience. You know, I have an open mind
to some of the issues in here, if there are major concerns. If he will listen and read my first answer, I
think that should clarify it for him.
* (1020)
Legislation
Consultation
Government
Policy
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I do not know which boards
have more meetings and consultations than the Taxicab Board has had over the
last three or four years in trying to resolve some difficult issues in
there. How the member can stand here and
say there has been no consultation‑‑I have great difficulty with
that.
Government
Spending
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by
congratulating the
Environment
department for its work and recognition today.
It should be congratulated on ozone‑depleting substances. I have congratulated before and recognized
the work in this area, and I would just hope that eliminating the division that
deals with this program is not going to disrupt the successful start in this
area.
I hope that the same close desire for
change and foresight will be applied by this government in dealing with water. We have just learned that this government is
subsidizing a huge irrigation zone in southern
Why, for the Minister of Environment, are
we spending $62 million on the Assiniboine Diversion if there is water
available closer to this region that is being used for irrigation?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, if the
member knows where that $62 million is I would like to meet with her. If she knows something I do not know I want
to talk to her.
Mr. Speaker, this is indeed serious. The fact is that while there are obviously
lots of discussions and proposals in front of the government, there are
certainly no decisions that have been made.
The fact is that the proposals to become involved in the
Discussions, I am sure, will rage long and
loud at that juncture, and I would invite the member and others who are
concerned to marshal their arguments to be presented in that forum.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, the $62 million is subsidy,
taxpayers' money from various levels of government that is going to the
Why are we spending this kind of money and
why do we have the Agassiz Irrigation Project being used first for irrigation
instead of drinking water as the priority use if we are spending money on the
Assiniboine Diversion? Why is this water
not being used for drinking water?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, there are always a number of
options to any proposal or program that is put forward. I would assume that the member is very
cognizant of the fact that the Winkler aquifer, for example, could be force fed
or recharged, if you will, to try and enhance its capacity, but one of the
concerns we have is that any recharge other than by the natural process that
normally occurs is that recharge could contaminate that aquifer through spring
runoff that could contain contaminants that would be virtually impossible to
remove from an aquifer.
These are the kinds of problems and
debates that enter into where a community gets its potable water from, how its
future growth will be either possible or restricted.
I would invite the member again to make
sure that those arguments are brought forward at the commission.
Government
Subsidies
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): It is good to see the minister acknowledging
problems with contaminated runoff water, but I would ask the minister: I think it is $2.8 million for the
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, again,
there are programs and proposals that are put forward and requests that
government become involved in the process, but any of this has to be recognized
as proposals. Definite commitment of
dollars is far from being consummated in terms of diversion or in terms of
accumulation of dollars in the future.
I can tell you that we are not hiding
anything in Clayton's sock, Mr. Speaker.
Frankly, these things have to be very carefully reviewed, and
environmental concerns are primary.
* (1025)
Clean
Environment Commission Hearings
Selkirk
Involvement
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): My questions are for the Minister of
Environment.
Studies have indicated that Selkirk will
be negatively affected by the Assiniboine Diversion project, and given the
major problem Selkirk has in terms of water quality, my question to the
minister is: Why was Selkirk not
included in the Clean Environment Commission hearings? Why were we shut out from voicing our
concerns on this issue?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, there is
no reason in the world why Selkirk cannot be involved in the presentations at
the Clean Environment Commission. Every
community at one point or another can make an argument that they should be
involved in the process.
The Clean Environment Commission chose
what they thought were the appropriate areas for discussion, and quite often
there may be disagreement over that. It
is quite legitimate that if that community feels that an additional site should
be chosen for a hearing, they put that request forward. But the commission has reviewed this, and
they have decided that the locations which they are using would be the
appropriate ones. If the member or the
community has other advice, let us hear it.
Mr. Dewar: Mr. Speaker, that is small consolation to the
community of Selkirk.
Department
of Environment
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Is the Minister of Environment still
committed to ensuring that the City of
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, my
hearing device does not work, and I was unable to pick up the first part of
that member's question. If I could ask
him‑‑
Mr. Speaker: We will ask him to repeat it. The honourable member for Selkirk, kindly
repeat your question, please.
Mr. Dewar: On behalf of the citizens of Selkirk, Mr.
Speaker, I am just asking the Minister of Environment if his department is
still committed to ensuring that the City of
Mr. Cummings: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is an important
question and one which we have been dealing with on an ongoing basis for the
last three years, including the water quality study that was done and released
by the Department of Environment.
I want to tell you, that is the direction
in which the city is moving, where they have been asked for proposals on how
they will develop the ability to provide that treatment.
Again, we recognize the problem and the
severity of the problem. The balance
will have to be struck, along with the capability of the taxpayers of the city
to put those dollars into infrastructure.
We believe that long‑range water quality objectives that we have
set and the requirements that this puts on the City of
Red/Assiniboine
Rivers Water Quality
Government
Improvement Plans
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, that is the same answer he has
been giving me for the last couple of years in this House, but what plans does
this minister have to improve the water quality of the Red and the
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): First of all, Mr.
Speaker, I think the member is ignoring the fact that it requires a little bit
of previous planning to commit several million dollars on behalf of either the
City or the
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the water quality
of the Assiniboine and any potential impacts that has on the city of
If that is the case, then we are quite
prepared to hear those arguments.
* (1030)
Taxicab Industry
Government
Consultation
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): My question is for the Minister of Highways.
Mr. Speaker, this minister has introduced
a bill which will expand the powers of the Taxi Board. This expansion in power was done without
consultation with all stakeholders. It
appears from this bill that the new Taxi Board will give drivers more
uncertainty for their rights and their responsibilities.
Can the Minister of Highways tell this
House if he has done any consultation with the taxi owners and drivers board?
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I personally have not had
the consultation with the industry. I
have a Taxicab Board that basically adjudicates the responsibilities of the
taxi industry. There has been ongoing
discussion with them.
As we move forward with this bill,
obviously it is drawing a lot of attention, and there will be a lot of
discussion. I am prepared to entertain
that kind of discussion.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Highways give
assurance to us before he brings in any amendment if he would meet with the
taxi industry now and try to have a reasonable solution to this major problem?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Taxicab Board
is to basically administrate the responsibilities of the taxicab industry. I have had the confidence in that board and
in the chairman over the last three, four years.
The one assurance I will give the member
is that as this bill comes forward, as we debate this bill, if there are areas
of major concern, we will take and address them to the best of our ability.
Taxicab
Board
Removal of
Chairperson
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell the
Minister of Highways what happened with the Tuxedo Taxi. The issue is very serious.
This chairperson has been a major source
of irritation for a large section of my community, and this board chairperson
has been causing them problems for the last five years, and he is not sending a
good message.
Can the Minister of Highways now remove
this chairperson from this board and try to resolve this problem?
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, no, I have confidence in the
chairman. If I did not, I would have
removed him already. I believe that the
chairman has been relatively sincere in terms of trying to address all aspects
of the problems in the taxicab industry, and I am prepared to debate that
further as we go through the bill.
Job Loss Government
Action
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, we are advised that another 41
people have been laid off at
Can the Premier advise the House what
progress has been made to provide for the transition of these people and the
services they offer to programs in the community? What programs are being offered as a result
of the loss of these jobs and these services in the community?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, because I know a great deal of
work is being done by the Urban Hospital Council and the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard) in all of these matters and because I know the member would want
me to give a full and complete answer for that question, I will take that as
notice on behalf of the Minister of Health.
Health
Community Services
Layoffs/Program
Cuts
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): My supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the
Premier review the minister's comments in the House yesterday when he said, all
of those reports are coming in three, four, five and six months and then the
community services will be in place?
Will he also ask the minister, if he takes as notice or he is prepared
to answer today, why are they laying off all these people and shutting down
programs, presumably, when these agencies have not even reported the results of
what they are doing to the minister or to the Health Reform committee?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, you see, the member is putting
presumptions which may be beneficial to his attempting to create an issue‑‑for
instance, among other things, the reforms that are involved and the
opportunities for more efficiency in the use of beds involved; for instance,
that preoperative care will be provided on an outpatient basis. So that changes the number of beds allocated
for particular purposes as part of what is being done.
So I do not want to get into the detail of
it, because it is an issue, obviously, that the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) should be charged with the responsibility to talk about publicly and
to debate with the member. So, again, I
will take his question, the substance of his question, as notice on behalf of
the Minister of Health.
Education
System
School
Dropout Rate
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, for the last two days, the
Minister of Education has tried to evade any discussion of dropout rates in
My question to the minister today, as it
has been in the past, is: Does the
minister accept this number for
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, the member has obviously forgotten the answers that I have given her
over the past few days. She has referred
to studies by Statistics Canada, and I have said to her that there are many
studies in the area of dropout rates, some of which attribute a dropout rate of
30 to 33 percent.
Mr. Speaker, in our department we have
been looking at the graduation rates of students. The graduation rates, the most recent
numbers, indicate 73 percent. I gave her
yesterday, therefore, based on the graduation rates, a dropout rate, if you use
that statistic, of 27 percent in
However, Mr. Speaker, as I have said to
the member, please let us discuss exactly the meaning of dropout, because we
know that some young people do leave school for a certain period of time, then
they reintegrate into the system and they do successfully complete a high
school degree.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I gave the minister
the name of the study. Today, I gave her
the definition of dropout when I read it out in quotations. I do not know how I can make it any simpler
for this minister.
I want to ask the minister, could she
explain why that Statistics
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, again, I have said to the member,
she has offered one definition of the issue of dropout. We in
This government established that branch last
year, and this government puts $10 million into that branch. That branch focuses on the issues of students
at risk so that we are doing something very concretely to assist young people
to remain in school and complete their high school education.
Social
Allowance Cutbacks
Impact on
School Dropout Rate
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, could the minister then tell the
House again, because I really enjoy her explanation of this one, what will be
the impact on the dropout rate of forcing 1,200 students on social allowance
out of the classroom and onto the streets?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, as the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) has explained a
number of times, there were some very difficult decisions.
We did offer assistance to students on
social assistance. It was the only
program in
Carter
Report
Government
Position
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Barley growers may go to spring seeding
not knowing how their export barley will be marketed. They are concerned about the future of the
Canadian Wheat Board.
I want to ask the minister if he has
finally taken a position on the Carter report.
Will he finally stand up with
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the
farmers of
Some questions are being raised about
whether we are penetrating the American market to the maximum possible extent
and getting the maximum return at the farm gate for our farmers, and I want to
see our farmers get the maximum return at the farm gate.
I would like to remind the member what is
really happening in the barley industry.
Over the course of the last 10 years, we have seen the costs at the farm
gate go up for such things as freight, elevation, cleaning, transportation to
Meanwhile, the value the farmer is getting
at the farm gate has gone from less than $3 down to about $1.70. So you see our costs doubling at the farm
gate and our revenues coming down.
I think it is very fair to ask whoever is
marketing our barley that they maximize the return for the farmer. Otherwise, he is going to be driven out of
business with this kind of arithmetic that is going on in the overall grain
industry.
* (1040)
Plebiscite
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I want to ask the minister if he is
prepared to stand with
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the
questions I am asking are the ones I have just indicated. I want to know that we are getting the
maximum return at the farm gate in terms of value and maximizing our
penetration of selling our barley into the closest market.
The closest market for us is now to go
south. We have a high‑quality
product. It is very expensive for us to
export across the Pacific or
I tend to believe that we are, but I want
confirmation of that, and that is what I want to tell our producers out there
in
Aboriginal
Farmers
Government
Action
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
What steps has the Minister of Agriculture
taken on behalf of aboriginal farmers who, through no fault of their own, will
not be able to get operating loans this spring?
Is there any way, or has he taken any steps to ensure that emergency
funding is put in place so aboriginal farmers in
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I
imagine the member is referring to a program that has been in place totally
federally operated, totally federally funded.
I would ask the member to direct that question to the federal
government. They have made decisions.
In
Dress Code
Policy
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Mr. Speaker, when requested for a recent copy
of the dress code policy of the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation, an employee
replied that they do not make their dress code available to the public when,
clearly, Manitoba Lotteries is a public corporation financed by the public
taxpayer serving the clientele of Manitobans.
My question, Mr. Speaker: Unless the honourable Minister responsible
for Manitoba Lotteries Foundation has some skeleton to hide in the corporate
closet, could she kindly table before this Assembly the dress code policy of
Manitoba Lotteries Foundation?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister charged with the administration of The
Mr. Speaker, getting back to the dress
code, I want to indicate that the policy is exactly the same as the policy that
presently exists at the
If in fact there is a concern or an issue
that anyone has been discriminated against, there is the opportunity to appeal
to the Human Rights Commission.
Mr. Santos: Mr. Speaker, can the honourable minister
explain to this Assembly and to Manitobans how this policy, which applies only
to males, cannot help but be discriminatory?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously, before
the policy was introduced by the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation they checked with
the Human Rights Commission, and the Human Rights Commission did agree that a
policy could be put into place.
There was an instance back in 1991 when
someone from the
Mr. Santos: Can the honourable minister clearly state
whether or not she is willing to table this policy before this Assembly?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that
there is a policy. It is a policy that
is known, and if indeed someone feels that they are being discriminated against
because of the policy, which the Human Rights Commission has said could be put
into place, they have the ability to appeal.
Stubble
Burning
Government
Policy
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I understood from the policy unveiled by the Minister of Environment that
stubble burning was not going to be allowed to take place after dusk.
Can the minister explain, therefore, why
in a drive back from Dauphin to
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, if
there were complaints that were registered, we would respond to them. If these fires were not extinguished within
two hours of sunset, they were in violation of the regulations.
If the member feels that these were in
flagrant violation, then I invite her to provide us with the information.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us whether
his policy is going to be proactive or reactive with regard to the fires as a
result of stubble burning?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, the member's definition of
proactive may well mean that we should have environment officers in every waste
disposal ground and patrolling the highways regularly at dusk to make sure that
the fires are out. We probably do not have
those kinds of resources. The
announcement also stated that our increased area of vigilance would be in
proximity to heavily populated areas. I
suspect the reason that we did not get a complaint was because‑‑or
perhaps we did and I have not been notified of it. I suspect the reason, however, that
complaints would not roll in from the situation that she describes is as a
result of them not impinging on large urban areas. I can tell you that the focus is in the area
immediately adjacent to where we are at this moment, and other areas, we
obviously recognize that we will need to have assistance from the community in
order to identify some of the violations.
Reporting
Procedure
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, can the minister tell the House today what type of reporting procedure
will be put into place so that individuals who want to report such clear
violations will in fact have a number at ready disposal so that they can make
that complaint?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister
of Environment): Mr. Speaker, we have a 24‑hour response
line at the department, and we will be quite prepared to respond on that line.
[interjection]
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Doer) says this was in my own back yard.
Perhaps anyone who sees somebody in that area burning would like to
identify the problem, and we will act on it.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, Second
SECOND
Bill 24‑The
Taxicab Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), that Bill 24, The Taxicab Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les taxis et apportant
des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), be now read a second time and
referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, in bringing forward the
information related to second reading of Bill 24, at the outset I want to say that
the initial Taxicab Act was passed in 1935 and it has been a long time since
that time, and a lot of changes should have really taken place.
The proposed legislation is directed in
four general areas. Firstly, the bill proposes the repeal of U‑drive licensing
requirements. U‑drive businesses
or drive‑yourself booking offices are presently required to hold a
licence from the Taxicab Board. The
license requirement was initially instituted as a regulatory compliance measure
to protect the taxicab industry from illegal renting of a vehicle with a driver
by a U‑drive business. This
measure is no longer necessary given the maturity of the U‑drive
industry. No U‑drive operator has
ever been subject to regulatory compliance action. Charges can be laid in the courts against any
U‑drive business that illegally operates as a taxicab business. The plans, in this regard, are proposed to be
increased. Further, as the existing
licensing requirement only applies to Winnipeg U‑drive businesses, the
industry views it as discriminatory.
* (1050)
Secondly, the bill provides broader fee
powers to the Taxicab Board, and this seems to be creating some concern to some
of my colleagues. Overall, government
financial imperatives require that the board recover the full cost of the
regulatory system it administers from the regulated industry. In addition, taxicab regulatory agencies in
most other jurisdictions in
Among the new fees contemplated are fees
for applications, for reinspection of vehicles, and the training of taxicab
drivers. Without such fees, the present
annual fees paid by all licensed holders would have be increased to an unfairly
high level. The board presently recovers
about 50 percent of its cost in fees.
Fees have already been increased in two stages. A further one or two stages will allow full‑cost
recovery by the end of the fiscal year 1993‑1994.
An increase in the board‑prescribed
fare of less than 1 percent will allow the industry to pass on the full cost of
fee increases and new fees to taxicab users.
I might add as an aside that with that 1 percent increase, and the
Taxicab Board would probably be prepared for an increase to take place, this
would put us in the middle category in terms of fees across the country.
Thirdly, the bill proposes an improved
cost recovery regulatory compliance system.
The board presently only has the power to suspend or cancel
licences. It is proposed that the board
be given the power to impose monetary penalties. I am prepared to discuss why we feel, because
of the system the way it is, that if we suspend somebody, the effect is going
to be negative either on the owner or the driver. The proposed legislation will result in
improved regulatory compliance, a fairer compliance system and recovery of the
cost of board disciplinary measures from operators who contravene the
regulations, rather than the industry as a whole.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill contains a
number of amendments to update and improve the legislation. I repeat again, The Taxicab Act was enacted
in 1935. The board's procedural and
regulation‑making powers are inadequate in light of the developments in
administrative law and in the industry since that time. The proposed amendments, in this regard, will
reduce the likelihood and the costs of court challenges and will allow the
board to more effectively fulfill its mandate.
The act presently does not provide for an
appeal. The proposed legislation
provides for an appeal directly to the Court of Appeal, with leave, on a
question of law or jurisdiction. In
addition, the fines for violations of the basic requirements of the legislation
are proposed to be updated, including the fine for failing to pay a taxicab
fare. This is something that I think the
taxi drivers have always been concerned about.
A number of amendments of a housekeeping nature are proposed, as well,
including amendments to make the wording gender‑neutral throughout the
act.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, this legislation
will eliminate an unnecessary regulatory burden, will allow the termination in
an equitable manner of the subsidy of the taxicab regulatory system paid by the
taxpayer, and it will improve the effectiveness and fairness of taxicab
regulation to the benefit of the citizens of
Mr. Speaker, as I have in the past, I will
be pleased to provide the honourable members a table prepared by my staff that
sets out the existing and proposed provisions and explains each amendment in
detail.
As I have done in the past when I have
brought forward legislation, I am prepared to have two spreadsheets for the
critics that I would like to hand out. I
want to again offer the fact that if there are areas of major concern that I am
prepared to, through the course of the debate and the hearing process that we
will be going through, look at it to see whether there is any way that we are
imposing conditions that are not acceptable to the industry.
However, I repeat, as I did in Question
Period, that we are on the course of cost recovery and we will be moving in
that direction.
Just a few additional comments‑‑I
am concerned to some degree by the fact that this will again, I suppose, bring
to the fore the concern that the industry has had with the chairman. In my discussions with the chairman over the many
years and the many issues that have come forward, I have always felt, in spite
of the criticism that comes from the industry, that he has been a very sincere
individual in terms of trying to be fair and equitable.
Anybody who knows the chairman, Mr. Don
Norquay, if they have ever had anything to do with him, they cannot help but
agree that he is a fair individual. That
does not mean that everybody necessarily likes him, but his fairness is one
thing that I will certainly defend at any given time.
Mr. Speaker, with those remarks, I am
prepared to take and listen to what comments the opposition members have, and I
am prepared to take and work with this bill, as I have with others, to try and
give as much care and consideration as we move through the process.
Thank you.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, speaking to this bill, I want to
say that we have watched the government operate with the taxicab industry for
the last five, going on six years, and fairness must be a guiding principle for
whoever is in government for the people of
I believe that this government has not
operated fairly with the taxi operators of
I have listened, Mr. Speaker, to taxicab
drivers and operators and owners that have been put in a very difficult
position with policy decisions, some of which are reflected in this bill, that
this government has implemented in the taxicab industry.
If it was not for just a
"circumstance" of an education and training grant, we may have seen a
company named Tuxedo Taxi, supported by this government, come into operation at
a differential rate from the regular operators.
How can that be called fair in terms of decision making from this
government?
If you do not have a level playing field
to get in, how is it fair for the other people to compete? Why do we see the government bending over
backwards in terms of their decision making to help one group of entrepreneurs
over a group of existing people, small operators, depending on their livelihood
in the taxicab industry? Why do I have
to listen to operators, from whatever company, tell me, and when we investigate
it, that this thing has been unfair?
This minister I respect as a fair person,
so I do not understand why he is doing it.
He must be under instructions from the Premier (Mr. Filmon), who has his
own contacts in the business community, because I cannot understand. It is not part of the fabric of what I would
consider being fair decision making.
So, Mr. Speaker, over a period of time,
the people, the individual operators who have put their livelihood on the line
have gone and used our democratic system to deal with the decisions that have
been placed before them, the roadblocks that have been placed before them. They have been very unfair roadblocks, but
they have used our systems and our democratic processes to try to challenge
those systems.
They have gone to court, and Justice
Monnin in his last decision quite rightly said the board has no authority to
implement a partial decision. The board
has no authority. So they won. The individual, the small person, the small
operator, the David beat Goliath and, Mr. Speaker, you are Goliath. Make no doubt about it, the Conservative
Party, the Conservative government is Goliath and David is the operator out
there trying to make a living with one or two or three cabs under very tough
conditions.
* (1100)
I am on the side of David on this one; we
are on the side of David. We are not on
the side of Goliath, because it is not fair‑‑it is not fair.
I really worry about the motivation that is
involved in taking these operators on. I
really want to know the subconscious motivation that is going on right now in
terms of these operators. I cannot go
any further than that in my comments about motivation, but it disturbs me
beyond just this bill. It disturbs me
greatly when I consider what is going on with these people.
Mr. Speaker, so we were lucky on Tuxedo
Taxi, because we had raised this question in the House and our critic had
raised it and the Liberals have raised it.
We had raised it for four years.
Why, when the unemployment rate is going up, why, when the population is
going down, why, when bankruptcies are increasing, why, when business activity
is going the other way would you increase the number of operators? Why would you do it at an unfair fee?
That is not the way. The minister would not want to see a
situation where one sugar beet producer got one fee to get in and another sugar
beet operator in another constituency or another area got another fee. Is that the Conservative philosophy? Is that the policy of the Taxicab Board? Tuxedo Taxi gets one deal to get in and the
existing operators who work 16 hours a day, seven days a week, have to pay a
much larger fee? Is this the free
enterprise system that we hear about? Is
this the level playing field? Is this
fair?
So why are we having this bill after the
government lost the court decision? Who
is pulling the chain of the Premier to get this preferential treatment for the
luxury cab situation to do out of business those owner operators? Who is calling the shots? [interjection]
Well, you know, the Deputy Premier here
has one of his usual articulate speeches, a couple of grunts in the middle of
the Chamber, Mr. Speaker. It is
disgusting. It is always disgusting in
this Chamber when we are participating in an exercise to do somebody in at the
benefit of a few others who are being enhanced by government policy.
I am going to tell this minister, we are
not going to sit by and let him pass what he considers to be a little technical
bill to participate in the exercise of antifree enterprise, antifairness and
questionable policies in terms of the taxicab industry. I do not know who is pulling their chains,
which business operator is next in line at the trough to get preferential treatment
so they can do under the other people, but we are not going to sit by and let
it happen. We are not going to sit by.
Mr. Speaker, we will be dealing with parts
of this bill, in the principles of the bill, but the government should have
left Judge Monnin's decision alone. The
government should not have created two abilities to access cab licences. The government should respect the principles
that they allegedly articulate‑‑competition, fair competition, I
guess would be the operative word. As I
said, you would not have one charge to access a sugar beet program for one
group of farmers and another policy to access sugar beet farming for another
set of farmers, and that is what we believe is behind this bill. Make no mistake about it.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
We do not think it is improving the
quality of taxicab services in
Madam Deputy Speaker, let me deal with
some specifics of the bill. The
restriction of the courts is one which concerns me. Why would this government
restrict the ability of courts to make legal decisions? If the Taxicab Board is independently
appointed and is wrong on their decision, why is the Court of Appeal being
restricted on what it can look at? I
suggest to the minister it is because Judge Monnin said, on page 24 of his
decision: It is only when it becomes
obvious that it cannot implement the complete decision did it come back with a
severance tack in July '91. To say now
that the issue of compensation is of little importance and is not part of
public convenience and necessity, review process leaves me somewhat incredulous.
The compensation fund was clearly a
significant component of the complete decision, and it would be unfair to allow
the board now to sever its decision and proceed only with the increasing of
quotas without having to implement at the same time its compensation
recommendation.
So the minister then says in the House
today that the board has been, quote, reasonable‑‑relatively
reasonable I think were the words he used‑‑yet the judge in an
independent decision clearly stated the board has not been reasonable. I think that the minister should be looking
at this decision and not changing the goal post, Madam Deputy Speaker, but
rather changing the process under which fair decisions are made, changing the
way in which those decisions are made instead of changing the rules.
I want to deal with another issue. It is customary in this House for legislation
that is going to be proceeded with, there is a consultation with those people
directly affected. If you are going to
bring in legislation on beekeepers, you talk to beekeepers. If you are going to bring in legislation
dealing with fur trappers, you talk to fur trappers. You should talk to them. It does not mean you are going to do
everything they say, but you should listen to them.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I was at a forum
with you last week with the Real Estate Board where you indicated that there
was a committee of the Conservative Party that reviewed all legislation. In fact the Deputy Speaker is on that
committee. The Finance minister (Mr. Manness) is on that committee. The member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau)
is on that committee. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) is on that
committee. I remember you telling the
real estate agents that we consult with people before we bring legislation in
this House. We consult with those people
before we bring any legislation through our internal committee. You know what? That is a good idea. The Minister of Finance is the deputy chair
of that committee. The Deputy Speaker is
the chair of that committee. The member
for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) is on that committee. The member for Highways (Mr. Driedger)‑‑I
do not know whether you are on the committee or not. The internal committee of the Conservative
Party can review legislation.
An Honourable Member: The co‑chair is Emerson.
Mr. Doer: Ah, the co‑chair is Emerson. Okay, you are the deputy chair, are you not?
An Honourable Member: No, we are both co‑chairs.
Mr. Doer: Two co‑chairs and a chair. No, you are both co‑chairs. The bottom line is, there is a six‑‑
An Honourable Member: We all work together as a team.
Mr. Doer: Well, I am glad we got this on record. There is a six‑person committee of the
Conservative caucus to look at all legislation.
The Deputy Speaker said at that meeting of real estate agents‑‑and
we were all there, I was there with John Harvard and Jim McCrae, the Minister
of Justice, and the Deputy Speaker was there, and we had a good panel with the
real estate agents.
The commitment was made there at that
meeting‑‑I am sure this is a commitment that Conservatives make
everywhere they go‑‑that people will be consulted before
legislation is brought into this Chamber and, furthermore, people most directly
affected will be consulted before legislation is brought in this Chamber. Now we talked to taxicab operators yesterday,
Madam Deputy Speaker, and they tell us that they were not consulted. So who was consulted‑‑Tuxedo
cabs, some other entrepreneur who wants to come in at a lower rate? Who was consulted?
So I suggest to you that whoever is on
that committee did not force the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr.
Driedger) to follow through in the internal regulations of the Conservative
caucus to consult with people who are directly affected, because cab operators
were not consulted about this bill and the impact of this bill. Madam Deputy Speaker, there are all kinds of
issues of the costs of doing work at the Taxicab Board. There is the whole issue of fairness.
* (1110)
We believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
this government has a policy for the last five or six years that has not been
fair to cab operators. We believe that
the buck stops at the minister's desk on providing fairness. It is up to this government and this
minister, not just this minister, this Premier (Mr. Filmon), to have a fair
system because we suggest that there are forces beyond the minister.
We would ask the government to withdraw
this bill, start all over consulting fairly with the people of
Pull back this bill. It is not fair. Go back and do your homework and work in consultation
with everybody affected, not with just a few.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder if I might have
leave to ask the minister a few questions on this bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave of the House to permit the
honourable member for Transcona to ask questions of the honourable Minister of
Highways and Transportation?
Point of
Order
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy
Speaker, that is fine. Are they of a
technical nature? I suppose that is the
question I have. If they are technical
in nature, certainly that is fine.
Madam Deputy Speaker: So it is my understanding then, there is
leave of the House to have the honourable member for Transcona pose some
questions. Leave has been granted.
* * *
Mr. Reid: Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank members of the
House for leave to ask the questions on this bill. It is very important to the taxicab industry
in the
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Reid: I am going to get to the question.
The members of the industry have indicated
that this particular piece of legislation will transfer the administrative
costs, as the member has indicated in his speech, to the industry itself.
Can the minister indicate why we are now
wanting to transfer the administration cost, the full cost, onto the backs of
the taxicab drivers in the city of
Mr. Driedger: Madam Deputy Speaker, the question that the
member raises, why we are trying to cost recover, the public has been
subsidizing the taxicab industry, the administrative aspect of the board, to
the tune of 50 percent for all this time.
What we are trying to accomplish in this
bill is the full cost recovery, and there is provision in the bill as well for
an increase in the rate so that it will not be a hit on the taxicab drivers
themselves. It will be passed right
through and, with that increase, we will still be in the middle of the pack in
terms of the rates of taxicabs across this country.
Mr. Reid: There was also some concern in the industry
about the appeal process. Can the
minister indicate why the taxicab board is now going to be allowed to have the
powers to make decisions, to render their decisions from their board, and that
these decisions will not be challengeable. [interjection] This is law. It is on
law.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will quote the
section for the purpose of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) then if‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr. Manness: Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish the NDP House
leader were here. He would call his own
member to order.
When this House grants leave, particularly
the government, for members opposite to put questions, it is specifically to
deal with an issue of technicality, nothing more, and the member is trying to
introduce debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I will ask the minister not to answer that question, indeed, if the
member does not come to order.
He has plenty of time in his debate to lay
any issue he wants of policy and to lay before us the rhetorical questions that
he is now but, when it comes to matters of specific questions, he either asks
them now, Madam Deputy Speaker, or otherwise we go to debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable government House leader indeed has a point of order.
It was my understanding that leave was
granted by all parties to ask technical questions on the bill. This is not a time for debate, and I would
ask the honourable member for Transcona to be very clear and specific with
relation to the questions being posed to the honourable Minister of Highways
and Transportation.
* * *
Mr. Reid: I guess my inexperience in the procedures and
rules of the House is showing through by the way I have worded my questions here
and, if there is any misinterpretation, I apologize for the way I worded those
questions. My intent was not to abuse
the rules of the House. I am only
looking for clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Can the minister clarify for me then and
the people in the industry why the board is going then to have the powers to
impose penalties and that those penalties will then not be challengeable? It will only be the jurisdiction or the law
that will be challengeable, not the penalties themselves.
Mr. Driedger: I thought I had clarified that in the
spreadsheets, and I would encourage the opposition members to go through this
in detail, and I have already indicated that I am prepared to have further
discussion on the areas that are sensitive.
It is my understanding that at the present
time there is no appeal to a decision of the Taxicab Board. We are making a provision so that there is an
appeal mechanism in place, that it does not always have to go through a very
expensive court situation.
So I ask the members that go through these
things, if they have further questions, not necessarily in the House, I am
prepared to dialogue on this and find out exactly what their concerns are, but
I want them to go through the spreadsheets first. You know, we took a lot of time presenting
this information and, once they have further questions on it, we will deal with
it. They can raise them either through
the debate, through the committee process, which we have after we go through
second reading. I am sure there is going
to be dialogue in between.
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Madam Deputy Speaker, I just want to take
this opportunity to speak on the debate.
I just want to put a few remarks on this debate because I think it is
very crucial in terms of the many individuals who are involved in the taxi
industry and who I have dealt with for many years.
I have many personal stories about their
problems and about their aspirations and how they really function and what they
are achieving and what the government thinks of the Taxi Board and, to be fair,
what the Taxi Board thinks should be achieved.
A major source of problem for the last
five years in terms of the Taxi Board functioning has been the whole structure
in terms of the Taxi Board chairperson and how the board has been
functioning. The Taxi Board industry has
been in and out of the courts. They have
been in and out of the hearings. They
had many problems.
We never said that we should not improve
the structure of the taxi industry, but my main concern is, where is the
fairness when people who are a part of industry are not being involved, when
they are not being consulted? Once you
sit down with them, probably some of the issues can be resolved in a very
meaningful way.
That is what we are asking the government
to do basically, to sit down with the industry and try to talk at each and
every issue in a specific way and hear from all sides and see if we can reach a
compromise. I think the best compromise
will be to see what is going to be the best service for the people of
Madam Deputy Speaker, it has been a major
problem in the community because every time they resolve one issue, the Taxi
Board brings another one. It has been a
major source of irritation and a major source of problem. I have been told many times, why are they
being bothered, because they are probably, in some person's mind, they may be
supporting one or two political parties.
I am not sure about that issue, but I
think that is a fair question, and we are asking the government and the
minister to be fair if, for example, they have supported it. I mean, we do not know who is voting for
which party. I think they are being
unfairly treated by a person who is in charge in that position and that person
and the board itself has taken advantage of the situation. They have been unable to express themselves
the way they should have.
Ultimately, what has happened for the last
five years? The taxi industry has
improved dramatically‑‑no question.
There have been more clean cabs on the road. There have been luxury cabs on the road. Drivers are more educated. They are going through each and every part of
the training the Taxi Board has put forward.
So when they are abiding by all the rules and regulations, at the same
time, if they are being bothered‑‑we are not talking about one or
two families, we are talking about at least 10,000 people who are directly
connected to the taxi industry. There
are about 2,000 drivers who are feeding their families.
They are trying very, very hard. We have tough economic times. We know the money is not there, but whatever
they can they are doing it. Madam Deputy
Speaker, basically, they are buying their jobs.
All the families get together.
They put in $50,000 and buy a licence, and three members of the same
family work a 24‑hour shift. If
they are making, say $50 after an 8‑hour shift, big deal. It is $6 per hour.
* (1120)
I think what has happened is that you do
not look at only one point of view. They
are not taking the social assistance.
They are not on other services.
They are trying to have a meaningful job. If there are deficiencies, let us improve on
those. But, if the Taxi Board
chairperson is going to take advantage of the political situation which is, in
my view, a major, major problem, he has made the personal issue that he is the
best and he is going to fix people. That
is very unfair. That is why I asked in
Question Period for the removal of the board chairperson.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are very
reasonable. We are not asking something
which is not possible. If you look at
the record of the whole Taxi Board industry, what the board has been doing, and
harassing the drivers who sometimes cannot defend themselves. Somebody is not going to go to a court every
second week when they do not have money to feed their families. It is becoming very, very distressing. That is why even though the issue was so
important for five years, I thought that I should not be speaking on this
because it will seem like I am just helping one part of the community. I cannot keep quiet. It is not right.
I think we are asking for fairness and the
fairness is if we do not speak for the rights of people, then where is the
fairness. It is very tough for them to
understand the whole thing. We are not
saying the government is doing it. I
want to make it very clear. Directions
are coming from a person who is probably biased in his opinion. I am saying probably biased. It will be a good opportunity for us to
examine that person during the committee stage, to ask him where he is getting
all the information, who he thinks he is, trying to bother a community for five
years.
It has come to a point that people are
saying, to hell with it; probably I should sell the licence and do something
else. How can you do it when you have taken the second mortgage on the house,
when the four male members of the families are working together and they are
trying to simply maintain a basic hourly wage.
When you are putting so many obstacles, and what happened with the Tuxedo
Taxi, every Manitoban knows about that.
If, still, the government has confidence in this board's position, then
I think I have a serious difficulty with that.
I think it is very clear that there is a problem within the board and
that is why they have been advising the minister.
To be fair with the minister, the minister
did meet with the industry in 1988. But,
afterwards, because at that time it was seen that the government was giving in,
so they said, we do not want to touch it.
That may be right in some circumstances but when the crucial decisions
are made, then I think it is incumbent upon the government to meet with the
people who are doing the job on a day‑to‑day basis. We are not asking him to meet with every taxi
driver on the Earth. We are simply
asking him to meet with a selected group of people who can make their
representation so that their views can be heard.
Madam Deputy Speaker, by the end of the
day there may be some issues which they think are important to them and they
may not be a problem with the government, so that can be worked out. So simply we are asking the government and
the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) who has been a very, very fair
minister, to deal with this issue on a fairness basis and try to make sure that
people who cannot defend themselves, the government should defend them. It is a question of fairness, a question that
if you are trying to take away from a section of communities something which
they have chosen as their profession because of many difficulties‑‑it
is not that they have another 24 or 50 jobs lined up.
These are individuals who are very, very
qualified. It is just a matter of
economy, matter of demand and supply, and they are trying their best. So we are asking the minister to look at the
whole issue in a very open fashion, and meet with them on a selective‑group
basis and try to reach to them. I am
sure he will not be disappointed, because when you sit with them half the
problem is resolved then. Some of the
animosity is taken away. Some of the misconceptions are taken away, and people
feel more comfortable. If you do not do
that, then you are making somebody more powerful, more arrogant, and that has
been the case for some time now.
The only thing that we hear in some
sections of the community is who is going to court now for the Taxi Board. Somebody is having a problem, they have to go
here and there and all the time they are busy rather than trying to make their
lives more easy. Their lives have become very, very difficult in some circumstances. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will simply request
again to the minister and to the government of
They have done many positive things, but
to have the confidence in terms of the many individuals who work within the
taxi industry, for them all this talk about multiculturalism has no meaning if
they are not going to get their jobs, if they are not getting the real
thing. For them jobs are the most
important thing. Getting a dance and all
these dinner and dance things in the past is not going to do anything. That is why when we see many of these things
happening, they are sending a really wrong message. They have done everything possible,
whatever. If there has to be more
improvement, so be it. If there has to
be more upgrading of the driver's skills, so be it. If any improvement to improve the industry,
it should be on a fair basis. If, for
example, there is one issue here, that if the hearing‑‑as the
minister said, the government has been subsidizing 50 percent of the cost, but
the same is being done on the Labour Board and the Workers Compensation
Board. Why does there have to be a
difference? I think that is the question
of unfairness. Probably I am missing some explanation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, they have brought
many issues to our attention, and certainly we will go clause by clause. I am not an expert on all those things, but I
will be requesting the minister and the government of Manitoba and the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) to simply try to build their bridges, try to build the confidence,
and try to send a message that the government is in charge, not the Taxi Board
chairperson is in charge of the Taxi Board industry.
It is an industry for the people of
We cannot do that because that is not our
rule. Our rule is to try to reach our
message through the government of Manitoba and through the Minister of Highways
(Mr. Driedger) to tell this person that nobody is going to take it lying down
because he was put in a position, and I think it is very, very irresponsible
because when you keep on irritating a community for a long time, things can get
worse.
I simply am asking the minister to meet
with the Taxi Board industry and try to resolve this issue.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
I guess one could start off by saying that
this particular bill, in my opinion, does not have any legitimacy in terms of
being here today or yesterday. I will
base it by saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in Question Period, I alluded to
the fact that for the past four, five years, there has been a lot of
confrontation within the industry, within the taxi industry.
* (1130)
Madam Deputy Speaker, it no doubt has
frustrated a good number of people on both sides of the issue. You know, we have a Taxi Board which no doubt
has been feeling very frustrated in terms of actions that are being done within
the industry which do not necessarily fall in sync with what they believe is
necessary.
On the other hand, we have the drivers,
the owners, we have our two companies, both Duffy's and Unicity, that are
concerned in terms of the direction that the board is taking the industry as a
whole, and somewhat frustrated in the sense that we do not see a government
that is ensuring that the industry is being given any sort of attention.
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would
suggest to you that when I received the bill‑‑it was circulated in
the Chamber the day before yesterday around three o'clock‑‑one of
the things I did is I took the bill and circulated it to a couple of
individuals I know within the industry because I was curious as to what they
might have to say about the bill.
I was very surprised and shocked to find
out that individuals within the industry itself had not been contacted, and
when I asked the question yesterday of the minister, the minister's response
was, well, you know, there has been consultation over the last number of years
and so forth‑‑tried to give the impression that in fact there was
some consulting with the industry.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that has not been
the case. You know, when you talk to the
two major companies'‑‑Duffy's and Unicity‑‑legal
counsel and the general manager and some of the drivers and owners of the
vehicles, and they say, we had absolutely no idea whatsoever that the
government was going to be bringing in a piece of legislation.
This is not a housekeeping piece of
legislation. This is a piece of
legislation that, if passed, is going to have a dramatic impact on each and
every individual that is directly or indirectly associated with the taxi
industry.
Now, today in Question Period, the
minister himself felt confident that the Taxi Board is doing a good job, that
they in fact did the consulting. Madam
Deputy Speaker, it was the minister who introduced this bill. The minister has a responsibility to ensure,
when you bring in legislation, that you have had consultation not just with the
board, that you have consulted with groups that are going to have an impact,
that you would seek that input.
After all, it is in your best interest to
ensure that you are bringing in legislation that is going to reflect what is in
the best interests of the
The minister himself admitted in Question
Period that he himself has not done any of that consulting. Why is that?
How can the minister stand in the Chamber and say, we have before us a
bill that is going to have such a dramatic impact on the industry, but I have
not done any consulting, my department has not done any consulting, but not to
worry, not to fear, the board, the Taxi Board has done their homework.
Well, I know full well and I am sure that
the Minister of Highways knows full well what the relationship has been with
the Taxi Board and the industry as a whole.
To say it has been rocky is to underestimate the problems that have been
there between those two entities.
My first preference would be with Bill 24
that the minister withdraw it, that the minister hold off any debate, that he
go back to the communities, to the industry as a whole and start hearing what
they might have to say about Bill 24. I
am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if the minister sat down with the industry
representatives that we would see some productive amendments coming out as a
direct result and that in fact the bill itself is premature in the sense that
had the minister done what virtually every other minister, no doubt, or at
least I would like to think does, and that is consult with the interest groups
and the individuals prior to the introduction of a bill.
I recall when I was the Housing critic
when the former Minister of Housing brought in a fairly lengthy bill. He went out of his way to meet with a wide
variety of interest groups. I have
talked to many different ministers with respect to the formation of legislation
and the importance of consulting. When
you have interest groups that come before caucuses, both official and third
party, they will tell you of the consulting and the lobbying that they are
doing in order to ensure that their opinions are in fact being heard.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of
Highways could not stand up today and give us the assurance that the drivers
and the owners and the industry as a whole had the opportunity to fairly
express their opinions. He cannot do
that. The most important aspect of the
industry, the individual drivers and owners and the companies, have said that
they do not know anything at all about this bill.
How can he stand up and say that this bill
is good for the industry in
The Minister of Highways has a lot of
respect and says he is a wonderful individual and if you sit down and you talk
to the man you will find that what he is saying makes a lot of sense.
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you talk to
the thousands of individuals who are going to have the direct impact by this,
you will find that what this bill is doing does not make a lot of sense.
So the minister does have a choice. There are a number of things he could
do. Instead of standing up time after
time and defending the chairperson or the current board, there comes a point in
time when you have to make a value judgment saying, the system is just not
working. You cannot operate on a confrontational
basis for years and expect something productive to be able to come out of the
industry.
I would suggest to you, Madam Deputy
Speaker, and I do not know what the relationship is between this government and
the current chairperson and the board as a whole, but I would suggest to you,
what is really needed is that that board has to be replaced, that Don Norquay
is one individual who has caused a lot of hardship, whether one agrees or
disagrees with what it is he is saying, that there is so much conflict
there. It is not just one or two or
three or four, we are talking about hundreds of individuals who are saying that
what he has been doing and the hardships he has been causing are just not worth
it. I have seen individuals sell plates
just out of frustration because they do not feel there is any consistent policy
that is being given, that there is no fair treatment.
What frustrates myself is, I have to ask
the question: Why is it that it is this
particular industry? I know this is a
question that many people ask, and I do not necessarily care for some of the
responses that have been there in terms of answering that question, and that is
why I believe very much so that we have to change the board, and you have to
replace Mr. Norquay as the chairperson of the board.
I would suggest to you that until you see
those sorts of actions, we are going to continue to have conflict because the
personalities that are there have demonstrated very clearly that they are not
able to co‑operate and work together in the betterment of the industry as
a whole.
* (1140)
So if that means we have to make the
changes at the board level and possibly make some changes in terms of
representation from the industry, then so be it, but let us see some co‑operation,
Madam Deputy Speaker. You cannot say
there has been co‑operation when the board itself‑‑and who
knows where this legislation came from.
The minister has not indicated to us that in fact there was any co‑operation
or any input to the board with respect to this particular legislation.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) talks
about conflict of interest. Well, there
is a conflict of interest within the board in one sense. There are always going to be conflicts of
interest. That is why interest groups are
there, to lobby their interest.
If the board itself‑‑and we do
not know who came up with this particular bill.
We know who is responsible for the bill, but I take it and I assume,
Madam Deputy Speaker, that this bill came as an idea from the board. I hope the minister will correct me if in
fact I am wrong, that if it was not, that this is not something that the board
has come up with.
If it is, as I believe, the board that had
the input on this bill, and the board is not co‑operating at all with the
industry as a whole, then I do not get a sense of feeling that there was any
input from one major aspect of the industry.
If the board did not get that input, and
today we had the minister responsible for the bill saying that he did not have
direct input, well, I would suggest to you that all of the stakeholders in the
taxicab industry have not been treated fairly.
That is why, if that is the case, this bill should not be here today,
the minister should be doing his homework and should have consulted with the
different stakeholders in the industry prior to bringing in such legislation
that is going to have such a dramatic impact on the industry as a whole.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it was interesting
in terms of listening to what the minister had to say about the bill in
introducing it for second reading. You
know, what we see, in essence, is Bill 24 will broaden the powers of the board
in many different ways. The minister
tried to justify it by saying that, well, we are looking at trying to recover
the full costs.
When the minister made that statement,
there were a couple of things that came to mind for myself. You know, we have other boards, whether it is
the Labour Board, the Workers Compensation Board, and that principle is not
necessarily there. Yet, we are seeing
the government taking a specific action that is going to prevent many
individuals from being able to express a possible grievance or a complaint
because of a fear.
It was interesting in the sense that the
minister provided a spreadsheet, and I do give the Minister of Highways (Mr.
Driedger) credit. He is one of the only
ministers that actually provides spreadsheets and it is wonderful to be able to
have that.
In one of the explanations, it talks with
respect to the proceedings and this cost recovery and how we could save money.
In terms of an explanation, it says:
Proceedings before the board in the past have been unduly prolonged by
frivolous and vexatious objections. The
power to award costs would deter abuses of the process and thereby reduce the
cost of board proceedings. When abuses
do occur, the board will be able to recover the additional costs that have been
imposed upon it.
What that is going to do, Madam Deputy
Speaker, is it will prevent a lot of individuals from lodging complaints. Yes, there is no doubt about that at
all. What concerns me is, who is to
determine what is frivolous and what is not?
This will prevent some individuals from being able to make that
complaint. That concerns me because that
complaint could be in the public's best interest.
Why would we hear a statement of this
nature? I would suggest to you that if
the board feels that there are a lot of frivolous complaints, well, why are
there frivolous complaints?
Is there a problem, again, with that whole
question of personalities that are involved?
Is this legislation being brought forward today in order to try to
ensure that the board is going to have the additional powers of being able to
do whatever it wants and it does not matter what the industry is seeing? Is that the reason why we are having this
particular piece of legislation?
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not
believe that the recovery of the full cost justifies what the government is
doing in Bill 24, and I believe that if the minister sat down and heard about
some of these concerns from the industry or the stakeholders, the many
different stakeholders that are out there, then in fact he would concur with
that particular point. There are a
number of things within the bill.
You know, our courts require that actual
notice be given to parties in legal proceedings, that you have to be given an
actual notice. In this particular bill
it allows that the Taxicab Board can proceed as long as they believe that there
has been deemed notice. That could be a
rumour that is floating around the industry, it could be a newspaper report or
a media report. This bill is going to
require to pay all or parts of the cost in respect to the hearings and
investigations by the board, as I say, when similar investigations and costs
are not charged by other boards that are out there.
This bill will eliminate the right to
appeal decisions of the Taxi Board on the basis of administrative law
principles and limits it only to the question of law or jurisdiction which, in essence,
eliminates any rights of appeal at all.
That is wrong. What we are saying in other words is, you
cannot appeal unless it is a question of process, and the legislation allows
for the process for the board to be able to do whatever it is that they want.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill says that
at a hearing by the Taxicab Board it is not necessary that a quorum be present
when the decision is made. In fact, you
do not necessarily even have to be there throughout in order to participate in
the decision. Well, I see a lot of problems with that and have to question why
it is that this government has gone ahead with accepting this bill without
really understanding the impact. You
know, yesterday I asked the questions with respect to other aspects of Bill 24.
One of the statements in terms of a
request from this board is if you go out and you have to get the taxicab
certified or checked by a certified mechanic.
There is nothing wrong with requesting a certified mechanic in order to
get, you know, the passage of the vehicle, but this piece of legislation goes a
step further. It says that you have to
get not only a certified mechanic, you have to get one that meets the approval
of the board.
* (1150)
Well, what is next? If we apply the same idea and the same
principle, are we going to say the same to individual doctors that go through
Workers Compensation? Why would they
have something of that nature? Why do
you need to give the power to the board?
Why not just say, a certified mechanic?
You go further on in the bill, and it says at any point in time that the
board can actually request for a statement of gross and net earnings and
expenses from the drivers.
Well, it was just the other day when I was
standing up inside the Chamber and I was asking the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) to publicize businesses that were negligent in paying the retail sales
tax. He stood up and he said, no, how
dare the member for
Why do they need to know that, Madam
Deputy Speaker? If the board wants to
find out what demand is, find out how many calls are being placed into the
different taxi firms. That is the way
you do it. How do they justify asking
that? Are they going to ask the same
thing of other industries? Why do you
put these double standards? Why are you
picking on the taxi industry? How do you
justify introducing a bill that goes this far?
I think that it is unfair.
There are a number of things, if we were
to go through this bill, virtually phrase by phrase, you will find that there
are areas in here that the taxicab industry as a whole cannot accept. I believe very much so that had the minister
done the consultation that we would never have seen a bill of this nature. I am not even convinced that the minister
himself knows what it is that is in this bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to
emphasize the importance of the government ensuring that when it brings in
legislation that it brings in legislation that is fair. This legislation, Bill 24, is not fair. If the government was wanting to do the
honourable thing, it should withdraw Bill 24, bring it back to the table with
other individuals who have just as much right as the Taxi Board to get input on
legislation that is going to have such an impact on the industry that you have
to have all of the stakeholders or input from all of the stakeholders before
you do something of this nature.
I would hope that if the government does
plan to continue on with Bill 24 and, unfortunately, I believe that it will,
that it will be receptive to amendments, that it still is not too late to meet
with the different stakeholders. I would
encourage the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), as the
minister responsible for this bill, that he does have an obligation to meet
with the stakeholders. I would encourage
him to do just that, to meet with them, to talk with them before we stop debate
in second reading on this bill and to be prepared himself to introduce the
amendments once we go into second reading if he decides not to withdraw this
bill, because I am sure we will see a number of people coming for the public
hearings. I am convinced that if the
government does not bring in amendments, there will be a number of amendments
brought forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government could
prevent a lot of fear that is out there in the industry by just sitting down,
by talking to the stakeholders and coming up with some sort of a compromise
which would make the legislation that much more acceptable. I do not think it is too late. I would have preferred to have seen the
minister talk to the groups and consult with the groups prior to introducing
the bill, but it is still not too late for the minister to sit down with the
group and make the amendments that are going to be necessary, because the bill
itself does have to be amended.
I will do what I can as a member of the
Legislature to ensure that this particular bill does not pass as it is. There will be amendments I will be bringing
forward‑‑or if our critic brings forward, that I will be no doubt
supporting or encouraging him to bring forward‑‑because I feel very
strongly on this bill for a number of reasons which I have earlier pointed out.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would conclude my
remarks by saying to the government that they revisit what is inside Bill 24,
consult with the people who are going to be impacted by this bill and come up
with the necessary amendments to make it a better piece of legislation and
seriously look at changing the individuals who are on the board itself because,
obviously, over the last number of years, we have seen that the personalities
that are there are not working together.
We need to ensure to some degree that
there is a sense of co‑operation, that you can sit down and get things
done. That is very, very important and I
personally do not see that with the current chairperson. I do not believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
we are going to see that. A couple of
years ago, we were in a different crisis within the taxi industry, when they
wanted to increase the number of taxicabs within Winnipeg‑‑and the
fear that was put in the minds of individuals who had investments. I had
individuals give me a call, who owned taxis, who said, you know, I have a
$50,000 investment in my taxi and if in fact the government materializes and
comes through, or the board brings in and introduces these new taxis, it will
bring down the price of my plate. This
is more than one individual. This,
again, was being perceived as the chairperson's wishes and nothing more than
that. It was widespread throughout the
industry.
So I have to emphasize time and time again
that the personalities, the problems and conflicts that are there right now I
do not believe can be resolved, because they have consistently been there, that
we have provided ample times and opportunities for those conflicts to resolve
themselves and to see more co‑operation because, not only does the taxi
industry not benefit, nor does the public as a whole benefit. All individuals want to see the different industries
throughout
Well, the taxi industry can prosper under
certain circumstances. The government
has the responsibility to ensure, because they are responsible for the board,
that there is some harmony out there, and there is no harmony out there. I would request that the government reflect
on that and take the appropriate actions to ensure that we see more co‑operation
out there.
With those few words, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak.
* (1200)
Committee
Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee
on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik)
for the member for Arthur‑Virden (Mr. Downey); the member for La
Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) for the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner); the member
for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh) for the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose).
Motion agreed to.
Bill 24‑The
Taxicab Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
(continued)
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for
Motion agreed to.
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill 25‑‑The
Public Schools Amendment Act (4)
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 25
(The Public Schools Amendment Act (4); Loi no 4 modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles
publiques) standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 23‑The
Retail Businesses
Employment
Standards Amendment and Payment of Wages Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 23
(The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Amendment, Employment Standards Amendment
and Payment of Wages Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jours feries
dans le commerce de detail, la Loi sur les normes d'emploi et la Loi sur le
paiement des salaires) standing in the name of the honourable member for
Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): I had hoped, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I
would not have to rise to speak on a further version of The Retail Businesses
Holiday Closing Amendment Act and consequential amendment. I had hoped the government would have by now
come to its senses and recognized that the vast majority of Manitobans do not
wish to have the laws changed, that the compromise that was worked out in 1987
and prior to that actually was a satisfactory compromise that had stood the
province in good stead both in terms of service to the public, service to
consumers and in terms of I guess practicality when it came to the operation of
most businesses in the province of Manitoba.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I had an opportunity
some months ago to speak at length on the previous incarnation of this
particular piece of legislation, Bill 4.
Subsequent to its introduction, I also had the chance to talk to
literally hundreds and hundreds of Manitobans about the possible implications,
particularly for rural
Madam Deputy Speaker, I began today's
remarks by reminding members opposite that in 1987 when this debate last was
presented in the Chamber there was a consensus that it was not a matter of the
government introducing a bill on Sunday closing that was supported only by the
majority government. The fact of the
matter is that both opposition parties, the member for
This had two benefits. Number one, it did allow businesses to open
to provide services to consumers, to provide goods to consumers, on a limited
basis. Perhaps more importantly, for the
business community, it allowed the small businesses to have an advantage over
larger businesses. It allowed the
individually operated, the individually owned small entrepreneur a chance to
compete in the marketplace without the unfair and undue influence of the major
chains and the multinationals that competed for the same goods or the same
services.
It allowed the small retailer an
opportunity to market his wares or her wares without competing against the
SuperValus and the Canadian Tires and other multinationals, which already have
a substantial advantage in the marketplace, used solely to their fiscal power,
their advertising power, their financial position and I guess in many respects
their clout as parts of an integrated, large‑scale national conglomerate. So we have the small‑business person in
Madam Deputy Speaker, what has changed
since that consensus? What has changed since 1987, since we agreed in this
Chamber that we wanted to maintain the status quo, that we wanted to protect
rural economies, that we wanted to protect small business in the
I am not arguing that SuperValu is somehow
doing something untoward. Madam Deputy
Speaker, they are doing what every large multinational corporation does. They take advantage of their buying
power. They take advantage of their
volume. They take advantage of their
integrated structure from the farm gate to the dairy product shelf. They take advantage of their structure, but
we also know in the
I had an opportunity to meet with
representatives of the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers who explained
in a very succinct and direct way what the nature of the difference is between,
for example, large multinational grocers and independent grocers.
According to the independent grocers,
Madam Deputy Speaker, companies like Costco, for example, or SuperValu can
produce $500 and more per hour of employee time. In other words, their sales volume can be
$500 and more per hour. In a small
independent grocery store, the merchant is more likely to sell $50 worth of
goods per employee hour. So it is very
easy to see why the small business community employs more people in terms of
the value of goods sold than the large multinationals.
So this issue which tends to support the
interests of the larger retailers that already have a competitive advantage, so
to speak, it disadvantages the small business community. It disadvantages those very entrepreneurs,
those very business people who supply the majority of jobs in the
We need a balance. We need a balance between the interests of
the consumer as consumers and the interests of citizens who need employment,
the interests of citizens who want their sons and daughters to be employed, the
interests of small business which this government and most Manitobans would
argue is the backbone of our provincial economy.
* (1210)
There is a legitimate argument to be made
in support of small businesses in opposing this legislation. I am not alone on that. I have letters from virtually every chamber
of commerce in the
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Morden group is
saying that they are opposed to the Sunday shopping legislation and they want
hearings. They want to have the issue of
Sunday shopping raised in rural Manitoba so that they will have a chance to
present directly their view to the government and to the standing committee,
because to date the government has buried its head on this issue. It has refused to listen to the people that
elected them on this issue. They have
shown a degree of cowardice that has not been seen in this Legislature for some
time.
We have asked repeatedly the Minister of Rural
Development (Mr. Derkach), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.
Stefanson), the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) to hold public hearings in rural
Manitoba so that they will have access to the standing committee members and
share their view.
This particular letter suggests that at
least one hearing be scheduled in this region of southern
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Morden
Chamber of Commerce has now said that they are prepared to work with the
government to ensure that local views, the views of small businesses in that
community and surrounding communities, could be heard on this issue.
I have another letter from the Town of
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Town of Carman
recognized that the Sunday shopping legislation, which would in effect impose
an obligation on many small businesses in Winnipeg, but also in the surrounding
areas, to begin to compete on Sunday, and asked the government to study the
issue, to meet and consult, and to gather some facts on the impact of this
legislation on rural Manitoba before they proceed.
The government has once again refused to
listen to their own constituents, listen to the small business community, and
that is unfortunate.
I have similar letters from the mayor of
Selkirk, the Town of
Madam Deputy Minister, the Minister of
Labour (Mr. Praznik) when he spoke on this legislation, talked about a level
playing field, the need to create a level playing field for the large
retailer. The member for Lac du Bonnet
(Mr. Praznik) was not in this Chamber in 1987 when this debate was first
addressed. His own colleagues argued
that that level playing field was going to be a minefield for small businesses
in the communities of
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Mr. Speaker, let me explain for members, some
of whom seem to have forgotten about the life cycle, the economic cycle of a
small community. Everyone on that side
knows, and if they cared to, they could have listened to a community like
Those three things determine the health
and the viability of small communities and undermining the business community
has a detrimental impact almost immediately on the small community. As soon as you can no longer access services
in your community, whether it is a local hardware, a small‑town hardware‑‑and
many of you, most of you, hopefully all of you at one time or another have been
in a small town and seen what a small‑town hardware looks like and know
that when that service is gone the likelihood of individual citizens, community
members travelling elsewhere to pick up hardware, to pick up the things they
need to paint their garage or fix their lawnmower or whatever it is, it
increases the likelihood that the grocery store down the street is going to be
the next victim. It increases the
likelihood that the small restaurant, the small service sector business down
the street is going to be the next victim.
It is a domino effect that occurs in small towns all the time.
What the chambers of commerce across rural
I do not sense from the government any
concern over this particular point of view.
I do not sense any concern that this is likely to happen over the next
two, three, four, five years as a result of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the government, not wanting
to further offend rural communities and rural small businesses, has now
abdicated total responsibility for the implications of Sunday shopping. The
government announced that they were going to do Sunday shopping on a trial
period. Certainly if you read the
minister's remarks you would believe that the government was committed in
principle to wide‑open Sunday shopping.
Maybe all the representations from the chambers of commerce and the
communities that I have referenced, Morden and Selkirk and Carman and the many
others that have sent in submissions to the government asking them to
reconsider, just maybe this has had an impact.
Unfortunately, although it may have
weakened the government's resolve to promote this as a position of the
government, it did not lead them to the logical conclusion that rural
Manitobans in the small‑business community in this province were not
prepared to accept this as a compromise, as an alternative to the existing
compromise in terms of retail closings on Sundays.
* (1220)
So, Mr. Speaker, what did the government
do? Again, in a rather spineless way,
the government has said, well, we can absolve ourselves of all responsibility
of the consequences. In other words, we
do not have to care whether small businesses close in Beausejour or Lac du
Bonnet or
Everyone knows that the primary push for
this particular initiative came from the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. We had a chance to meet, our caucus met with
the Winnipeg Chamber not too long ago, at which time they reiterated their
strong support for wide‑open Sunday shopping and the government's
legislation.
Of course, that ignores the fact that
allowing the City of
If their merchants out of necessity want
to try and maintain market share they are going to have to open Sunday. If the small hardware in Beausejour, in the
member for Lac du Bonnet's (Mr. Praznik) community, believes that it wants to
compete, that it has to compete to survive, it is going to open Sunday. The same is true for the member for Morris
(Mr. Manness), whether it is the community of Winkler or one of the other small
communities in his area. If the City of
That is what the Chamber is worried about. That is what the Union of Manitoba
Municipalities is worried about, the government's abdicated
responsibilities. Somehow they want us
to believe, and they want people in rural
Well, Mr. Speaker, they could do
something. They could show some
leadership. They could show some
economic leadership. They could start discussing
alternatives to wide‑open Sunday shopping to improve the business climate
in the city of
Instead, they believe they have chosen the
simple solution, a solution that will undermine small business in
Mr. Speaker, this is not creating a level
playing field. This is simply caving in to the interests of the multinationals
who already have many advantages in terms of the operations of their
businesses, marketing advantages and integration advantages that no small
business could every hope to compete with, that no small business would ever
want to pretend that they could be on a level playing field with these companies.
There are many other elements of
unfairness in what is being proposed. I
do not remember the last time I saw the president of SuperValu at the checkout
stands on Sunday. I do not remember the
last time I saw the president of Eaton's or members of the board of Eaton's at
the checkout stand. I remember the last
time I saw the small‑business owner in little stores in
I can tell you that the guys who run
Canadian Tire, the family that owns Canadian Tire is seldom in Canadian Tire on
Sunday working, but the small business community is, and now we are going to
say to the city of
Mr. Speaker, it is not enough just to be
open. When I met with the chambers of
commerce and representatives of small business over the last several months,
and I was in places like Russell and Dauphin and Gimli and Steinbach and Lac du
Bonnet, in Carman and
Most of the small businesses in rural
That is what businesses told us. I was in Carman approximately two months ago
and met with 14 business representatives, small‑business representatives,
community representatives, and we talked about the likelihood of opening on
Sunday being of any benefit to the small business community in that centre.
Mr. Speaker, the general consensus was
that the majority of businesses are not going to see any benefit from Sunday
opening, that it will simply represent additional overhead costs, additional
business costs that are going to make it more difficult to survive and less
profitable. I cannot believe for a
minute that was the intention of the government.
So it leads me to ask the final question
which virtually every letter that I received on this issue raised. Why is the government not prepared to do the
kind of economic analysis, the independent analysis that will give them some
answers to the questions‑‑what is going to happen to jobs in rural
Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada reported
only a few days ago, yesterday or the day before, that retail sales in the
The government cannot claim in any
legitimate sense that it did any kind of analysis, that it can show that there
is going to be a net economic benefit to the province with this legislation. So
the question is why do it? The question
is if there does not appear to be any net economic gain, if it is not going to
increase retail sales, if it is not going to promote the spending of disposable
income on the part of individual consumers, why do it?
We know, on the other hand, that there are
many who are legitimately concerned about the impact on jobs and business in
rural
Mr. Speaker, finally, I would like to see
the government screw up its courage finally and agree to hold a series of five or
six standing committee hearings in rural
Are they now going to have the intestinal
fortitude to go and ask those people what they think, to allow them to give the
government constructive advice on what the implications are going to be and
their views on the impact of this legislation, or are they going to continue on
their secretive self‑serving approach to this legislation by allowing one
group in the main, the City of Winnipeg, to dictate the economic fortune of
rural Manitoba, because that is what we are talking about. We are talking about the single largest
municipality in effect dictating the future, the economic future, of many
individual businesses, many individual communities across rural
We all know‑‑and groups like
the Flin Flon Chamber of Commerce have recognized for a long time‑‑that
much of the disposable income in communities like Flin Flon and Thompson and
The Pas are spent in the city of Winnipeg and large urban centres. To the extent this induces them to spend
more, it even impacts on communities quite remote from
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member for Flin Flon will have 13 minutes remaining.
As previously agreed, this matter will
remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr.
Chomiak).
The hour being 12:30 p.m., this House is
now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday.