Manitoba Hansard — 93 ISSN 542 (Sitting 46, 35th Legislature, 4th Session)

35-4-46

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Fourth Session ·Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 41 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL. XLII No. 46 • 1 :30 p.m., WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21 , 1993 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOB�� LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Consltituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY,Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. GRAY, Avis HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PALLISTER, Brian PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann Vacant CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Crescentwood Gimli Point Douglas Inkster The Pas St. Norbert Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Rossmere Pembina Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Rin Ron La Verendrye Fort Garry St. Johns Swan River Rupertsland PARTY.

Liberal NDP NDP Liberal NDP Liberal NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC Liberal PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

1908 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, Aprll21, 1993 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): It is my duty to inform the House of the un avoidable absence of Mr. Speaker and to request the Deputy Speaker to take the Chair in accordance with the statutes. (Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to present the petition of William Ledoux, William Ducharme, Virginia Church and others requesting the Family Services minister (Mr.

Gil leshammer) consider restoring funding to the friendshi p centres in Manitoba. Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to present the petition of RoseMarie Hamilton, Fred Hoffman, Rose Pitzl and others requ esting the Family Services mini ster (Mr. Gil lesham mer) consider restoring funding for the friendship centres in Man itoba. Mr. George Hlckes (Point Douglas): Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Ruby Miness, Brad McGill ivray, Andrew Bik and others requesting the Family Services minister (Mr.

Gilleshamm er) consider restoring funding for the friendshi p centres in Manitoba. Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Deput y Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Murray William Black smith, David Bl acksm ith, Betty Mousseau and others requ esting the Fami ly Services minister (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider restoring funding for the friendship centres in Manitoba. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. James Downey (Minister of Energy and Mines) : Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to table for members' information the booklet, Energy in Manitoba; as well, Northern Man itoba: Women and Sustainable Economic Development. Hon.

James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am tabling today the Twentieth Annual Report of Legal Aid Manitoba. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 26- The Expropriation Amendment Act Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Mann es s) , that Bill 26, The Expropriation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur I' expropriation, be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time. Motion agreed to. * (1 335) Introduction of Guests Madam Deputy Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of all members of the House that we have with us this afternoon in the public gallery from Red River Communi ty College, 25 journalism students, under the direction of Mr. Donald Benham . This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett). Also this afternoon, we have with us 17 students from the English program at Red River Community College.

These students are under the direction of Mr. Jim Badger. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Carter Report Government Position Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, my question is to the First Minister, the Premier, the Chair of our Economic Development Committee and Minister responsible for Federal/Pro vin cial Rela ti ons . The Carter recommen dations on barley are running into

1909 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA April 21, 1993 tremendous opposition from a number of farm groups across western Canada. This report has major ·Impl ications for producers in Manitoba, for farmers in Manit oba. It has impl ications fc,r the Wheat Board which has 400 employees in the city of Winnip eg. It has imp li cations for malting operations. It has impli cations for the Port of Churchill. I would like to ask the Premier (Mr.

Rlmon), in lig ht of the fact that Saskatchewan has taken a position on this report and so has the Province of Alberta, what recommendations will this Premier and his government be making to the federal minister responsible for this issue, the Honourable Charli e Mayer? Hon. Glen Find lay (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to tell the member opposite the position we have taken iis the same today as it was the last number of days. We are concerned that we maximize our penetration of the North American market, that we maximize the income at the farm gate for producers.

The report does cast some very sig nificant statem<Eints, conclusions that the farmers are losing 17 percent of the value at the farm gate and not penetrating the market to the extent possible. As I said yesterday, we will be finding out the degree to which these statements are true; we want to verify them and ask for all the information to be gathered from the industry, and those letter s are in the process of being put together. I look forward to the comments from everybcldy in the industry.

The member should also knCM' that the Wheat Board does export around the world and only 1 0 percent of their ex ports are currently to the Uni ted States. The other 90 percent are els ewhere in the world. I think it is very important that we be sure that the farmers in Manitoba and western Ca nada be well ser ved in terms of mar ket penetration and price at the farm gate. Mr. Doer: Madam Deputy Speaker, we will await the recomm endations from the Provi nce of Manitoba, and I hope that the timeliness of this issue will be of importance to the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) because it is a very major issue and it is a very rnajor issue with the federal government. Carter Report PlebiSCite Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, the federal minister responsible, in questions in the House of Commons yesterday, has said absolutely no to a plebis cite for producers in western Canada. He has said that he is going to use the same old Mu lroney tactics of having clos ed-door consultations and meetings and making a decision in the secrecy of the cabinet room.

The Premier in his Speech from the Throne in 19 90 said Canadians are tired of the back-room elite ways, the old ways. I would ask the Pr emier today: Will he recommend to the federal minister that he change his position and agree to a plebi scite so farmers can have a vote on this very, very important issue facing producers in western Canada? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, the process that is being followed is one of consultation that allo ws people to have their views heard on this issue. That is why 14 different groups have already commented on it.

That is why the study has been put out publicly for consultation, for confirmation or argumen t over the facts and the figures that are in there. That is why there is an intent on the part of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) to meet with all the different relevant organizations in Manit oba , whether it be the Keystone Agricultural Producers or the Farmers' Union, all those things. That is certainly not a closed-door process. That is a very open and exten sive consultative process and we bel ieve that it is appropria te un der circumstances like this. * (1 340) Mr.

Doer: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Premier should know that every one of those groups that is being consulted by the federal minister now wants and is calling for a plebis cite to determine the final decision on this issue. Many of the organizations, the Pools in western Canada, KAP, many other groups are calling for a plebiscite, Madam Deputy Speaker, because they do not trust what will happen with the consultation at the end of the day in terms of the back-room Mulroney government decision.

April 21, 1993 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 1910 Impact on Port of Churchill Mr. Gary Doer (Leader ofthe Opposition): A final question to the Premier: The Port of Churchill has been impacted by the shipment of barley through its port. In fact, in 19 88-89 some 89 percent of the shipments through the Port of Churchill were barley. Last year the number was much less than that. In fact, one ship out of the seven ships that went through the port were shipping barley. My question to the Premier is: What is the impact of this report and the recommendations to go to a continental market?

What is the impact on the Port of Churchill? Hon. Gary Fllm on (Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, I should remind the member opposite that last year it was wheat that was shipped through the Port of Churchill. I should also remind him that one of the biggest difficulties that was faced by not only this administration but the administration of which he was a part was to convince the Canadian Wheat Board of the economics of utilizing the Port of Churchill. In fact, I might say that the evidence is that the Wheat Board was one of the biggest stumbling blocks to greater utilization of the Port of Churchil l.

We were constantly having to meet with them, but if they are not using it, what difference does it make? If they beli eve that the economics do not dictate that we ought to use the Port of Churchill, why would you deal with the Canadian Wheat Board? That is the sad reality of it, so on both counts his facts do not support the allega tion that he makes. Health Care System Reform Reporting Process Mr.

Dave Chomlak (KIIdo nan): Madam Deputy Speaker, despite what the government states, there is considerable confusion, uncertainty and fear in this province concerning the minister and the governmen t's health care plans.

Will the minister today provide a commitment to this House and to the people of Manitoba that he will provide reports on a quarterly basis to this Chamber outlining amongst other things, the number of beds closed, proposed job layoffs, community services to be put in place and effect on the community, so that we can provide our constituents and the public with information about what is happening in health care reform? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will even go one better.

As we make decisions and accept the advice of professional groups, advisory committees and other individuals who are participating very actively in the changes that the health care system is undergoing in the province of Manitoba, I will hold news conferences with full and complete information availabl e, much of which in the past has been provided exactly as my honourable friend is requesting. Madam Deputy Sp eaker, I will ma ke that commitment to continue that process as decisions are made to explain what they are.

I would only ask my honourable friend that when decisions are made by government, that he present the accurate in formation that is given to the media and Manitobans instead of the penchant maybe for less than accurate communication my honourable friend is engaged in. Mr. Chomlak : Madam Dep uty Speaker, the min ister's concept of public meetings is news conferences now. Public Hearings Mr.

Dave Chomlak (KIId onan): My question to the minister: Will the minister undertake today, since it appears that his $3.9 -million consultant will be laying off people on an ongoing basis over the year as she works on her $3.9-million contract, to make sure those two institutions that are affected, namely the Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface, hold public meetings with the public, the patients and employees prior to those changes taking place, so that the public has input into the changes, not via press conference? * (1 345) Hon.

Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, I think if my honourable friend, and I may have to stand to correct myself, but I think if my honourable friend would take the time to read the contract that was arrived at between government and APM , my honourable friend-and I might add, that is the first time that a consulting contract with anybody has ever been laid out at a press conference for everyone to see. But that was not the circumstance I inherited of course when I found to my chagrin in 19 88thatthe New Democrats hired American consultants to undertake health care consulting.

I mean, that does not matter now.

19 11 LEGISlATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA April 21, 19 93 Madam Deputy Speaker, my honourable !friend might find just such a process proposed as part of the process and agreement at both hospitals. Community-Based Health Care Funding Mr.

Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Madam D'eputy Speaker, my final supplemen tary to the minister: Will the minister, since he will not chang4� the decision on user fees for colostomies and supplies and he will not chang e the decision on the 7 4-percent increase in nursing home fees, at least commit today that any savings in the health care system that are somehow realized by this process, will go into commu nity- and health-care-based facilities, something that has not been done t•:> this point in time? Hon.

Donald Orchard (Minis ter of He�1lth) : Madam Deputy Speaker, that is entirel )' the frustration that I have with my honourable friend in his presentation of questions, because you might recall that my honourable friend posed similar questions and when I answered those similar questions some two weeks ago, I indicated e>:actly what my honour able friend wants, that the contributions on the ostomy program in terms of the Home Care Program were not stripped away from the Continuing Care Program, but were reinvosted to provide exactly the enhanced levels of community care that my honourable friend wants.

I indicated that to him two weeks ago. My honourable friend is never satisfied with an answer that happens to disagree with the propaganda he and his party want to spread. Instrument Check Pilot School Relocation Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Madam DE1puty Speaker, all jobs are important, but particularly high-quality, highly skilled, high value-a dded jobs are particularly important in a small economJr like this, and in an industry like aerospace.

I wonder if the Ministry of Industry and Trad1� can tell us why the federal government is choosing to relocate the Instru ment Check Pilot School to Ottawa from Winn ipeg-from Winnipeg to Ottawa. Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Deputy Speaker, 1'or a change I agree with the

preamble of the member in terms of the importance of the aerospace secltor to the economy of Manitoba. We certainly recognize that it is one of the six strategic areas that a great deal of time and effort is being focused towards. In terms of the specific question asked today, I will take that as notice and provide him with the further details. Mr. Alcock: Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps the Minister for Transportation (Mr. Driedger) can tell us-it is the school that trains mili tary pilots in the use of instrume nts while they are making night landings.

It employs about seven highly trained professionals, as well as technicians and others. Now there has been an examina tion of the decision by the military to move the school to Ott awa. We have lost 15 1 federal jobs in the last five years. I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation: Is he aware of this decision? * (1 350) Mr. Stefanson: I already indicated to the member for Osborne in terms of taking that matter as notice and providing him further details.

I also confirmed the importance of the aerospace sector, outlined for him some of the things we are doing, not unlike the ini tiative of relo cating the Stevenson Aviation School to Portage Ia Prairie and combining it now with the Centre of Aviation Technology, and the many positive initiatives that are taking place, and the ongoing dialogue we have with the aerospace association represented by both tier two and tier three companies in Manitoba. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is an important sector. We are doing very well in that sector. We still have the third largest aerospace community in all of Canada.

It is a sector we continue to promote and support, whether it is EH1 01 contracts and the $300 million to $400 million of work that can come to Manitoba, and a series of initiatives. I have indicated I will take that question as notice and get further particulars, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr. Al cock: Madam Deput y Sp eaker, this government purports to be an activist interventionist government. To the minister again: Is there no mechanism by which they are informed of decisions of this magnitude by the federal government? Mr. Stefanson: As a rule, Madam De put y Speaker, the ans wer would be yes.

I have indicated, the association that we are a part of which is the aerospace association of Manitoba, that we

April 21 , 19 93 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 19 12 are represented at the table with members from the industry. So by and large, yes, we do get advance notice, whether it is an in itiative by the federal government or whether it is an in itiative by a private sector company in Manitoba. Certainly, going over the past two and a half years, the member for Osborne does not bring many surprises to the floor of this House when it comes to economic initiatives, whether it is in aerospace or any other sector. I have indicated to him I will get further details. It is an im portant sector.

We are doing well in that sector. I referred to the EH10 1 , and I certainly hope the member for Osborne will support that initiative and take that message to the leader of a party that he is considering running for in the next few months, because that is another important initiative for the economy in Manitoba, some $300 million to $400 million and hundreds of high-tech jobs in Manitoba, Madam Deputy Speaker-hundreds of jobs. He can do his part to be supp ortive in that area, I would hope. Education System School Dropout Rate Ms.

Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the indicators of a productive society is the number of young people who are able to complete school. I want to ask the Minister of Education: What is the school dropout rate in Manitoba? Hon.

Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, there have been a number of federal studies that the member may be referring to, but the difficulty in the term "dropout" is that the term is not well defined, because the issue of dropout does not allow for those students who take a temporary leave of absence from school and then in fact reintegrate or start again. It may be for a semester period or it may be for a full school year. So perhaps she needs to clarify the question. Ms. Friesen: Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not think the question could be any simpler.

What is the school dropout rate in Manitoba? There are Statistics Canada numbers on this which are standardly surveyed across the country. I want the minister to tell the House what is the school dropout rate in Manitoba. Mrs. Vodrey: Those statistics are not well defined or consistently defined, and the important feature is that we know how many students who in fact do lea ve school are able to be succ essfu lly reintegrated into school, and if they leave school in Manitoba because their family has moved do they happen to enter school in another province. Ms.

Friesen: Madam Deputy Speaker, there are Statistics Canada- Madam Dep uty Speaker: Or der, pl ease . Question. Ms. Friesen: Will the minister tell the House what the dropout rate is that her department is working with in Manitoba? Mrs. Vodrey: As I said, yes, there are dropout rate statistics by Statistics Canada. However, this government is very interested in making sure that we understand by definition in Man itoba exactly what we mean by students who leave school, lea ve school permanently or leave school to be integrated.

Consequently, during the Estimates process I will be happy to talk about the new tracking system that we will be integrating in this province. Corrections System Community Release Program Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Madam Deputy Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

We have been advised this morning by staff at Hea di ngley Jail that the go ve rnm ent is intending-and they have been advised by their su pervi sors-to imp lemen t a plan whereby no person sentenced to a sentence of less than six months would be incarcerated, but rather would be dealt with through the Community Release Centre, which would mean that a person sentenced to a sentence of less than six months would not spend a day in jail. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, can the minister tell members if in fact the government is intending to implement this plan and if so, when? Hon.

James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): In response, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the need for inmates in our jails to do something useful with the time that they have to spend while they are serving a sentence, we think it is appropriate that they be put to work, and through community release programs we can put inmates to work doing useful things in the community and

19 13 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA April 21 , 19 93 maybe in that way helping to repay their debt to society. * (1 355) Mr. Edwards: The first and foremost responsibility of this minister in the law enfor cement system is protection of the public. Rehabil itation is very important but protection of the public is first.

My question for the minister: How can he gua rantee the protection of the public when tht�se individuals convicted of very serious offences, impaired driving, for instance, sexual assault, domestic assau lt -how can he ensure the safetl' of the victims when these peopl e, albeit ma)•be working, but are in the communi ty? Mr. McCrae: As we develop any plan for dealing with people in carcera ted in Mani toba in c>ur provincial Corrections system, the department is very well aware of my concerns, as minister, for protection of the public. That is the whole idea. in my view, of incarceration, is protection.

Corrections, on the other hand-the philosoph)' of Corrections is to try to ensure that these people are not going to be recidivists, people who go out and commit crimes again. Anybody who is going to be part of a program of community release is going to be very carefully screened and assessed so that the publ ic's protection is assured. That is paramoun11 in our thinking. Mr. Edwards: Let me get this straight with the minister.

Is he intending to put into place an arbitrary system whereby someone with less than six months, regardless of screening or what the offence may have been-is that his intention, that he is going to set a cap at six months, and everyone who falls under it, regardless of the offence, is going to be allo wed to go thr oug h the CRC, the Community Release Centre, and if so, how is he going to protect victims and get them to corne forward and testify agains t these people if those people will be back in the community the next day? Mr.

McCrae: I have already said, Madam Deputy Speaker, thatthe paramount concern of this minister and this department in the area of Corrections is protection of the public. The honourable member often gets certain bits of information, usually somewhat incorrect to begin with. and by the time they end up in this Chamber, they are far fwm correct. So we have to be careful with this honourable member because for five years, he has been consistently bringing incorrect information to this House. Point of Order Mr.

Edwards: Madam Deputy Speaker, I received information and I brought it to the minister, and I am asking him whether or not- Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. James does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. Farmers Alfalfa Products Government Assistance Mr.

John Plohman (Dauphin): This government's policies in rural economic development have been demonstrated to be a failure, and they were again yesterday by my colleague with the loss of 25 jobs in a woodworking plant in Winnipeg, as well as in the failure of the government to respond in a timely way to the needs of the alfalfa plant in Dauphin with another 25 jobs on the line.

In light of the minister's promise of last week that he would follo w up on this issue this afternoon-! quo te from Hansard- will he indic ate to the Legisla ture today precisely what mechanism he has put in place to ensure a timely response which is about one week now, because he has failed to act quickly earlier when he was asked about this? What mechanism he has put in place to ensu re- Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Contact was made last week; officials from my department met on Monday of this week.

We were up in Dauphin meeting with the company and I expect to get a full briefing later this afternoon. Mr. Plohman: Madam Deputy Speaker, in light of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) said this is a top priority, and the need is for bridge financing immediately to operate this year, I want to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism what mechanism he is putting in pla ce to ensur e immediate response with regard to the short-term needs, not the long term , which was what the meeting was about, but right now for operation this year. Mr.

Stefanson: I am not so sure that you can separate those two issues, because in the final

Apr i1 21, 1993 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 1914 analysis, we want all Manitoba companies and entities to be long term and to create jobs, not just for today but for years into the future. So in terms of finding a viable solution for any Manit oba company, you do not just look at a short-term patchwork approach; you look at the long term and how you can maintain it on a stable basis.

This harkens back to the kind of philosophy that we have seen from this member when he was a part of a governmen t-short-term , make-work jobs, instead of creating an environment and a clima te tha t creates lo ng-te rm, stab le jobs so tha t Manitobans have a job today and five years from now and ten years from now, unlik e the kinds of jobs created when he was in cabinet. * (1 400) Mr. Plohman: That is a disgusting slur on farmers of alfalfa products. I want to ask this minister a question.

In light of the fact they have been operating for over 20 years and are not a fly-by-night operation, what action is this minister going to take right now to ensure that they stay in operation now, this year, so they will not lose all of the markets they have built up over these years. Mr. Stefanson: There was certainly no disgusting slur on the farmers or agriculture here in Manitoba. I suggest the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) should just look in the mirror. He need look no further, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I have indicated, in terms of the priority that we are talking about, we are talking about long-term jobs, long-term solutions. That is how we deal with any economic situation in terms of the viabil ity of entities and companies in this province. I indicated I will get a full briefing this afternoon and we will be dealing with that issue. Fisheries Act Amendments Mr. Oscar Lathlln (The Pas): Madam Deputy Speaker, my questions are directed to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Last week, the minister expressed in the House a regret about the lack of support that he was getting for trying to keep support for fishermen in northern Man itoba. Following up on that crucial issue in northern Manitoba, I want to ask the minister whether he has dropped plans to amend The Fisheries Act in view of the opposition his officials have met so far in public meetings. Hon. Har ry Enns (Mi nis ter of Na tural Resources): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have had a considerable amount of discussion with representatives of the fisheries industry.

Different senior officials of the department have had public meetings with various commercial fishing groups along the lakes, particularly on our major fisheries on Lake Winnipeg. We have looked very carefully at the impact of proposed legisla tion and will be presenting legislation to this House in due course. Northern Freight Assistance Program Government Commitment Mr.

Oscar Lathlln (The Pas): Madam Deputy Speaker, since prices for virtually every kind of commercial fish have dropped this year and at the same time the cost of fishing has gone up so dramatically, what efforts has this minister made to restore the funding for the freight subsidy program so that some of our fishermen in the North can afford to keep operating this year? Hon. Ha rry Enns (Mi nis ter of Natural Resources): Ma dam Deput y Speaker, the honourable member is aware that $250,000 of taxpayers' money that is provided to offset the freight costs is virtually exclusively assigned to the northern fisheries.

If any of the com mercia! fishermen in the province have a complaint and they are voicing them to me, it is those in the southern fisheries, namely again in the Lake Winnipeg area, who are experiencing difficulty. The whitefish industry is not in good shape, not in good health, and they have lost most of the freight assistance that the province provides. We did that on the rationale that it would be fairer to provide the more distant, the northern fisheries who have the bigger freight bill to pay.

They are the recipients of virtually all of the $250,000 of assistance that is ongoing and has been ongoing, despite the hard budgetary times that we all face. Fishing Industry Government Support Mr. Oscar Lathlln (The Pas): Madam Deputy Speaker, my final question is to the same minister. I would like to ask the minister if he will commit himself and this government to getting the same

19 15 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA April 21 , 19 93 support for fishermen in this province, particularly in northern Manitoba, as what is happening in the Maritimes? Hon. Har ry Enns (Min ister of Natur al Resources): The honourable member raise1s an interesting point. It is a matter that I have ra.ised directly with the federal minister, the honourable minister of federal Rsheries Mr. Crosbie, at the time that a very significant and substantial supp ort program was annou nced by the federal government.

I believe it was some $500 mil lion for the serious difficulties that the eastern offslhore fisheries, principally in the Newfoundlan d-Nova Scotia area, find themselv es in. I, at that time, approached the federal minister directly that S<ome relatively modest proportion of that applied to our own inland fisheries here would go a long w�ty in help ing out some of the dif ficult ies th at I acknowledge our fishermen have.

I will, Madam Deputy Speaker, continue to tl'y to convince anybody and everybody who is prepared to listen that our fisheries are in some difficulty, particularly our whitefish industry and the northern fisheries have a problem getting their product �;�nto market. We keep hoping that there are brighter days in the future. I have discussed some of the options with the representatives of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, but I will contiinue working in that direction. Workers Compensation Board Jean Rochon Case Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam De1outy Speaker, Mr.

Jean Rochon, a gentleman in his mid-fifties, sustained a workplace back injury in 19 85 which left him permanently disabled. He now uses canes and a walker and is currently receiving Can ada Pension Plan disability benefits. In September of 19 92, the WCB threatened Mr. Rochon with termination of his WCB benefits if he did not seek work. My question is for the Minister responsible fo1· the Workers Compensation Board: Why has the WCB videotaped, pushed and threatened this individual to return to the workforce when his personal doctor indicates that he has a total permanent disability? Hon.

Darren Praznlk (Minister responsible for and charged with the admin istration of The Workers Compensation Act): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would say to the member for Transc�;�na, I would invite him to take up this parti cular individual's case with the chair of the board. There are three labour appointments to the board. There is an appeal process on a variety of decisions. As I have said in this House before, we have a Workers Compensation Board with a nine-member board with three labour appointments who are very, very capable people, who set the policies, who are responsible for the administration of the board.

I would suggest that he raise it with those board members, including Mr. Bruno Zimmer who is a member of that board appointed by labour, who are responsible for these kinds of issues. That is the process as opposed to raising this matter directly in the House. I would suggest he use that format. Mr. Reid: Madam Deputy Speaker, the reason I raise this is that the minister is the last person left in the chain of command here to which I can raise these concerns, because others in WCB have ignored that. [interjection] He just does not want to take the responsibility on it.

My question, Madam Deputy Speaker, is for the same minister. Can the minister explain why the Workers Compensation Board is now forcing this injured person to attend psychiatric evaluation and counselling by the WCB staff, or the people they appoint, without the presence of the individual's spouse, whom they refuse to allow into the room, and is now forcing the individual to attend a U.S. pain clinic when his personal doctor indicates that these actions will undo everything achieved to date? Why is the WCB attacking this individ ual? * (14 1 0) Mr.

Praznlk: Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to point out to the member for Transcona that many of the issues he has raised here on the floor of the House, including the use-1 am not sure, but I believEH:>f the Sister Kenny pain clinic which is a well -respected pain clinic, he may oppose it because it happens to be south of the 49th parallel, but it is a valid clinic. All of these issues are administrative matters.

I have had occasion to sit down with members of the board of directors, including Margaret Day, who is a memb er of the Manitoba Government Employees' Union; Bruno Zimmer from the Food and Commercial Workers; Marla Niekamp, who is a member of the Manitoba Nurses' Union, who were all nominated by the labour community, including the Federation of Labour. Those decisions that you

April 21 , 1993 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA 1916 are ra1s mg are polic y matter s in which they contributed to. In discussions with the chair of the board, I understand that virtually every policy matter settled by the board is done on a unanimous basis, a consensus basis. There have not been split votes. So I would suggest that, since he belongs to a party that claims to have an affiliation with labour, he raise some of these matters with those members of the board of directors.

I am prepared to follo w up with some questions to the board, but I would indicate that it is a joint board including labour representatives who develop those policies that he today is coming here and questioning. Environmental Concerns Contaminated Soli Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environm ent): Madam Deputy Speaker, yesterday I was asked a question for which I did not have the answer regarding soil contamination, how many of the property owners are paying and how much. Eighty percent of the cost is paid up-front, and the balance of 20 percent is collectable and is collected.

The site at Elmwood Motors is within guidelines. Hespeler Auto has been issued an order and is in the process of clean up. Petro-Canada is treating soil onsite by vapour extraction. I also take great pride in the fact that on environmental matters we are always forthright with the information, Madam Deputy Speaker. There was a question from the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) about whether or not the department had made available information. I want to put on the record that on December 16 the Depart men t of Environ men t's Freedom of In form ation officer pho ned the member for Transcona (Mr.

Reid) to indicate that the files he had requested were available. The return message was left, but the member for Transcona did not return the second message that went to him. The files are still available if he wants to come and get them. Deputy Ministers Salary Increases Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, Manitobans are increasingly questioning the "fairness"-and I put that in quotation marks-of the Conser vative gover nmen t .

No grou p of Manitobans is questioning the fairness of this government's actions more than the many civil servants who have had their wages frozen, are having now the involun tary days off, which is effectively a wage cut. Yesterday, questions were raised even to the Mini ster of Family Services (Mr. Gill eshammer) asking, in terms of salaries in terms of deputy ministers within departments of government. At that time, the minister said that deputy ministers were being increased at the rate of the MGEU contract.

Well, Public Accounts indicates that deputy ministers have in fact, while civil servants have been cut, been getting sign ificant increases, and in the minister's department an increase of 14 .9 percent over the last two years. I have a very simple question. Is it fair to expect 1 00,000 civil servants to take pay cuts and pay freezes and at the same time to have increases to senior staff of in excess of double digit figures? Is that fairness, Madam Deputy Speaker? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know to what document the member is referring.

Certainly, the Public Accounts for year-end '93 are not even yet brought together. If the member is trying to introduce into debate, by way of question, Madam Deputy Speaker, '91 -92 year-end records, I say to him, that has nothing to do with Bill 22 , which, by the way, I will be introducing for second reading once we move into Orders of the Day. The member cannot stand here and try and compare those two sources of information because they come from two different periods of time. Mr.

Ashton: Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps the Mini ster of Finance should check the figures between 19 90 and 19 92 where civil servants had a pay freeze and a 3 percent increase and now a 3.8 percent- Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Ashton: Madam Deputy Speaker, I will ask the Minister of Finance, how does he justify deputy ministers getting increases, in this particular case of 14 .9 percent, at the same time when civil servants were being cut? Mr. Manness: Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know what the member is trying to indicate.

He is trying to indicate that there has been some increase within the higher senior levels of government, where

1917 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA April 21 , 19 93 have been significant reclassifications throu�rhout the whole civil service. I dare say, if the member wants to pick and choose specific indications he can go about doing that all day, but he is not going to be able to contribute to the debate. He is not going to be able to suggest how it is that we have been able to fr,eeze the taxes in this province for six years. He h� not going to be able to point out how it was we bro,ught probably the fairest budget down in all of Canada at this point in time. Deputy Ministers Salary Increases Mr.

Steve Ashton (Thompson): My final que!�tion to the Minister of Finance is: Will he not recognize the inher ent unfairness of treating emplo yees who make $20,000 a year one way, cutting them back, and having senior civil servants getting increases? Will he now at least be consistent and not have this unfair system that we are seeing with senior civil servants getting double digit increases OV4�r a two-year period? Hon.

Darren Praznlk (Minis ter of Labour): Madam Deputy Speaker, just to add to the am;wer to this question, the member for Thompson very conveniently in his question forgets to mention a thing called reclassifications which happen from time to time. He may laugh, but there were over 500 members of the civil service, of the MGEU, who had reclassifications. If he is proposing that should not happen I am sure the MGEU would take a very different position from him.

As well, there is one-third of the public service which has merit increases that still apply which the member also tends to forget and leave out of this debate. So I think what he is doing, quite frankly, is comparing apples to oranges. He is not making a fair comparison at all. If there was one deputy minister-and we do not even know if his facts are accurate-had that increase, it could have been a reclassification. But there were at least 500 members of the MGEU who had positions reclassified who could have had even larger increases than that.

Now, if he is proposing that not happen, that not be a tool available, then I would suggest that he take it up with the MGEU because they have never, ne1ver suggested to us that we should not have a process to properly recl assify positions with the ir responsibilities. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The time for Question Period has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, would you call second readings of the following bills: Bill 22, Bill 23 and Bill 25. SECOND READINGS Bill 22- The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation Management Act Hon.

Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Mini ster of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. McCrae), that Bill 22, The Public Sector Reduced Work Week And Compensation Management Act (Loi sur Ia reduction de Ia semaine de travail et Ia gestion des salaires dans le secteur public), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Manness: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am introducing Bill 22, The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation Management Act.

Before I get too far into reading Bill 22, I would just lik e to react to the last question put by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), and I will do so in the context of Bill 22. Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I do believe the minister would be out of order, but if the minister wants to continue with Question Period on that I would be glad to do it if he wants equal treatment. Otherwise he is out of order. Mr.

Manness: As I indicated in my answer, the very essence of the question put by the member for Thompson will flow quite consistently with the rationale behind Bill 22. So I cannot be ruled out of order if indeed the response I give for second reading Bill 22 indirectly answers his question from Question Period just a moment ago. It seems though that because the cameras have now left the Chamb er, the memb er is not in ter ested in answering.

April 21 , 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 19 18 * (14 20) Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I thank the honourable members for their advice, and I am sure that the honourable minister's remarks will indeed be relevant to his bill. *** Mr. Manness: Madam Deputy Speaker, as members are aware, the Province of Manitoba, like gove rnments across Ca nada of all politi cal affiliations, is facing serious fiscal challenges, and

whereas some would try and portray by using a specific example and trying to make it look like it represents the average for a whole group of senior civil servants and tries to make it appear that individuals at the higher level are receiving remune ration above everybody else, I say the very essence of Bill 22 will attempt to provide the fairness that all Manitobans of all stripes, regardless of whether they are working for government or not, are wanting to see their government bring into place at this point in time.

In the past few weeks, several governments have announced measures to reduce or limit public sector compensation through layoffs, wage reductions and reduced workweeks. Other governments, while not formally announcing public -sector compensation restraint programs, have publicly indicated they are considering a variety of measures.

While I can assure memb ers that this governmen t is not blaming public servants for the fiscal difficulty it faces, the reality is that the vast majority of provincial expenditure goes towards wages, either directly to civil servants or as a funding for wages in other areas of the public sector, including the priority areas of health and education. The Manitoba public sector, excluding emp loyees of the federal government and its agency, employs over 10 0,000 individuals with a payroll of approximately $3.4 bill ion.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I just ask members of the House for a moment, try and understand the magni tud e of thos e nu mb ers. We have approximately in Manitoba 450,000 tax filers. Yet, a public sector represents 10 0,000 of those tax filers. So, those who through their activities and through the provision of services that they provide for the public are ultim ately paid directly or indirectly, either through rates that they pay on their telephone or their hydro or indeed by wages that they receive directly or indirectly through government; 10 0,000 of that number make up the public sector.

Madam Deputy Speaker, in addition, payments to physicians which were not included in that 1 00,000 under the fee

schedule total an excessive $250 million per year. Therefore, each 1 percent of the public sector payroll represents approximately $36 million. In February, I announ ced a reduced workweek program for the civil service. At the same time I indicated that I expected Crown corps and other government-funded entities to adopt similar approaches. In announcing funding levels to education and other sectors, my colleagues have recommended this model as a means to meet financial requirements.

A number of employers in the public sector have in dicated sign ifican t inter est in the reduce d workweek model as an innovative way to meet financial requirements without significant layoffs and with the least impa ct on priority services. In deed, some have ent er ed into tent ati ve agreeme nts with their emp loyees on the implemen tation of reductions. However, many are concerned that existing legislation agreements may hin der the app lic ation of this model in the ir organization. Madam Deputy Speaker, to digress only for a second.

When I brought down Bill 70 almost two years ago, there was some request from across Canada to understand more fully what it is that we were in tending to do within the Province of Manitoba. What happened when I served notice that the government was going to bring down this model, the reduced workweek model, from across Canada significant support and credit came for this type of approach from all governments. It was private to me. I will not say who they are, but the reality is this was seen as a very innovative and probably the proper model to adopt in today's context.

Madam Deputy Speaker, other examples, the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, at their recent meetings, requested the province introduce legislation to facilitate days off without pay. In addition, they also requested legislation to reduce the rates of pay of teachers. While we were not prepared to leg islate reduced rates of pay, we are responding to these concerns with legis la tion that provides an in novative mechanism that can be utilized by public employers

1919 LEGIS lA TIVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA April 21 , 19 93 to assist them in their effo rts to con trol compensation costs, while at the same time minimizing the need for significant staff reductions. In additi on , the leg islation will reduce the compensation paid to MLAs and appointees t1:> the government boards and commissions. It will also limit the total payme nts made to Mani toba physicians. In developing this legislation, the government was guided by several principles, as we usuall�' are, Madam Deputy Speaker. Our legisla tion is alm ost always governed by principles.

In developing this legislation, the government was guided by: (1) we sensed that the leg islation should provide a mechanism for public employers to meet financial requirements without having to layoff significant numbers of employees; (2) that the decision on whether or not to utilize the provisions of the legislation should be left to each employer fol lowi ng an asses sment of their spec ific requirements; (3) that a consultation procesl; be provided to ensure that the views of the employee repr ese ntatives are sough t and agree m1mts between the parties are made possible, and, as the legislation shows, that has to be at least 30 days, has to be di rected to those efforts; (4) that impediments to consistent treatment throughout the public sector be removed; and (5) that other aspects of employee compensation, such as benefits, be protected to the extent possible.

Key provisions. The legisla tion is divided into three parts: (1 ) reduced workweek and redt1ced compen sati on; (2) me dical pra ctition ,9rs' compensation; and (3) the part dealing with the members of the Legislative Assembly. First of all , the reduced workweek . The legisla tion will al low em ployer s, fol lo wing consu ltation with employee representatives, to implement reduced workweek programs during which employees would take un paid leave1; of absences for up to 15 days or portions of clays total ling 15 .

These programs could be put in pllace for up to two consecutive 12 -month periods commencing in 1993. The number of days of leave of absence and the mechanism for achieving the leaves would be established and fixed in a notice filed with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Prazni k). The legisla tion will facilitate the application of the reduced workweek to all employees, including those in essential-service areas.

In the absence of the legislation, many employers could only provide essen tial servi ces and st ill achieve financial objectives by having those at the lower end of the seniority scale bear the brunt of the work reductions through the layoff mechanism. We believe that significant additional layoffs can be avoided through a mechanism which will require all employees to share in the reduced workweek program.

The legislation will not impact on negotiated increases in rates of pay and benefit plan provisions, nor will any provisions of collective agreements not related to the introduction and implem entation of reduced workweek programs be affected. In order to protect employee benefits to the extent possible, the leaves of absence will be deemed by the legisl ation to not constitute a layoff. Under many coll ective agreements, benefits cease upon layoff. However, under these agreements, some grace period is provided in the case of leaves of absence without pay to allow for the continuation of benefit coverage.

Reduced compensation. In order to ensure that all groups are treated in a consistent manner for the '93-94 fiscal year, members of Crown agencies, boards, commissions and committees and other in divid uals appo inted by the Lieuten ant Governor-in-Council will have the amount paid to them reduced by 3.8 percent. For the '94-95 fiscal year, the amoun ts will be reduced by an amount equivalent to the effect on pay that the reduced workweek program will have on civil servants for that year. The groups affected will include political appointees and Provincial Court Judges.

Wherever practical, it is expected that these individuals will also take the corresponding number of days off. * (1 430) Before moving on to

Part 2, I would like to clarify briefly for members the province's in tent with respect to reduced workweek program for civil servants. All civil servants will be required to take 10 days of leave of absence without pay. Government offices will be closed for seven Fridays in July and Augus t and three days between Christmas and New Year's. Employees involved in esse ntial se rvices or areas with seasonal imperatives such as highways construction will take the days off on a scheduled basis or at alterna tive times of the year.

April 21 , 19 93 LEG ISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MAN ITOBA 19 20 Fee schedules under

Part 2. Total payments to physicians under the fee-for-service program for '93-94 will be capped at 98 percent of the '92-93 level. This is consistent with the funding reductions which have been applied to other sectors. It is also consistent with a desire to have the impact of the fiscal restraints shared throughout the public sector. Un der the fee-for-service program , the total payments are a function of two factors: the amount paid for each service according to the schedule, and the number of services provided.

Since the number of services provided can vary year to year, it is impossible to know precisely what impact the number of services will have on total payments. Therefore, the legislation will allow the Mini ster of Health (Mr. Orchard) to adjust the amount paid for each service during the year to ensure that the funding available for '93-94 is not exceeded. I would like to stress that this leg islation will not restrict access to m edical services. A fee will continue to be paid for each insured medical service provided to Manitobans.

At the end of the '93-94 fiscal year, a reconcilia tion will take place, and if less than the amount available has been expended, physicians will receive an additional amount up to the full value of the fee schedule. If the available amount has been exceeded, the excess amount will be recovered from physicians. A similar process will also apply to the '94-95 fiscal year with the funding cap est abli shed by regu lation as a percentage of the '93-94 expenditure. Third part, MLAs.

Part 3 of the leg islation will reduce the indemnity and the allo wance paid to MLAs under The Legisla tive Ass embly Act by 3.8 percent. Constituency and access allowances will also be reduced by 3.8 percent. These sections will put into legislation the changes already agreed to by representatives of all parties on the Legislative Assembly Management Commission. Madam Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, as I indicated previously, this legislation is intended to make av ailable to public -sector emp loyers a mechanism that will allow them to meet their financial requirements without sign ificantly reducing jobs.

The decision of whether or not to utilize the mechanism will be made by each employer based on an assessment of their particular circumstances.

By that I mean, in some cases if there are other ways of achieving the target on the salary line, of reducing it in a manner consistent with what the government has had to do and what Crowns of government have had to do, then indeed this model may not need to be used; but, if other ways cannot be found, then we would expect this model, some variation of this model, to be used by any group which draws its funding, direct or indirect, in a significant fashion from government.

Madam Deputy Speaker, in addition, legis lation does not preclude employers and emplo yees from agreeing to alternate ways to meet the financial requirements. Indeed, I understand that several employers are presently discussing volu ntary agreements with their employees. The mechanism pr ovided by this leg isla tion should provide employers with an innovative and equitable means to avoid the substantial job cuts that could be requir ed in some areas to meet their required financial requirements, and it will allow all emplo yee groups to be treated in a consistent fash ion. Consistency was what we sought.

The government knew and has been saying for some period of time that unless employees, direct or indirect, all people who draw their li velih ood in a sense from the public purse, felt that they were treated in some consistent and fair manner, nobody would buy into the concept that they had to do their share. Madam Deputy Speaker, what we have found out since my speaking notes were prepared is that there are groups within government, there are groups within the Crowns, who once they have seen that everybody will be treated fairly, they have come forward.

Not that anybody likes to give away a portion of their disposable income and see a reduction, nobody li kes to do that, but the real ity is everybody understands, except for the opposition parties for the most part, that we have problems that have to be dealt with on the expenditure side.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to those employee groups and to those union leaders who have seen that they have a role to play, who have seen that they have a responsibili ty in fair sharing of the difficulties that we have and who have worked towards an agreement and now who are trying and who are selling this type of approach amongst their employees. That is why this province is going to lead this nation with respect to industrial relations for the years to come and with respect to the fiscal framework so necessary to build the economic future for our children. Thank you very much. Mr.

Ashton: Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder if I might ask questions for clarification on second reading.

19 21 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA Apri1 21, 19 93 Madam Deputy Sp eaker: The honourable member for Thompson, the honourable Minis1er of Finance has agreed to answer ques tions for clarification. Mr. Ashton: As much as I would like to deba1te, it is not going to be anything in terms of that. It is strictly for clarification. I would like to get some indication from the Minister of Finance who made reference in his comments to essential services.

This is a concern that relates not just to the general civil service, but also Crown corporations as well, because obvic•usly Telephones, Hydro, also provide essential services. I would lik e to ask who defines essential services, how that is decided, and whether this act set:s up any particular mechanism that will provide for s,ome analysis of what is an essential service and, under the minister's explanation, will be treated differontly than other services. Madam De puty Speaker: Order, pl ease . Procedurally, I beg the indulgen ce of the Hous;e.

I need to clarify whether indeed there is leave for the member to pose the question. An Honourable Member: Leave. Madam Deputy Chairperson: Leave? Agreed. Mr. Manness: Ma dam De puty Speaker, the question is well put. Certainly, government is trying to more clearly define what it means by essential services.

In the context of corrections, in the context of certain dimensions of the health <:are system, we can readily indicate what essential services are, but still throughout the various departments of governmen t ther e are other essential services, I think, particularly in Jus tice, a small area within the Land Titles for the filin!� of registrations for month-end closings. I mean, we are going to have to maintain an individual or something and that, in essence, would be deemed an essential service.

So we are going throughout all of government, and indeed officials through departme nts are bringing these examples to us. We know, for instance, the jails are essential services. Those are the easy ones, but we are combing throughout all of governmen t and trying to more clearly define, under the criteria that we have in place, to try and uive greater dimension to that.

Ultima tely, we will go as far as we can and as far as necessary to provide the services, but the government will leave upon itself the ult imate right and the refore the ultima te responsibility and therefore the ultim ate criticism as to whether we have incl uded too much or whether we have not incl uded enough. Mr. Ashton: Just one further cl arification on essential services. Presumably there are two possible dimensio ns in the case of essential services.

One would be not following the seven days in the sum mer and three days in the Christmas-New Year period, which is the standard amoun t that was indicated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). The second would be, presumably, that some individuals might not have the 1 0 days off with leave . I would like to ask, when the minister talks about essential services, which of those two scenarios is he looking at in the act, or is he looking at potentially both?

Will there be some cases where, say, conservation officers may have a different time-off period but some conservation officers may be working throughout the year? I am just wondering when the minister talks about essential services what he is referring to exactl y. Mr. Manness: Well, again, my first answer holds, although again there is good reason to have some flexibil ity. The member talks about conservation officers.

Yes, there are areas, particularly in Natural Resources and within Highways, where there is good reason that we will not force the hard rule of seven days in the summer and three days in the Christmas break. For example, I look into transportation. I mean, we are building roads in the summer, so if we need engineers in place on site to build a road, we are not going to shut down the road construction on a Friday in the middle of summer because we do not have a high ways engineer there. Obviously, common sense would dictate that that will be deemed an essential service for that day for that particular occupation.

The same in Natural Resources. We are not going to close down the ticket booths or the toll booths coming into parks on a Friday. I mean, well, common sense is going to prevail here, and I make no apology for that. The guiding rule throughout all the departments will be seven days off in July and August. All admin istrative offices, for sure, will be expected to close by the general guideline, which is seven days in the summer and three days at Christmastime.

April 21, 19 93 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 19 22 Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 23- The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Amendment, Employment Standards Amendment and Payment of Wages Amendment Act Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): I move, seconded by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), that Bill 23, The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Amendment, Employment Standards Amendment and Payment of Wages Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les jours feries dans le commerce de detail, Ia

Loi sur les normes d'emploi et Ia

Loi sur le paiement des salaires), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. * (1 440) Mr. Stefanson: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill 23. Members of this House are aware that on March 26, 19 93, our government announc ed its intention to introduce legisla tion to extend the trial period of Sunday shopping in Manitoba with the purpose of al lowing municipalities in this province to determine whether they wish to ha ve liber aliz ed Su nday shopping in the ir commu nities.

Accordingly, we are introducing several amendme nts to The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Act, The Employment Standards Act, and The Payment of Wages Act. These amendments come in the form of Bill 23, which is to be considered by the House in two parts, Madam Deputy Speaker. In effect,

Part 1 would amend the three acts to extend the previous trial period from April 12 , 19 93, to September 30, 19 93, and would maintain the full effect of those earlier amendments.

Part 2 would amend The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Act to enable muni cipalities, as defined in the legislation, to pass a by-law permitting stores in their juri sdictions to remain open on certain holidays, including Sundays. In light of the various issues rela ted to economics, social realities and community values, we belie ve this approach to Sunday shopping reflects reasonable, realis tic and flexible choices for all involved. Indeed, one of our primary concerns throughout this discussion has been to broaden the range of choices available to all Manitobans.

Briefly, the effect of this legislation, if passed, will be as follows: The existing trial period would be extended to September 30, 19 93. All provisions under the earlier amendments regarding Sunday shopping would remain in effect. As well, retailer s will have the choice of whether or not to open on Sunday. Also, Sunday shopping will not be all owed prior to 12 noon or after 6 p.m., and as well, employees in retail outlets formerly forced to close on Sunday will retain the right to choose not to work on Sunday.

Madam Deputy Speaker, as of September 30, 19 93, the former reg ime regar ding Sun day openings would apply, except in municipalities that had passed by-laws to permit Sunday openings, that is, municipalities that do not pass a specific by-law on this issue would be governed by the previous legisl ation that only allo ws specifically designated retail outlets or those with four or few emp loyees to open on Sun days. However, municipalities may pass such a by-law at any time before or after September 30.

Our rationale, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this new set of amendm ents is driven by simi lar considerations that prompted our undertaking of the first trial period. We bel ieve Sunday shopping is something that many Manitoba consumers have been calling for, and we beli eve that it can provide gr eater convenience and some measur e of economic benefits for all. At the same time, we have recognized that Sunday shopping may also have impl ications for communi ty activities, values and desires.

With changes in employment patterns and dem ographics, ma ny fa mili es ar e fin ding it increasingly difficult to confine all their shopping to one full day, that is a Saturday, and with more and more two-in come fam il ies and singl e-parent families, for many Manitobans, the weekend is the only realistic time to do some shopping. Moreover, research shows that in terms of personal preference, the majority of Manitobans support the introduction of Sunday shopping.

In a survey conducted last year, three-qua rters of Mani tobans respon ded fa vourably towards li beralized Su nday shopping when certain conditions were attached. These conditions might include limi ted hours or certain seasons, and not

19 23 LEGISLATIVE Jl1SSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA April 21 , 19 93 surprisingly, people who describe themselves as cross-border shoppers were amongst the most supportive of wide-open Sunday shopping. This brings me to the economic rationale for our approach. When we introduced a trial period, we sugges ted that Sunday shopping had sig nificant potential for economic benefit. We were particularly conce rned with countering the effe cts of cross-border shopping in certain areas of our province. However, we were also impressed with economic studies indicating the general positive impact of Sunday shopp ing.

In light of these realities, we felt it was even more important to allow local communities themselves to weigh the pros and cons of Sunday shopping and make their decisi,ons based on the actual feelings and needs of their residents. Let me turn for a moment to what our assessment of the trial period has told us so far, Madam Deputy Speaker. In December 19 92 actual retail sales in Manitoba were $57 million higher than in December 19 91 , an increase of around 9 percent. This represents the second highest growth in Canada for that period behind only British Columbia.

Sales tax revenues were 10 .6 percent higher in December '92 than in 19 91 , and this increase held for all regions of the province. There was no change in retail bankruptcies. in December 19 92 compared to the same period in 19 91 . There was als o no signif icant change recorded in the consumer price index. Canadian shoppers travelling to the Un ited States declined by 35 percent as compared to the previous year. Some of these changes may appear to be signi ficant increases. However, Sunday store openin gs were of course not the only factor differentiating 19 92 from 19 91 .

Besides the1se detailed economic studies, the Manitoba Bureau of Statistics conducted a survey of over 500 retail,ers from all areas of the province. It found, Mad:tm Deputy Speaker, amongst other things, that 31 percent of retailer s felt Sunday shopping had a favourable impact on the economy, and 17 perc19nt said it had a negative impact. However, 35 peromt also felt it had no impact. Seventy-five percent of retailers felt the decision to open on Sunday should be left to each individual retailer. That is a very important message, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As well, 11 percent of those retailers who opened on Sunday hired additional staff. We also considered other factors and issues in reaching our decision. We were aware, of course, that public opinion seemed to favour some sort of relaxation of the current legislation. Seven other Canadian provinces currently al low Su nday shopping on some basis. This has provided us not only with some models for legislation which I will speak about in a moment but also a growing base of public opinion research to consider as well. Most of this research has shown strong support for expanded shopping on Sundays.

In Toronto, Ontario, Goldfarb Consu ltants condu cted a research project designed to identify the level of sup port for Sunday shopping amongst Ontario residents. The key findings of their study conducted in 19 90 in clude, over thre e-quar ters of all responden ts favoured Su nday shopping. Over three-quarters of those who work on Sundays favoured Sunday shopping, and support is highest amongst single parents, working women and those who work irregular hours. As well, a large majority indicated that Sunday shopping does not interfere with family activities.

From results such as these, we have concluded that comple te restriction on Sunday shopping, rather than simply creating an inconvenience, would actually place considerable hardship on certain groups in our society who face significant time constraints and others. I hasten to point out that while Manitoba is quite different in popula tion make-up from Ontario, demographics continue to show increases in the numb er of Manitobans who are single parents, working women and/or people who work irregular hours. As mentioned, the Goldfarb study addressed some of the potential negative impact of Sunday shopping.

In particular, it found most people did not see Sunday shopping having a detrimental effect on their family, personal or religious life or, indeed, the qual ity of life in their own communities. Of these same respondents, a full 90 percent said they do not spend any less time with their families because of Sunday shopping and, furthermore, two-thirds agreed that Sunday shopping allo ws families to better organize their weekends, so there is actually more family contact time. * (1 450)

April 21 , 19 93 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 19 24 Across Canada today, Madam Deputy Speaker, we find a variety of approaches to the Sunday shopping issue. In British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatc hewan, the other western provinces, municipalities determine whether retail outlets may open on Sundays and on what conditions. This approach appears to be working well in those jurisdictions. In Quebec, the only lim itation is that stores may not open before 8 a.m. or after 5 p.m. In Ontario, a bill to allow un restricted Sunday shopping is now before the Legisla ture and ex pected to be passed.

Some provi nces have un restricted Su nday shopping in certain seasons. New Brunswick allo ws Sun day shopping from Labour Day to Christmas, while in Prince Edward Island, the season is from the last Sunday in November to Christmas. Only Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have more lim ited Su nday shop ping, where openings are restricted to smaller retail outlets. Size may be determined either by the number of employees or the physical size of the store. As well, Madam Deputy Speaker, 50 Unit ed States states have expanded Sunday shopping.

After careful consideration of all the economic and social issues and the models offered in other ju risdictions, we have arrived at the muni cipal option. We feel it al lows for individual communities to weigh the same factors that we did and assess how they would affect their community. It also offers them some latitud e, as municipalities would be able to allo w Sunday shopping on a lim ited or seasonal basis if they so wished.

As a government, we truly feel Sunday shopping has proven to be one of those issues where a uniform province-wide solution is not appropriate and where local communi ties mus t have the opportunity to decide what is the best solution for them. We have not required muni cipalities to pass a by-law outl awing Sunday shoppi ng. Those municipalities that do not pass a by-law allowing Sunday shopping revert, as of September 30, 19 93, to the old regime.

We have extended the trial period of li beralized Sunday shopping for another six months for two fundamental reasons: firstly, to give muni cipalities time to assess the issue and pass appropriate by-laws if they so desire; and secondly, to give mu nicipali ti es an oppor tu ni ty to assess the economic impact of Sunday shopping during the high tourist traffic months of June, July and August. Nearly two-thirds of Uni ted States' visitors travelling to Manitoba come here during those months.

As well, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have maintained several basic restrictions on Sunday shopping that will apply to all businesses that employ five or more people in those municipalities that opt in. These rest rictions have applie d throughout the initial trial period and will still apply in the continued trial period and after September 30 to municipalities that permit Sunday shopping.

Finally, I should note that as with the earlier amendments, the changes allowing for Sunday openings after September 30 would not apply to the statutory holidays of Christmas Day, New Year's Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Canada Day and Labour Day. It is our hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this proposed solution to the question of Sunday shopping will address what we see as at least three key issues: firstly, the need for local community decision making; secondly, the need for sensitivity towards specific groups; and thirdly, the need to find creative ways to stimula te our retail sector. Thank you, very much.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I must say that it is hard to know where to begin in this particular bill, because what a tangled mess this government has wrough t in terms of Sunday shopping in this province. I want to deal with the mess this government has created in terms of this. I want to deal with the real reasons why we are seeing this bill. I want to deal with some of the arg umen ts brought forward by the mini ster, supposed argumen ts for introducing this current bill. Let us start by putting this bill into perspective.

This bill, Bill 23, I was tempted to call it the sequel for the first Sunday shopping bill, but even Holly wood lets the original movie run before it gets into the sequel. In this case, they put out the original movie , Sunday Shopping I, and they ran into problems. First of all, it was clear that there were spli ts within their own caucus. (interjection] Oh, never, they say, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not interesting that the second reason they were afraid to deal with it, there were splits in many of the communities that they represent? If they say never, I ask one very simple question.

Why, when the opposition took the unpr ecedented step of passing the original Sunday shopping bill through to second reading before Christmas, when we had the

19 25 LEGISLATIVE }�SSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA April 21, 19 93 opportunity to have intersessional hearings-we could have had hearings in Winnipeg, we c1:>uld have had hearings in Brandon, in Thompson, in Rin Flon, in Dauphin, in rural communities throughout Manitoba-why did the government not take up that un precedented offer by the opposition? Madam Deputy Speaker, I know in other bill�; we are criticized in the opposition for giving thorough time and discussion to bills, but you know wherE• we sit on Sunday shopping. I spoke in this House in December.

I said, what a great opportunity, when we are dealing with what was introduced as a trial period, what a good opportunity to have the public of Manitoba speak before this bill is passed. Even though there we>uld have been some retroactivity, there is no reason why we could not have had those public hearings and then either had the bill dropped or voted upon, passed or defeated prior to the end of the trial period. What did the government choose to do?

They had a bill that was retroactive to begin with, that they had plenty of opportunity to deal with in terms of the trial period itself, but they deli berately chose not to call the bill before committee until the trial period was over. I mean, let us put the cards on the table here. Let us recognize what happened. I would say they could not even get their own caucus to agree to call it for second reading. That is the real reason lthat they have not yet called that bill and that is the real reason we are seeing now, if not a 18 0-degree turn, it is certainly a 90-degree turn in Bill 23.

Let us deal with that first question, the procedural question. I have never seen a government twis;ted around like a pretzel to the degree this government has on the Sunday shopping issue. Well, let us go one step further. What is this bill? Well, this bill is sort of a trial period. There is a further trial period built in. Then it is basically a pass-the-buck bill. It is an interesting construction. They must have spent a lot of time in their caucus on this one. I do not know who came up with 'this brilliant compromise. He is brilliant, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We are now dealing with a bill that is sort of a trial period but is actually a pass-the-buck bill, a trial period that really, in this particular case, is goin!} to lead nowhere in terms of this Legi slature because this government has already made up its mind that it wants to pass the issue over to the municipalities. You know, what it leads in once again is confusion. I had the opportunity yesterday to speak, along with the Leader ofthe Opposition (Mr. Doer) and the M.P. for Churchill at my high school in Thompson to a Grade 11 and Grade 12 class, and there were a lot of good questions.

You know, I am just glad they never asked me on Sunday shopping, because I do not know how I would have explained to them how a government could bring in a bill that was a trial period, that was retroactive, the bill is still on the order paper and the trial period is over, and now they are bringing in a bill that is going to have another trial period, then pass the buck, that once again is now going to be passed, if it is passed in this House, after the trial period has begun. I am sure the young people there would have said, how can they do this?

How can you bring in retroactive bills to begin with, but how can you then turn around and end up with this dramatic change of direction? I mean, Madam Deputy Speaker, what happens on the original Sunday shopping bill or on this bill if members of the House say no? What are we going to do? People have been open for the last number of Sundays since the trial period began. What kind of chaos would we end up with? Would people then have to return all the merchandise they bought on Sunday? I mean, that would never happen, we know that. What would hap pen?

What would happen is we would be the laughing stock of this country. I must say, and this is an editorial comment, after what has happened on the tree issue in Winnipeg with the movie company, I would say that we could then add to it. We would certainly put ourselves on the map with this kind of, at first you say you do and then you say you do not, back-and-forth type of discussion that we are getting in this. • (1 500) In this case, we would be the laughing stock of the country. We might end up in the pages of the National Enquirer, but what a dubious honour that would be.

I mean, Madam Deputy Speaker, let us get serious here. This government brought in a bill because of the-well, is it not interesting? They are

April 21 , 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 19 26 calling for the question now when they have not called the original bill to committee for the last three months. Boy, are they brave from their seats-are they brave. But this is the proble m. There was a struggle within the caucus. Let us be up front about this. There was a struggle within the caucus in the same way-and this must have been very difficult for the Conservatives, because the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce was on one side of the issue and the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce was on the other side of the issue.

For Tories that has got to be awful confusing, because Tories are usually fairly close with the chamber of commerce agenda. It must have been very difficult within the caucus between those that wanted to follow the Winnipeg Chamber agenda and those who wanted to follow the Manit oba Chamber. I think that is what happened. The urban side won out; the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce won out. The rural members lost the first round. Then what happened? I am sure people told them, do not worry. [interjection] Well, the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) said he sulk ed for a while.

He laid himself down to rest and then he came back to fight another day. We have seen that with round No. 1. Round No. 2, the reaction comes from the rural communities, and it was very clear that many rural communities, particularly in areas represented by memb ers opposite, were not happy with the decisions. Madam Deputy Speaker, they said to their members that this was una cceptable to bring in this kind of legislation, particularly retroactively, without any kind of consult ation with rural Manitobans. So that was round 2. Rural Manitobans said, whoa, wait a sec. Well, what did the Conservatives do?

They knew they were in difficulty. Round 3 came when we passed the bill. That must have been a shock to some of the Conservative members who probably had been told by the strategists over there, do not worry, the opposition will never put this to a vote on second reading. I do not know how they would have come to that conclusion, because we were very clear from the beginning. We said, we want this to go to the people, we want public hearings. Then they had a difficulty. It was passed through second reading. What were they going to do?

Well, then came the fourth round, because the pressure continued from rural communities. I know in Brandon there were many concerned citizens, because we happene d to be in Brandon, our caucus, within a day of the Conservative caucus. We have talked to people and church groups, communi ty gr oups who wanted to mak e a presentation to the Conservative cabinet, the Conservative caucus, when it was in Brandon, and they were told no. In fact, eventually they went to Brandon City Council, so round 4 was the pressure continued. Then something happened. All of a sudden, we do not see the public hearings.

Then a bill appears on the Order Paper-Bill 23, round 5. Well, I said in the first round, the Winnipeg Chamber view won out. In this one, I do not know really who won out but somewhere along the line some-and I use the word "brillian t" strategist again. I think what happened was, they persuaded themselves that now they had the really courageous decision of passing the buck. Throw that hot potato over to the municipalities, and they did not have to worry about it anymore. Madam Deputy Speaker, what a courageous -and I use that agai n-courageous government here.

After the mess of having a retroactive trial period that has since expired, now what they are doing before we have even decided on that bill, they are going to now have another trial period and then pass it over to the municipalities. Is that the way to deal with public policy in this province? [interjection] Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minis ter of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) says, what have I got against local auton omy? Is it not interesting the same government is introducing a bill that takes away local autonomy in terms of school boards?

That is hypocrisy, and if the Minister of Northern Affairs wishes to defend that, I look forward to his speech on this issue. We have been looking forward to speeches from members on this issue since this supposed debate began, but it is interesting that very few of them have chosen to speak on this issue. We look forward to the Min ister of Finance (Mr.

Mann ess) saying how he would have voted on the original bill, how he will vote, how he will vote on this bill, and other members of this House, because they were strangely, eerily silent throughout this entire process. [interjection] Well, the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) says, I do not know the half of it. I have talked to some of his constituents and I know their half of it. I know what half the minister is talking

19 27 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA April 21, 19 93 about, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that he was under some pressure, and I think that would be an understatement on this particular bill. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, let us look at this. We have seen that there have been no public hearings on this bill, none whatsoever. So today we have the minister come in and introduce his rati onale for the seq uel, for

Part 2, for the get-us-out-of-this-mess bill, so they hope. You know what I found interesting, Madam Deputy Speaker, is here on the one hand, on the one side of the ledger, we have a government that will not go to the public for public hearings, as is required under the rules of this Legislature, all major public bills. Will not go to the public. I am not just even saying to rural Manitobans. They could have had a meeting here in the Legisl ature itself and invited people in to give their presentations. So what did the minister do instead?

The minister trotted out, and he did it twice, tal ked about surveys and polling results. Surveys and polling results? He quoted surveys from Manitoba and polling results from Toronto. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is interesting because members opposite should look very carefully when they run surveys, as all of us should when we run surveys, because let us look at what the real issue is in Manitoba. Is the rEtal issue-{interjection] Well, the Minister of Northern Affairs asks me, what is the real issue? I know he has no idea what it is, and I will be quite gla d to g1et into detail what it is.

The real issue in Manitoba, if one looks at where the current bill came from, is that we have lim ited Sunday shopping in Manitoba. Anyone, to my mind, in this debate, who sugge �;ts that it is an issue between wide-open Sunday shopping and no Sunday shopping at all is missing the reality of the current law. It is a law that goes back many years.

There have been a number of versions of it, and it is interesting because when one looks at the history of Sunday shopping laws, it was in many ways an attempt lby a combination in those days of many people within churches and many people within trade unions, an attempt to give working people the opportunity to have often what was their only day off in that peri1:x:l oftime. That was the origins of the law. Originally, of course, it was a religious focus, in terms of Sunday obviously being the Sabbath lor those of Christian faith in Manitoba. It had that focus.

In the Sterling Lyon period, there was a limi ted compromise in terms of allowing, I believe it was, two emplo yees in a store. What then happened was that in the mid-1 980s the Charter of Rights was used in a court case; the defence said, you could not have this Sun day off as a religiou s-oriented move because of the recognition that there are Manitobans of other religions, and Canadians of other religions, that being part of the Charter of Rights itself.

So we sat down in this House-we were in government at the time, the Conservatives were in opposition, there was one Liberal member-and we came up with a compromise that dealt with the concerns of the Supreme Court and, Madam Deputy Speaker, dealt with the question as to what degree there would be Sunday shopping. That is where we ended up with what is still the legisla tion of four people, the requirement of no more than four workers. That was based on consensus in this House, consensus, one of the few cases 1 can remember where there has been that degree of consensus in that time period.

It was a very volatile and polarized time period. * (1 510 ) Madam Deputy Speaker, it is in teresting because, you know, when the mi nister who is bringing this bill in talks about polling result s from Toronto, he should recognize that they have had different legis lation and they currently have different legi slati on.

If you ask a ques tion on Sun day shopping, un der the current legislation lim ited Sunday shopping is available, so if you ask, are you in favour of Sunday shopping, a good number of people who will say, yes, I am in favour of some degree of Sunday shopping, given a choice between this law, the current law and Bill 23 or its predecessor, the original trial period, a lot of people would then say, no, we are in favour of the current law as it stands. So any information you bring in from Ontario is misleading.

The minister talks about those people who do look to Sunday shopping in terms of demographic groups within society. Indeed that is the case, but under current law, many of those individuals are able to buy groceries, are able to certainly go to restaurants, are able to have access to a certain number of services. That is very clear. The bill we have currently is a compromise in that sense and was a compromise developed by all parties. So the real issue here is between the existing law and the kind of structure outlined in Bill 23. So any results you

April2 1 , 19 93 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 19 28 have from Ontario are misleading. It is the same thing here in terms of surveys. The minister threw out all sorts of survey results. I would like, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a courtesy, if the minister could table who conducted the surveys, the methodology that was used, the exact questions that were used, because that is important. Without that knowledge base, really no one should be quoting those kinds of statistics in this House. I mean, it is important to lay out the cards that way, and I look to the minister to table that information.

It is very important for purposes of this debate. You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I go beyond that because I am dealing with the validity of the survey results. Let us deal with the validity of government by survey. You know, I remember, when John Die fenbaker was Leader of the Conservative Party, he had various descriptions for opinion polls at that time, which I will not repeat in the House, but I know some members will recall them.

The probl em, when you get into that trap of only governing by survey results, by whomever they may be conducted, is, it depends on the questions you ask, whom you ask in terms of the impact you get. On the other hand, is that really what democracy is all about?

I would ask, Madam Deputy Speaker, members of the House, look at the answers, even of some of their own ministers on other issues, because in the end result, as representatives of Manitobans, we have to ma.ke the final decision based on consul tations with our constituents and also the unique fact that we are the only province that has hearings on public legis lation in the country, mandated hearings in which any member of the public can come and express their views to our committee. That is not an empty process. I have been in this House 11 years. I have seen bills withdrawn or amended significantly.

I have seen bills that have been amended in a subsequent year, in a lot of cases, based on feedback that was brought in the previous year. It is a very important part of our political process in terms of the public hearings. The point of having public hearings and the point of having the system we have of three readings is that at each stage, there is an opportunity for members of the public to, first of all, have notice of the bill in the case of the notice that appears and in first reading, which is an opportunity to signal the intent.

Then the bill is printed and is an opportunity for members of the public to see it. Then, of course, we have second reading, where there is debate on the principle. Then we have the committee hearings at which members of the public get to expr ess their views. We then have the opportunity as members of the Legisla ture to move amendments to bills. Then we have the report stage, and we have the final third reading stage. There is a reason we have that process.

I say to the government on this issue, the only appropriate way of dealing with a public policy mechanism of this kind is not through surveys and opinion pol ls, Goldfarb and associates from Toronto, it is not through the kind of political maneuvering that has been going on within the Conservative caucus trying to avoid the kind of public embarrassment that they put themselves in by proceeding down a course and not recognizing the kind of reaction that they would get, Madam Deputy Speaker, it would have been to put it to public hearings. I will go further than that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I would suggest, there are many other issues that could also go to public hearings, some of which are dealt with by legislation, some which are not, video lottery terminals being a good example, where major policy decisions are made and we deal with the consequences after. Regardless of that debate, I am referring to the fact that there is a reason for that. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would go even further than just talking about specific issues. There is a lot of talk about the need for parliam entary reform. We are at a point where there is a growing cynicism about the political process.

Does this kind of Bill 23 process help? No, it contributes to the cynicism, because instead of giving the public the opportunity to use our committee structura-l would say it would have been innovative to go throughout the province to hold hearings on this bill. Instead, the public have been denied, up to this point in time, the opportunity to speak, and when it is discussed, many of the decisions will have been fait accomplis. So it goes beyond the public process in terms of in dividual bills. It deals with parl iament ary democracy. I would note that all parties in Ottawa were talking about it.

We have been talking about it here. We have to start practising what we preach. We cannot talk about improving accessibility and accountability. We have to show action on that. That is one of the reasons why we passed this bill,

19 29 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA April 21 , 19 93 the original bill, through second reading before Christmas. We came in in a fall session. That is something that has not been the standard practice in this province. I think it should be. I think we then should be in the process of having more legislation dealt with in the fall at second reading and then have that legislation put over for intersessional hearings that in some cases can be held across the province. We tend to pass 90 percent of legislation the last week, sometimes the last day, the last day that we sit.

We do not, I think, do the kind of justice to the kind of system we have when we do that. In many cases, I have seen bills literally rammed through the public hearing process and the public hearing process being seen as nothing more than an obstacle to getting the bill passed. That, Madam Depu ty Speaker, may be the temptation of all political parties in power. The point, though, is that there is a better way, and this bill and the original Sunday shopping bill, in terms of the public hearings, was an excellent example of that. It could have gone 'to the publ ic hearing process.

So that is, I think, something that is wrong about this bill in terms of the political process. I think that should be dealt with. I also want to say, in terms of some of the argu men ts tha t were us ed, Madam Deput y Speake r, that it is im portant to analyze thos.e arguments, netting out the survey results, becaus.e as I said before, that I think is misleading, and it is not really the key issue here. I know, in my own case, I have talk ed to people in my own constituency, and there are people on both sides. There are people on both sides of the issue.

There are some interesting discussions and debates that have taken place. I just want to get further in terms of some of the argument s that the min ister opposite is talking about. I found it interesting that the minister talke'd about Su nday shopping in the context ()f cross-border shopping, because it is interestin9. He quo ted statistics showing that cross-bord��r shopping is down significantly and then quickly afterwards said, well, that of course cannot all be attributed to Sunday shopping.

Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, not only can it all not be attributed to the Sunday shopping trial period that they brought in, that in fact has very little to clo with it. The situation with cross-border shopping across the country has been that there has been a Ca nada-wide de crease in the amou nt of cross-border shopping over the time period the minister referenced and including the time period in which the trial period was in place. Why is that the case? It is because of exchange rates, it is because probably of tighter enforcement at the border in terms of Customs.

There are a number of factors that have gone into that-probably the recession as well. The bottom line is, there has been an overall decline. I do not think the minister can point to the trial period as being a factor in that the evidence suggests that it is to the contrary. It is in teres ting , Madam Deputy Speaker, because that takes away one of the arguments.

To a certain extent, that would be presumably less of an argument anyway in terms of the kind of structure that this current bill looks at, which, if it were to be enacted, puts in the place where mu nicip alities can go, which direction they wish, subject to some other pressures I will reference in a minute. There might be a situation develop where communi ties close to the border might remain open on a Sunday. It really, I do not think, is a factor in the discussion.

So let us take that out. * (1 520) Let us deal with the question of sales and costs, because I have talked to a number of small business people in my own constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker. You know. they say it is sort of a mixed bag. If they do not remain open on a Sunday but their comp etitors do, they lose business. If they remain open on a Sunday what happens is, they spread the existing business out over that period of time.

They may get the occasional shopper they might not otherwise have had, but they have to in many cases either spread the existing labour force and salary budgets equally or in some cases have to increase their costs of operation. So the net im pact on the bottom line for many businesses, I would suggest, is not clear at all and certainly is not positive when you look at the cost factors and you look at the revenue factors. In my own area, the chamber of commer ce has been ver y op posed to the Su nday shopping proposals of the government. I have talked to a nu mber of people in the chamber of commerce.

They are quite vociferous. It is interesting, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some of the strongest opposition has come from women. There are a numb er of women very active in the

April 21 , 19 93 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 19 30 chamber of commerce in Thompson. They have said that part of the problem is that women in particular, in small business and the same way in the workforce, face additional family responsibilities, often have far more child care responsibilities, responsibilities in terms of the household generally, in spite of all the changes in society, and they are the ones who are put in that difficult position if they do have to work on Sunday, either as an employee or as a small-business person, of having less time with their families.

It is interesting because that is one of the main reasons why many of the people in the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce opposed the original proposal of the government to have wide-open Sunday shopping, and many still remain opposed. Now of cour se the focus will sh ift to the municipalities. I want to go further, because there was an interesting comment in what they said, and this relates very specifically to this bill, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The comment that I got from a number of small-business people was, they said, you know, the problem with this is once again that if your competitor opens up you have to open up. It is as simple as that. That is not just competitor in terms of within the community. It is competitor in terms of the surrounding community. The business people in Thompson have less difficulty because there is no other trading centre in the area. I as ked the Min is te r of High ways and Transpor tation (Mr.

Driedger ) . if one of his communi ties was to have wide-open Sunday shopping and another community that is within half an hour away was then looking at the decision, would not that be a factor? Is there not going to be that pressure on business people in the other communi ty who are going to have people from their own community drive the half hour, potentially, for services in the other community? The bottom line is, I think the Mi nister of Hig hways and Transportation (Mr.

Driedger) knows that is going to be the case, and to talk about there being a volu ntary process under this bil l, it may be volunt ary, it may not be vol untary. It depends on which situation you are in. I know a lot of business people feel they do not really have much choice. I know even in the case of Winnipeg I have talked to some people here who have opened up. They feel they have no option whatsoever, particularly in the case of malls. One has to remember, too, that many leases in malls are very stringent in terms of what has to be open and what has not to be open.

It is quite within the realm of possibility to have businesses essentially told that they have to remain open on a Sunday. Whether they have to or not in the sense of their lea se obligations, there is pressure once again because, if they do not remain open, somebody else will. It goes beyond that too because I think-and this gets to the real bottom line again of the impact this bill is going to have. We know the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce has strongly supp orted wide-open Sunday shopping. We know that the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce has strongly opposed wide-open Sunday shopping.

What is one of the main factors between that difference? It is because, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will say this upfront, I believe that the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce knows that if there is Sunday shopping in the city, it is going to add business in the city from surrounding rural communities. Let us not forget the tra ding area of Winnipeg. The mini ster probably, if he does have this information, could provide more accurate statistics than I can. There are many communities within an hour radius of Winnipeg that are going to be affected by this.

The Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce and man y Winnipeg business people know that they are going to be attracted into the city. What is going to happen to a community that says no for reasons of belief, for reasons of concern with family time, for reasons to do with concern over employees? What happens if they say no? Is there not going to be an impact on those communities? I ask that question because I know the answer, Madam Deputy Speaker. There will be. I know that is the answer that is coming from many small business people in those small communities.

So essentially what this bill does is that it takes away the responsibili ty from the governmen t that has found that it has a political hot potato, but it does not detract from the underlying dilemma that we are faced in this province if we look at a change in the existing law.

We are looking at moving under what the government is proposing from a compromise that I would suggest has worked relatively well, has provided some of those services that the minister has said the people are looking for, but at the same time has not had wide-open shopping to the point where there has been the kind of pressure that we have seen in other jurisdictions.

19 31 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA April 21, 19 93 I would point out, by the way, that it is interesting even the minister himself noted, but in passing, in his opening comments that many other provincos have some sort of a compromise on Su nday shopping . I recog nize the Amer icans have wide-open Sunday shopping, but they have a different tradition from us. They do not have medicare. They do not have many of the labo ur laws that we have, employment standards. Doos that mean that we are going to follow their lead Cln those other areas?

No, Madam Deputy Speake1r, we make our own laws in this country, and provinCE's have done that. We have done it in liqul )r legislation. We have tra ditionally had more restrictive liquor laws in this province than many American ju risdictions because we come from a different tradition. I know the Minister of HighwaJIS and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) knows that because many of the communities in his area have a very different attitude and different outlook Cln liquor legislation. It is our differing tradition. That is an important point.

Other provinces have compromises, and in this case what the government is doing is throwing out what I think has worked relatively well and is going to be bringing in a system that, to my mind, will, through the back door, essentia lly and eventually bring in pretty well the same sort ,of impact that the original bill would bring in in terms ,of wide-open Sunday shopping .. I think mo:�t busine sses will be forced to remain open on a Sunday. You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are talking about a pretty significant policy shift her,e, and I think this is what is going to happen.

I think this is a political tactic to avoid doing it directly but to do it through the back door, but I ask this question because-to the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) I ask this question, who asked for the change? How much public pressure was there for changing the Sunday shopping laws? Madam Deputy Speaker, I raised this in the original debate and I will raise it agai n. I know the1·e was pressure from the Winnip eg Chamber <Of Commerce. I know there has been pressure frorn, for example, SuperValu that could not remain open, while some of the smaller Safeways could because of the restriction of four people.

You know, Madam Deputy Speake;, I do not think I have ever had one constituent of mine ever lobby me for a change in the existing law. When I say the existing law, I mean the compromise. I have had many comments since this debate has begun and, as I said, on both sides. I have had people phone my office. I have talked to people in my own community.

I have taken the time to go and talk to people as well, and there is a debate that is continuing now, but no one would have put Sunday shopping anywhere on a list of 1 00 issues that they felt this government should deal with. pnte�ection) Oh, yes, says the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey). How many phone calls did he get on this issue prior to the government bringing in the bill? [inte�ec tion] Private information, he says.

Well, it is interesting, Madam Deputy Speaker, because in the original debate, the Min ister of Northern Affairs, I said, how many calls have you had on this issue, and he said, zero, so it has gone from zero to private information. The bottom line is, it was not what should have been on the public agenda as a major issue. Madam Deputy Speaker, if it was going to be on the public agenda, I would have suggest here is how we could have proceeded with it, because there is a point to be made and I will make this argument, not just in terms of this issue but on other issues.

There are a numb er of bills that I think cross party lin es in terms of public de bate , and have traditionally. Sunday shopping is one of them. You have some strange allia nces on this, and I recognize it up -front. You have small business in rural communities and trade union s and you have many religious groups on the one side. You have some small businesses, yes, and some of the larger busin esses working on the other side, the urban/rural, the differing aspects of regions. So you have some interesting dynamics.

The first thing I said to do with the liquor legislation, let us talk abou t it in the context of parliame ntary reform. Why not, in this particular case, not even have a bill brought in which forces the issue and pushes the debate through and rams through this type of action? Would it not have been possible to get an all-pa rty committee together? I recognize it is a relati vely nonpartisan issue. There are differing degrees. It should be made clear in that sense. Most of the members of our caucus supp orted the previous law.

I know the Liberal caucus was split and I suspect there were splits within the Conservative party too, although they follow the whip in terms of that. I am not saying that as a pol itical shot. That is the reality. There

April 21 , 19 93 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 19 32 obviously were debates that went on within the caucus. * (1 530) But why not have had a committee that could have gone around the province without having the fait accompli of a bill that was already being implemen ted, that has not even been passed? Why could we not have asked Manitobans, we have this law in place since the mid-1 980s, some people have said it should be changed, and then have public hearings, and then decide whether it should be put on the public agenda.

In other words, before you put something on the agenda, establish whether there is a need for it even to be on the public agenda to even be discussed as an issue in 19 93, given all the other issues we have to deal with. I suggest, Madam Deputy Speaker, we can do the same with liquor leg islation. We have not had an overall review of our liquor laws for a considerable period of time.

There are always pressures on the one side and on the othe r side in terms of liberalization, in terms of restriction, and there has been a history in Manitoba going back a number of years where there have been these kind of-you know, 20, 30 years ago it was not uncommon for this kind of matter to be dealt with through, if not an all-party committee, it would be called into a royal commission federal ly. You know, there is I think a real positive aspect to that. We did it on the Constitution.

We had an all-party committee that went around the province, and I am not sugges ting it is on the same scale, but I thought that process worked well. It forced the people that cam e to the comm it tee to be constructive and to give their real views, and it gave them the freedom to do that. In many cases, if you remember, we went around this province before there was any final proposal, the Charlottetown proposal , and I found the public hearings to be very, very useful. [interjection] Well, the Min ister of Northern Affairs (Mr .

Downey) says that one party was forcing the other to have the public hearings, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is not the point. There were public hearings. There were all-party hearings. Wally Fox-Decent chaired it, which I felt was an excellent move, brought in that kind of obj ective pe rspective , and there were good discussions that took place. Could we not have done that on Su nday shopping? Could we not have had public hearings without a bill on the legislation? Could we not have gone to Thompson and Swan River and Dauphin and Brandon and Emerson and Morden? Could we not have gone to communities and asked them?

That is the question that I raise. You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, because of these concerns that I have in looking at this bill, I hope that we will have significant debate on this. I hope that we will get to the public in terms of public hearings fairly soon, but I will say that I cannot support what is a hastily patched together political compromise within the Conservative Party to what they cannot do through the front door and are going to do through the back door. I say, let us do the right thing. Let us put together an all-p arty comm itt ee.

Let us ha ve real consultation throughout the length and breadth of this province, and let us have proper public process, not public decision making by opinion polls. Let us involve the people of this province, and let us have what I think is going to be a good example for us to show some real reform in terms of our parliamen tary system and democracy in Manitoba by doing the right thing, something which Bill 23 is not. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wanted to put a few words on this particular bill.

The first thing that comes to my mind is something that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) had said inside this Chamber a while back. He talked about what he termed as scofflaws, and he said that it is important that government bring in legitim ate laws, how important it is that you review what is currently on the books, and you take out those laws that are in fact completely being ignored. I ask myself why this government brought in Bill 4, and we talk about the process. This government introduced to Manitobans that they were going to open on Sundays for wide-open Sunday shopping.

In order to legitimize what they were doing, what they did is, they brought in a bill that in fact tried, if it would have passed, it would have then made it legitima te, it then would have been legal for the stores to be open on a Sunday. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, without that bill passing, what you saw was a law which, using what the Mini ster of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) would have said, was being scoffed at, that it was not being followed, that the government by introducing this Bill 4 tried to tell

19 33 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA April 21, 19 93 businesses throughout the province of Manitoba that it was okay to ignore the laws that have been set by this Chamber. Madam Deputy Speaker, I was very disappointed in that, and, as an opposition party, we try to find out how legitima te this government was in dealing with the Sunday shopping issue. I recall pushing to gl�t this bill, Bill 4, in to committee prior to the Ch ristmas-New Year break.

Ther e was a significant push; in fact, you had both opposition parties that were prepared to allow it to pass so that it would go to committee and at committee the public could have input, and after the input, the government could do whatever it wanted to do, if it was able to make a decision. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, the government never had any intention of doing that.

They did not have any intention of doing that because they knew it was a divisive bill amongst their own caucus, and the only purpose of bringing in that bill was to demonstrate that the government was not going to prosecute or lay charges on any businesses scattered throughout the province that decided to open on Sunday. They brought it in, in order for the people to start shopping on Sundays. We had attempted to allow this bill, and in speaking to this bill -and I would say the same thin�J. Madam Deputy Speaker. I was asked how I would be voting on this particular bill.

I, too, would lik e to see it go to committee, and I will vote accordingl)'· Nothing has changed in terms of I would like to see the whole Sunday shopping bill being debated inside the committee room, find out what the public has to say about it, and I think everything has to be taken with a grain of salt. Ma dam Dep ut y Speaker, the mem ber for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) talked about pol itical reform, and I too wanted to see some pol itical reform or to see the prestige of the Chamber raised to another level in terms of public perception. This bill does nothing for that.

In fact, I would argue that both the Conservatives and the New Democrats did a disservice with respect to Bill 4. The government, on the one hand, with respect to the law, the New Democrats with respect to the whole concept of a free vote. We as a caucus made a decision that w'e would allow our members to have a free vote on this particular issue. If you take a look, and I cannot recall the exact vote, I believe it was alm ost a dead split within our caucus.

What you saw was, there were a couple of members of the government who were absent on that day, and one has to ask why it is that some of them-and I cannot make reference to who they were, but I can say that the individuals who appear ed to be absent-who were absent, not appeared-who were absent really were not strong advocates. (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) It is interesting, but I can respect that. You know at times you might want to tread very carefully on certain issues, and, for a number of them, they decided to do that.

What did surprise me on that particular vote was that there were two caucuses or opposition parties that said that they were going to be in fact having a free vote, and to this day, I still do not understand how you could get a caucus of 19 all voting the same on one particular issue. • (1 540) I question whether or not it was a free vot

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-4-46
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 4th hansardpdf 46.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c7a678ba4f916aea8a5ca889d19ef1db683459b6

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).