Manitoba Committee Hansard — 15 June 1993 (Education Committee, Sitting 8, 35th Legislature, 4th Session)

35-4-ed8

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Fourth Session - Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 42 Elizabeth II Chairperson Mr. Jack Penner Constituency of Emerson VOL. XLII No . 8· 7 p.m., TUESDAY, JUNE 15,1993 ISSN 0713-9969

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

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

Rose Seine River Rob lin-R ussell 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 Pembina Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Flin Flon La Verendrye Fort Garry St. Johns Swan River Rossmere 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 NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

200 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Tuesday, June 15, 1993 TIM E-7p.m. LOCAT ION- Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPER SON -Jack Penner (Emerson) ATTENDANCE-11 -QUO RUM- 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Findlay, Stefanson Mrs. Carstairs, Messrs. Dewar, Helwer, Laurendeau , McAlpine , Pallister, Penner, Storie, Ms.

Wowchuk MA TIERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 4- The Retail Business Sunday Shopping (Temporary Amendments) Act Bill 23- The Retail Businesses Holi day Closing Amendment, Employment Standards Amendment an d Payment of Wages Amendment Act * * * Clerk of Committees (Ms. Bonnie Greschuk): have before me the resignation of Mr. Reimer as Chai rperson of the Standing Com mittee on Economic Development. I will read it at this time. I would lik e to resign as Chairperson for the Standing Committee on Economic Development, effective June 15 , 7 p.m. Jack Reimer. The floor is now open for nominations. Mr.

Edward Helwer (Gimll): I would li ke to nominate Jack Penner as Chairperson. Madam Clerk: Jack Penner has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? An Honourable Member: That is quite sufficient. Madam Cl erk: Since ther e are no other nominations, will Mr. Penner please take the chair. Mr. Chairperson: Will the committee on Economic Development please come to order.

The committee will now proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the following bills: Bill 4, The Retail Business Sunday Shopping (Temporary Amendments) Act; and then following that it will be Bill 23, The Retail Businesses Holiday Clo sing Amendment, Employment Standards Amendment and Payment of Wages Amendment Act. For the committee's information, copies of the bills are available at the back on the table if you wish to receive a copy. When this committee last sat, it agreed to not hear more public presentations and had started with the opening statements.

Does the committee wish to make any additional comments before clause-by-clause consideration of the bills? Mr. Jerry Storie (FIIn Flon): Mr. Chairperson, just in terms of an overall comment, before we proceed on clause by clause, I have received dozens of letters. Of course, I solicited them as well. I wrote and asked for comments about the way the government had proceeded with this legislation.

Obviously, I do not imagine the government is surprised nor was I to receiv e letters back indicating that many, if not all of the groups that had contacted me and raised concerns publicly are as opposed to this legislation now as they were some six months ago when the government first unilaterally decided that we were going to have this new Sunday legislation.

One of the most recent was a letter from the Knights of Columbus, signed by the Grand Knight, indicating the Knights of Columbus's dissatisfaction with the way the government has proceeded on this including, I suppose, the concern that this is an important economic and business decision that is going to be turned over to municipalities in a rather unfortunate and some would say-1 was going to say cowardly, but that is not perhaps the best word-way, that the government has obviously not had the intestinal fortitude to proceed with what it originally thought and proclaimed was a sound business idea that was going to spur economic devel opment and inc rease opportunities and increase employment and stem Sunday shopping and do all those wonderful things.

I guess perhaps we are told by some quarter anyway that was not going to happe n, that in fact there was some serious downside to this.

201 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 15, 1993 So, Mr. Chairperson, I do not propose to spend a long time debating each clause of the bill. I indicated at our last meeting that I would have some am end m��. be proposing some am endme nts. Sorfi'e were suggested by presenters to the committee at our last meeting. So I would like I guess to proceed as quickly as �e can . Some of the amendmen ts that I have proposed are in the proc ess now of being translated. I am not sure how much of a problem that is going to be.

I certainly am prepared to di scuss the intent of the amendm ents I have proposed and, obviously, the government with its majority in committee may or may not wish to see them pass. If the exact wording has not been translated, I would still recommend that I discuss in principle what the amendment is, that we discuss it and vote on it and, obviously, if it is supported by committee then we will proceed. If not, we will proceed on to the next amendment. I am proposing that just to facilitate the work of the committee. If someone objects to that and wants to see the wording, we can wait. Mr.

Chairperson : Thank you, Mr. Storie. What is the will of the com mittee? Is it to proceed? [interjection) Thank you. We will then proceed to clause by clause if it is the will of the committee with Bill 4. Is that agreed? [agreed) Bill 4- The Retail Business Sunday Shopping (Temporary Amendments) Act Mr. Chairpers on : Bill 4,

Part 1, The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Act, Clauses 1 to 3 on the following page. Mr. Jerry Storie (FIIn Flon): I move THAT

section 3 of the Bill be amended by adding the following after proposed

section 4.2: Renewal of agreement 4.3 No party to an agreement referred to in

section 4.2 shall refuse to renew the agreement with an owner or ope rator of a retail business establishment by reason only that the owner or operator refuses to open the retail business establishment on a holiday other than Christmas Day or New Year's Day. [French version] II est propose que !'article 3 du projet de loi soit amende par adjonction, apres !'article 4.2, de ce qui suit: Renouvellement de I' entente 4.3 II est interdit aux parties a une entente visee a I'

article 4.2 de refuser de renouveler I' entente avec le proprietaire ou l'exploitant d'un etablisseme.nt de commerce de detail du seul fait que Je proprietaire ou l'exploitant refuse d'ouvrir l'etablissement un jour feria autre que le jour de Noel ou le jour de I' An. Mr. Chairperson : Have you got a copy of the amendment, Mr. Storie? Mr. Storie : I believe that copies are being circulated right now. Mr. Chairperson: They are? The amendments? Mr. Storie: Yes. Motion presented. Mr. Chairperson: Shall the amendment pass? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Chairperson: No? Hon.

Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Chairperson, just speaking more to process before I would comment on this particular amendment, Bill4, I think, as we all know, is the original trial period, which we all know has lapsed. I am wondering if procedurally Mr. Storie agrees that this particular amendment would be more appropriately dealt with in

Part 2 of Bill 23, where the Coming into Force of the overall legislation that will affect future decisions of municipal councils and obviously how stores would function under the rules would be a more appropriate time to deal with this amendment. * (1 91 0) Mr. Storie: Mr. Chairperson, I actually asked the same question, but I understand, and I think, logically, because we actually have operated in effect-! guess we could ask the same question of this bill, why is it here?

I mean, Bill 23 is the one we are going to operate in !he future, but clearly there may have been agreements terminated, there may have been agreements entered into while Bill 4 theoretically was in operation. I think it would be prudent to go ahead and amend Bi11 4 because we are going to pass it. It will come into effect, have had retroactive status. I think we should proceed with it in consideration. I will be proposing the exact same amendment essentially in Bill 23 as well. If we are going to deal with the bills in order, if we are going to deal with Bill

June 15, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 202 4 at all, my last question when we last met was, why are we dealing with Bill 4 at all anyway? Why do we not just-1 do not know-do what we do with spent bills? Mr. Chairperson: It has been the advice, I believe, Mr. Storie, that this bill should be dealt with because it is an item on the legislative agenda. It stands as an item on the legislative agenda and therefore the Legislature should deal with this bill. Therefore, this committee will deal with the bill as a normal bill, and we will then proceed to deal with Bill 23. I think you are absolutely right.

This is an amendment that should be considered by this committee if you, in fact, wish to amend this bill. If it is your wishes to amend this bill, or propose an amendment to amend this bill, then it is the right of this committee to consider that proposal. Now, I ask the question, what is the will of the committee? Is it the will of the committee to amend the bill as stated? Mr. Storie: Mr. Chairperson, I heard a nay from the other side when that question was asked a few minutes ago.

I would like to hear from the minister what is wrong with this proposed amendment before we have a negative vote on the government side. It seems to me that the government has stated its intention to protect those who wish to decline the offer to open on Sunday. This seems to me to add some additional protection. I would like some explanation from the minister as to why we should not include this amendment. Mr. Chairperson, if I migh t, I have some explanation. What we are talking about here is someone in an existing lease. They have a five-year lease.

The renewal period is coming up, you have a good corner spot in a mall, and someone says, if you want your lease renewed you had better waive your right to close on Sunday. The gov ernmen t has stated quite clearly its intention to let the individual business owner decide. Then let us not put individual, independent business owners in a position where they have to bow to the will of some mall owner or some large commercial mall enterprise. Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairperson, in anticipation that Mr.

Storie might bring this amendment, partly because it was put forward by one of the dele gati ons we had, some concerns an d comm ents have been pr ovided to me. In a commercial tenancy, subject to a right to renew contained in a lease, there is no implied right to renew on the part of the tenant nor any obligation to renew on the part of the tenant. Another point is, landlords will, from time to time, refuse to renew the lease of a commercial tenant for no reason other than a better tenant wishes to lease the space.

Another point is, the right to opt out already intrudes into the ability of parties to write contracts as they wish. It would not be wise also to intrude into this fundamental concept of landlord and commercial tenant law. A concern would be the provision could be unenforceable in any event, because the landlord would merely state a different reason for failing to renew a lease.

Having said all of those things during the trial period which was put in place for the fundamental purpose of having an opportunity to determine how Sunday shopping would work and function, all of the reasons we have discussed before in terms of consumer interest, in terms of economic impact, to the best of my knowledge we have not had a single concern expressed about this particular item from anybody other than the one delegation. We have no incidence of this being a problem, of it being a concern. I guess one would say, why legislate something that does not exist as a problem and does not need to be legislated?

Following those comments, Mr. Chairperson, I would suggest that the amendment should not be supported and is unnecessary. Mr. Storie: Mr. Chairperson, I am disappointed that the minister obviously listened to some advice from perhaps some developers. The fact is that of course the landlord's likely view of what might be a better tenant would include someone who would stay open if in fact the mall had decided that it was going to stay open. What may be viewed as better of course is someone that is more compliant with the landlord's wishes.

Talking about intruding into landlord and tenant affairs, it was not myself or the opposition or the smal l- business comm unity that decided the government was going to intrude in this area. We already have

Section 4.2 that interferes with commercial leases. It does intrude already. The point of

Section 4.2 was to protect the interests of independent businesses. What we are trying to do is ensure that happens, that independent

203 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 15, 1993 bu sinesses are not, through the bac k do or, disqualified from leaseholding; their interests subverted, because a landlord deems it in his interests to ensure that someone leased the space that is going to open on Sunday. So, No. 1 , we are talking about the commercial interests, the financial interests of the small business community here; No. 2, the concept of the government not intruding on commercial leases has already been breached by the government, and what we want to do is make sure that they live up to it; third, the minister references a trial period.

Well, Mr. Chairperson, as a small business operator, and as anyone who is familiar with small business will tell you, small businesses survive quite often by dint of hard work. They very seldom would find themselves in a financially jeopardizing position in a matter of two or three months. This trial period has been woefully inadequate. Certainly, there are many small businesses, and the Manit oba Chamber included, that have expressed concern about the strength and the viability of some small businesses under this act.

I think it is too soon for the minister to conclude that we have seen everything there is to see in terms of how this impacts on small businesses. Certainly, it is likely true that very few of the small businesses who may be affected by this have had their lease come to term. Mr. Stefanson: Without getting into a prolonged debate with Mr. Storie, I have to correct at least one of his points, that the advice did not come from developers, it came internally from people who work within government, within law and other areas, so it was not on the advice of developers that I raised the points that I put on the record.

His fundamental concerns about small business, I guess with my own background, I am not so sure I need a lecture from Mr. Storie in terms of how small business functions, or what they need or do not need. I indicated to him that we have received no complaints. We have received no concerns from small business on this issue. We do not believe in legislating things that do not need to be legislated, that there are no causes or problems that exist-sort of the position of creating problems that are not there, which is the practice of some. Mr.

Chairperson: I would remind both members that we are debating the amendment, that we are not debating who, or where, or who advised people to amend. So I would suggest that the debate be relative to the amendment. Mr. Storie: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I will try to be more relevant to the issue. The minister mentioned that he had consulted with a number of groups; of course, he did not mention the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce, did not mention I guess Independent Grocers, or perhaps some small businesses who are tenants in malls. I respect the fact the government is going to do this.

They have stated their intention to do this. I am a little disappointed that the minister is not prepared to offer the small independent businesses that lease in malls a little more protection. I think it is quite clear that the independent mom and pop grocery store on the corner can close as they see fit. The difficulty is that in malls that is not possib le. The government recognized that and obviously responded to some extent. This is just an extension to guarantee that the extension of leases is denied because someone has refused. *

(1920) The minister may not believe that someone can prove that. It may in fact be difficult to prove, but it is some protection for businessmen who want to remain independent and operate their stores on the hours that they wish to choose. If the government believes in that right to choose then I think they should support the amendment and add that additional protection. I cannot see it being any more intrusive than Clause 4.2. Mr. Chairperson: Shall the amendment pass? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Chairperson: No? All those in favour of the amendment passing, would you say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Mr. Chairperson: All those in opposition to the amendment, would you say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairperson: I think the amendment has failed. Clauses I to 3-pass; Clause 4-pass.

Part 2, The Employment Standards Amend ments Act, Clause 5-pass; Clause &-pass. Mr. Storie: Mr. Chairperson, I move THAT the proposed

section 41.2, as set out in

section 6 of the Bill be amended by striking out "or

June 15, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 204 threaten to discharge" and substituting "threaten to discharge, discipline, suspend, lay off, intimidate, coerce or impose a penalty on". THAT

section 6 of the Bill be amended by adding the following after the proposed

section 41 .2: Penalty 41.3 Notwithstanding subsection 15(1) (offence and penalty), a person who contravenes

section 41.2 is liable to a fine not exceeding $2,000. [French version) II est propose que I'

article 41 .2 , en once a I'

article 6 du projet de loi soit rem place par ce qui suit: Interdiction de congedler 41.2 II est interdit aux employeurs ou a leurs representants de congedier ou de menacer de congedier un employe, de lui imposer une peine disciplinaire, de le suspendre, de le metre a pied, de l'intimider, de le contraindre ou de prendre des sanctions a son egard si celui-ci:

a) refuse ou tente de refuser de travailler un jour feria s'il s'est conforme aux dispositions de !'article 41.1;

b) tente de faire valoir ses droits en vertu de !'article 41.1. II est propose que !'article 6 du projet de loi soit amende par adjonction, apres !'article 41.2, de ce qui suit: Pen a lite 41.3 Malgre le paragraphe 15(1), toute personne qui commet une infraction a !'article 41.2 est passible d'une amende d'au plus 2 000$ Mr. Chairperson : It has been moved THAT the proposed

section 41.2, as set out in

section 6 of the Bill be amended by striking out "or threaten to discharge" and substituting "threaten to discharge, discipline, suspend, lay off, intimidate, coerce or impose a penalty on". Shall the amendment pass? No? Mr. Storie: Mr. Chairperson, before we decide to vote on this again, I recognize that we have a chorus of nays from the government side. I am wondering whether the minister can indicate what his objection to this amendment might be? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairperson, I am more than prepared to do so. I would be interested, first of all, from Mr.

Storie introducing the amendment, hearing some of his comments as to why he thinks this is required? Mr. Storie: Again, I guess the government has indicated, in its effort to be evenhanded, that it wants to protect those workers who might choose to exercise their right not to work on Sunday. What we are trying to do is ensure that there is the broadest possible

interpretation of what might be deemed an unfair practice against an employee, that it is not simply a matter of firing or dismissing, that there are many other more subtle forms of discrimination, and that what we are trying to do is sort of broaden that definition so that people actually enjoy the right to refuse to work on Sunday. It "1s similar to the very fair equitable amendment that I proposed earlier with respect to commercial tenants. Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimll): Mr. Chairperson, I think the amendment puts a dollar value on the penalty, and I think that should be- Mr. Chairperson : Mr. Helwer, would you turn your mike up, please. Mr. Helwer:

Section 41.3 of the amendment there has a dollar figure in the fine or a maximum dollar figure. I think this amendment should be out of order, because it is indicating a dollar figure and these items shou ld be taken care of in the regulations. Mr. Chairperson : Mr. Helwer, we are dealing with the first amendment 41.2 and then we will move to 41 .3. We are not at 41 .3 yet. Thank you. Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (R iver Heights): Well, with the greatest respect, both of the amendments are very close on top of one another and we seem to be doing some paper shuffling here.

I take a great exception to what the member has said. There are lots of pieces of legislation in which fines are laid out very clearly in bills themselves. It does not have to go in regulation, and this is just one very good example of something that would prevent an action which the government says it wants to prevent. Mr. Chairperson : Thank you. I will allow the debate on 41.3 once we get to 41.3. We will then allow the debate. I have no hesitation about allowing debate on that section, but we are not until the next amendment. Mr. Stefanson: Mr.

Chairperson, speaking to the first part of the amendment, first of all, this is fairly similar to some wording that is in the Ontario legislation, I believe, and fairly similar to some

205 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 15, 1993 wording that was again proposed by one of the delegations. I guess what has been attempted in the first cut of the bill as we have before us is a balance between the employers and the employees. With the broader, vague wording that is being proposed by Mr. Storie it certainly can start to create various types of problems in terms of

interpretation and unique ki nds of broad is sues that are being proposed by him. The key purpose of this whole

section was some protection for the employees in terms of discharge or th reate n of di scharge. We feel that is adequa tel y covered. Once again, and I last checked with Labour as recently as today, to date I believe we have not had a single complaint from an individual in Manitoba throughout the whole trial period. We feel the legislation as it is written offers reasonable protection for the employees, and therefore there is no need at this particular time for the amendment. I guess one could say that with both of the amendments that Mr. Stori e has proposed so far.

The trial period to date shows no need or evidence of a requirement. One could always suggest that if we were to find that there are problems in these areas it could be looked at at some future date, but to put legislation in place that is both vague and open to various types of

interpretation-and the protectio n we feel is adequate in terms of what is in the legislation as it exists. Mr. Storie: Mr. Chairperson, possibly you might suggest one of the reasons why there have been no complaints is because of the rather strict

interpretation one could put on the existing 41.2, because the only circumstances under which a person could complain is if the employer discharged them or threatened to discharge them. I think, particularly given the part-time nature of much of the retail sector, the more likely prospect is that they would go work from 20 hours to 15 hours to 12 hours to eight hours to two hours, and pretty soon they would be out the door. That is a much more subtle form of discrimination. *

(1930) Certainly I am not surprised that no employer is dense enough, having read the act, to say, you are fired, you will not work on Sunday. The question is, are there other more subtle forms of discrimination that are going on? If this has not been a problem, then I do not see why we would not want to ensure that the other potential forms of discrimination are not included in the act so that employers are perfectly aware of the right of the employee to refuse to work on Sunday and the fact that there should be no retaliation.

I am not sure that the proposed legislation provides that balance, given the fact that it only mentions discharge. I ask the minister, I am certainly not hung up on the wording that I proposed. If the minister feels that there is some middle ground here, if he is concerned about the word "coerce" or other words, perhaps we can work to modify the amendment to make it a little broader but to address some of the minister's concerns. Mr. Chairperson: The questio n before the committee is: Shall the amendment pass? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairperson, I should respond to Mr.

Storie's final comment that once again in antici pation that this might be raised, partly because it was raised the last time we met on this bill, we have looke d into it through var ious departments within government, and we feel that the legislation as it is written is reasonable. What more can I say to Mr. Storie? It is a classic. He believes in putting things in place, additional legislation in, I guess, anticipation of all of these problems, and we are saying that there is no evidence or need at this particular point in time, certainly, for this legislation. What is in front of us is reasonable. Mr.

Storie: I am glad the minister has consulted with some other department. I am not sure that many of the individuals in other departments that he has consulted with would ever be affected by this particular legislation. I would feel a little more comfortable if the mini�ter had consulted perhaps with the Food and Commercial Workers, some of the people who may ultimately have to use this legislation to protect themselves. I am ready for the question, Mr. Chairperson. Mr. Stefanson: Br iefly, Mr . Chairp erson, in response, Mr.

Storie knows full well, in the amount of discussion we have had on this legislation, the amount of input that has been received from the public to my office, the input we had from the public hearings here, and again, it has been mentioned by

June 15, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 206 one group through all of the public hearings and through all of the correspondence that we have received and in the discussions that we have had. Mr. Chairperson: The questio n before the committee is: Shall the amendment pass? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of the amendment, would you say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: All those oppose d to the amendment, would you say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairperson: I declare the amendment defeated. There is, Mr. Storie, another amendment on the paper that I have before me. Do you wish to propose that? [interjection] THAT

section 6 of the bill be amended by adding the following after the proposed

section 41.2: Penalty 41.3 Notwithstanding subsection 15(1) (offence and penalty), a person who contravenes

section 41.2 is liable to a fine not exceeding $2,000. [French version] II est propose que !'article 6 du projet de loi soit amende par adjonction, apres !'article 41.2, de ce qui suit: Pen a lite 41.3 Malgre le paragraphe 15(1), toute personne qui commet une infraction a !'article 41.2 est passible d'une amende d'au plus 2 000$ Shall the amendment pass? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of the amendment, would you indicate by saying yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, would you indicate by saying nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairperson: I declare the amendment defeated. Division 3, The Payment of Wages Act,

Section ?-pass;

Section 8. Mr. Storie: Mr. Chairperson, I move THAT the proposed subsection 21 ( 1 .1 ) , as set out in

section 8 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "or threaten to discharge" and substituting "threaten to discharge, discipline, suspend,lay off, intimidate, coerce or impose a penalty on". [French version] II est propose que le paragraphe 21 (1.1 ), Emonce a !'article 8 du projet de loi, soit remplace par ce qui suit: Interdiction de congedler 21

(1.1) II est interdit aux employeurs et a leurs representants de congedier ou de menacer de congedier un employe qui, s'il en al e droit en vertu de !'article 41.1 de Ia

Loi sur les normes d'emploi, refuse ou tente de refuser de traivailler un jour ferie au sens du paragraphe 41.1 (1) de cette loi. II leur est egalem ent interdit, dans les mem es circonstances, d'imposer une peine disciplinaire a cet employe, de le suspendre, de le mettre a pied, de l'intimider, de le contraindre ou de prendre des sanctions a son egard. Motion presented. Mr. Chairperson: Shall the amendment pass? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Storie: Mr. Chairperson, again, this even sounds more reasonable than the first one. Mr. Chairperson: The item is defeated.

Section 8-pass. Mr. Storie: I move THAT the following be added after

section 8 of the Bill: 8.1 Subsection 21 (2) is amended by adding ", and to restore any employment benefit lost by the employee as a result of being discharged or having the employment terminated" after "deems reasonable". [French version] II est propose que le projet de loi soit amende par adjonction, apres le'article 8, de ce qui suit: 8.1 Le paragraphe 21 (2) est modifie par adjonction, apres "estime raisonable", de "et de retablir les avantages sociaux que !'employe a perdu en raison de son congediement ou de sa cessation d'emploi". Motion presented. Mr. Chairperson: Shall the item pass? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairperson, can I have just one minute to check on it?

207 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 15, 1993 Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Storie, do you have a comment while the minister is considering with his staff? Mr. Storie: This is just to, I guess, clarify what one might include as reasonable. It is to assure that someone could not just say, well, you know for your trouble here is $400 when what they want is reinstatement, a right to earn a living. *

(1940) So it is just ensuring that someone actually cannot get rid of an employee by using this as a means of doing it and saying, well, I will pay the penalty and take whatever, I guess, judgment that comes against me, but the employee will no longer have the benefit of working for the employer. Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairperson, after a review of

Section 21 (2), the concluding statements in 21 (2) are that the board may order the employer to reinstate the employee in his employment with or without such compensation as it deems reasonable. Obviously, the decision of the board could very well be to restore any employment benefits lost by the employee as a result of being discharged or having an employee terminated. So, certainly, the kind of benefit that Mr. Storie is proposing here can be and should be part of the overall consideration that the board would take at the time of reinstatement.

Basically, it is covered through that kind of board review that would be taken in any reinstatement. In fact, even the reference to employment benefit, I am not sure what the interpret ation here would be of employment benefit. Compensation, as we all know, is I believe all inclusive in the broadest form so that it would cover any of the benefits whether it is wages, whether it is pensions, whether it is other forms of benefits and compensation that the employee would have been entitled to. Mr. Storie: Mr. Chairperson, I assume that we are talking about the sam a

section under The Payment of Wages Act. [interjection] The

interpretation, I guess, could be that this compensation may include simply a lump sum for suffering. Who knows how the board is going to interpret that? It says, reinstate the employee in his employment with or without such compensation as it deems reasonable. What the amendment is trying to make sure is that apart from that, that the em pl oyment is in addition to whatever compensation is deemed reasonable by the board. It says, and to restore any employment benefit lost by the employee as a result of being discharged or having employment terminated. Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairperson, could I ask Mr.

Storie what his definition of employment benefit is? Mr. Storie: I assume that would mean the full range of benefits that an employee is normally entitled to-unemployment insurance, pension, other benefits that the company may normally provide, could be arranged, dental, who knows? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairperson, the act is quite clear as it is written that the board has the opportunity to determine all of those kinds of things and to make a judgment and to pass on the benefits to that particular employee, whether it is wages, pensions, other benefits.

Or after a review, if they felt an employee had been obviously unjustly treated, one would believe that they would then provide for adequate compensation, which I have already said is all-inclusive and would therefore cover the kinds of issues that Mr. Storie is referring to. So I do not think that we are in any way at odds of the entitlement, and the ability for the employee to receive them is provided the way the act is currently written. Mr. Storie: My

interpretation is that is less discretionary, 21 (2) currently says "may." I thought that the "and" meant "plus," taking some of the discr etion away from the board, mak ing the employee's position more secure. That was the intention, anyway. Mr. Stefanson: Well, Mr. Chairperson, I think I have provided comments, and I see no need for this amendment at this time. Mr. Chairperson: The question before the committee is: Shall 8.1 , subsection 21 (2) be added to the bill? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Chairperson: No. The item is denied.

Part 4, Coming Into Force,

Section 9(1)-pass;

Section 9(2). Mr. Storie: Mr. Chairperson, just a final note, as we put Bill 4 to rest here, that this is just part of the ongoing saga of the government's mishandling of the Sunday shopping issue. Mr. Chairperson: Shall item 9(2) pass-pass;

Preamble-pass; Title-p ass. Bill be reported.

June 15, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 208 Bill 23- The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Amendment, Employment Standards Amendment and Payment of Wages Amendment Act Mr. Jerry Storie (FIIn Flon): Mr. Chairperson, just for the record, we obviously could go- Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Storie, if you would give me just a minute. We are now going to be dealing with Bill 23, The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Amendment, Employment Standards Amendment and Payment of Wages Amendment Act. Mr.

Storie: I suppose I could have gone through each of the amendments that were proposed for Bill 4 and include them as proposed amendments under Bill 23. Having had the discussion once, I do not see much point in that. Again, it is the government creating more paperwork through incompetence by having these two pieces of legislation, sort of simultaneously, because they cannot decide what they want to do. Suffice it to say, the arguments that were made with respect to Bill 4 I think hold with respect to Bill 23.

The government says it wants to protect the small busin ess's interests, even though this legislation undermines that security for lots of small businesses in the city of Winnipeg and across rural Manitoba. In terms of the commercial leases, I think we have tried to lend some strength to the protection that small businesses have when it comes to refusing to open on Sunday, despite what their leases may call for, and we have tried to protect in the amendments the right of workers to refuse to work on Sunday. So, Mr.

Chairperson, the committee can take, as introduced, those amendments for Bill 23 in the appropriate sections. I do not think there is any need to rehash the debate unless the minister wishes to. Mr. Chairperson: What is the will of the committee? Shall the amendments as proposed by the honourable member be passed? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Chairperson: No? Thank you. Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (R iver Heights): I do have a few comments I want to make on this particular bill. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mrs. Carstairs. Please proceed. Mrs.

Carstalrs: As I indicated in the House on Bill 4, while I supported the amendments of the New Democratic Party because I thought they would have made the bill even better, I in fact would have voted for Bill 4. I would have voted tor Bill 4 because I believe that the majority of people in my constituency want Sunday shopping. However, let me make it absolutely clear, I will not vote tor Bill 23. I will not vote for Bill 23, because I think this is an abrogation of responsibility on the part of this government which is unconscionable and shameful. Mr. Chairperson:

Part 1-pass. Division 1, Clause 1-pass; Clause 2-pass; Clause 3-pass; Clause 4-pass. Division 2, Clause 5--pa ss; Clause 6-pass. Division 3, Clause 7-pa ss; Clause 8-pass.

Part 2-pass. Division 1, Clause 9-p ass; Clause 10-pass; Clause 11 - pass; Clause 12- pass; Clau se 13-pass. Division 2, Clause 14-p ass; Clause 15--p ass. Division 3, Clause 16-p ass; Clause 17-pass.

Part 3. •

(1950) Mr. Storie: Mr. Chairperson, the minister may have an amendment to Clause 18. An Honourable Member: Clause 19. Mr. Chairperson: We will pass part- Mr. Storie: Mr. Chairperson, then perhaps we will deal with my amendment to Clause 19 first. Mr. Chairperson: Well, we are not quite to Clause 19. Mr. Storie: You wanted to pass

Part 3, though. Mr. Chairperson: No, we will deal with it. Clause 18( 1 )-pass; Clause 18(2)-pass. Clause 19. Mr. Storie: Mr. Chairperson, I move THAT

section 19 of the Bill be struck out and the following substituted: Coming Into force and repeal of

Part 2 19(1)

Part 2 of this Act comes into force at 12:01

209 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 15, 1993 a.m. on October 1, 1993 and is repealed on September 30, 1994. Revival of former provisions 19(2) Subsection 4(1) and clause 9(

b) of The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Act and

section 21 of The Payment of Wages Act as they stood on April 12, 1993 are declared to be in force on October 1, 1994 as fully and effectually as if Divisions 1 and 3 of

Part 2 of this Act had not been enacted. [French version] II est propose que !'article 19 du projet de loi soit rem place par ce qui suit: Entree en vlgueur et abrogation de Ia

partie 2 19(1) La

partie 2 de Ia presente loi entre en vigueur a 0 h lie 1 er octobre 1993 et est abrogee le 30 septembre 1994. Remise en vlgueur d'anclennes dispositions 19(2) Le paragraphe 4(1) et l'alinea 9b) de Ia

Loi sur les jours feries dans le commerce de detail ainsi que !'article 21 de Ia

Loi sur le paiement des salaires, tels qu'ils etaient libelles au 12 avril 1993, sont declares etre en vigueur le 1 er octobre 1994 comme si les sections 1 et 3 de Ia

partie 2 de Ia presente loi n'avaient pas ete edictees. I see the minister smiling. I hope the minister had the same idea as I did that this is a stupid idea. We should give it a year to live and then put it to death. Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Chairperson, I will not prolong debate on this. I think it is self-evident what Mr. Storie is doing here. I certainly would recommend to the committee not to support this particular amendmen t. Subsequently, I do have an amendment to

Section 19, and I would like to propose after this one. Mr. Storie: Mr. Chairperson, I had hoped, perhaps foolishly, that the minister would come to his senses. I seen the loo k on his face when I introduced the motion. An Honourable Member: Saw. Mr. Storie: I saw-1 am sorry, pardon me--l saw the look on his face. [interjection] Just jump right in whenever you like, Sharon. I saw the look on the ministe r's face, and I thought perhaps we had struck upon the same idea how to get the government-[interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Mr.

Storie: We struck upon the same idea how to get the government out of this mess that it has created for itself. Mr. Chairperson, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) goes oh-oh-oh. I can tell the Minister of Agriculture if he went out to his communities where he once worked, out in Virden, and asked them what they think about Sunday shopping, or if the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) went and canvassed his businesses in Gimli in his communities about what they thought of Sunday shopping, they would say this is a mistake. I have letters from the member for Minnedosa's (Mr. Gilleshammer) home community.

Portage has also expressed concern. Mr. Chairperson, the member for Portage (Mr. Pallister) may find it funny. The fact is that as a lot of the communities around the community of Portage, Oakville and others, see the demise of their small grocery stores as the shoppers are sucked in to SuperValu and Safeway, because they are open on Sunday, then maybe the people in his community will decide that they wanted someone who would stand up and say this is not such a bright idea. Mr. Chairperson, this is a serious proposal. I believe a one-year sunset clause will do what this government refused to do.

It will give us a chance to assess the impact after a year of this legislation.

I certainly think that the idea of a trial period would have had merit, and had the government genuinely been interested in assessing the impact, if they had begun by establishing some sort of base of information on the circumstances in rural economy and the small business sector prior to the introduction of the legislation and followed it up with some sort of objective assessment after the trial period to see whether in fact retail trade had declined in the small business sector, whether particular sect ors within the small business community were affected by this, we would have been debating at least from some sort of base of legitimate understanding.

The government has done thi s for political reasons to satisfy the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. That is the only reason it is being done, and they have refused, either through neglect or wilfully, to listen to the small business community and what they said. The minister may try and say, well, the Manitoba Chamber is shifting, and now they are not so

June 15, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 21 0 concerned. I can tell you-a nd I have travelled in rural Ma nitoba-w he n I speak to the small business comm unity, they are univer sally concerned .. They do not think this is a good idea for their communities; they do not think it is a good idea for their small businesses. I had hoped that the minister would say, here is an opportunity to have our experiment. It comes to an end, and we go back to what we had in 198 7.

Well, actually, we had it for a week in April of '93, as weU, but it gives us a chance to go back to what everyone or most people agreed was a reasonable consensus, a reasonable compromise when it came to Sunday shopping. I think that a sunset clause, and it has been used on many different kinds of legislation, the most recent being final offer selection, can be a useful device in

an act. I do not think, quite frankly, that many government ministers are comfortable with this legislation. I think that this kind of a clause gives the government an out. I am not doing this because I want to protect the political future of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) at all.

I am interested in making sure that we are not saddled with a piece of legislation that works against the in terests of the small business community for next year and the year after that and for the next decade, because there is not the po litical will in the caucus to challen ge the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. That is why I think we need a sunset clause, and that is what I am proposing. Mr. Stefanson: I do not see the need for this amendment as being proposed by Mr. Storie. He keeps referri ng to the Winnipeg Cham ber of Commerce. Yes, they were one organization that appeared in support.

There are many other individuals, organizations, businesses that have appeared in support of Sunday shopping . You have sat through the presentations, Mr. Storie, to look at the list and see-- Point of Order Mr. Storie: Mr. Chairperson, on a point of order, the minister is-1 was going to say intentionally, but that would be unparliamentary. The minister is miscontruing what both SuperValu, Westfair and Canadian Tire said in committee. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Storie, you do not have point of order. Mr. Storie: Wha t they said was, they were prepareci- Mr. Chairperson: Order. *** Mr. Stefanson: Mr.

Chairperson, we have had delegations, we have had correspondence from individuals, businesses, organ izations that do support wide-ope n Sunday shopping. We realized all along since we went into this, unlike some members in our legislature, that it is not an issue that has unanimity amongst all Manitobans. It is a controversial issue. I think anybody who has followed the trial period has indicated there have been economic gains as a result.

There has been consumer preference shown when you ha ve in div id uals an d organi zations and businesses appea ring and talking about the level of activity that is occurring on Sunday. That is showing that consumers in many regions of our province want to see wide-open Sunday shopping. It is also showing that many retailers want to see wide-open Sunday shopping. I do not know if this will help alleviate some of Mr.

Storie's concerns or not, but another province that now has had Sunday shopping for a about year, that happens to be governed by a New Democratic Party at this time, that brought in the wide-open Sunday shopping, there was a recent

article that appeared in the Toronto Star just a few days ago. *

(2000) I will just read very brief excerpts from it: One year after the provincial government gave its unofficial blessing to Sunday shopping, the hustle and bustle of Saturday is spilling over into Sunday, but people continue to attend church, and families still go on picnics. Church leaders say the faithful still come to Sunday services, and operators of tourist attractions such as the Metro Zoo report little change in Sunday attendance figures. There is a lot of business being done on Sunday, says Mel Fruitman of the Retail Council of Canada. It does seem to be satisfying consumer needs.

While union leaders are preaching abstinence, many of their members are shopping on Sundays, helping to make it the second most profitable retail sales day. Well, Sunday shopping has not hurt or helped

211 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 15, 1993 attendance at his church, is a quote from Mr. Wyatt of Trinity-St. Paul's United Church.

So, in a province where he can talk to some individuals who, I am sure, he knows, I think he might find out, if he takes the time to do that, that it is not the destruction of families or other comm unities, the picture that he paints, and that municipa lities in Manito ba, not unlike Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, will have the opportunity to make a decision in the best interests of their communities, whether or not to have wide-open Sunday shopping starting October 1 of this year, Mr. Chairperson. Mr.

Storie: Just one point, I recognize that other jur isdictions have attempted-! do not think that justifies the Province of Manitoba proceeding with wide-open Sunday shopping. I think there are lots of reasons other than religiou s reasons for opposing it. I made the point when I spoke to the bill, and by some of the questions that I asked of presenters, that sort of identified that Ontario is not Manitoba, that the city of Winnipeg is an economic magnet. It continues to suck the life blood out of rural Manitoba. This bill will ensure that that process is accelerated. That is the concern.

We are a di fferent province than Ontario, certai nly different than Alberta and British Columbia. The minister may recall, when the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers made their presentation, they identified that around Regina, for a hundred kilometre radius, small communities were suffering. We have an even more pronounced kind of economic anomaly in Manitoba. We have a huge, gigantic population, huge business community, 60 percent of the population in one part of the province.

I think the business community that was here, certainly the representatives from rural Ma nitoba-and unfortu nately, because the government refused to go out and listen to rural Manitobans, there were only two rural presenters. There were many opposed to the legislation, but there were really only two rural presenters. One was the mayor of Winkler, and the other was a representative from Morden, the Morden Chamber of Commerce. But the government has refused to listen to all of the other people who have written, who have expressed their concern publicly to what the government is going to do.

Reading statistics from Ontario has very little relevance for the economic situation we find ourselves in in Manitoba. The minister does not appear willing to consider at least having an end to this so that we can have some genuine sort of assessment of whether it is having an impact, as some people believe it will have, certainly as I believe it will have, on small communities around Winnipeg, perhaps around Brandon, although the council in Brandon appears ready to turn thumbs down to Sunday shopping. I am sure that it will also have a negative impact on lots of the independent small businesses in Winnipeg.

So I am prepared to call the question on my amendment. Mr. Chairperson: The question has been called. Shall the amendment pass? An Honourable Member: A recorded vote. Mr. Chairperson: You want a recorded vote? The question has been called. All those in favour of the amendment, would you indicate by saying yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, would you indicate by saying nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairperson: I declare the amendment lost. An Honourable Member: I want a count. Mr. Chairperson: You want a count?

All those in favour, would you indicate by a show of hands. A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 4, Nays 6. Mr. Chairperson: I declare the amendment lost. Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chair person, I have one amendment that I would like to propose, and that is, I move That Bill 23 be amended (

a) in the heading of

section 19, by striking out "Coming into force" and substituting "Coming into force:

Part 2"; and

b) by adding the following after

section 19: Coming into force:

Part 3 20

Part 3 of this Act comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.

June 15, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 212 Th is is to deal with a dr afti ng error, Mr. Chairperson. [French version] II est propose que le project de loi 23 soit amende: (

a) par substitution au

titre de !'article 19 , de "Entree en vigueur de Ia

partie 2"; (

b) par adjonction, apres I'

article 19 , de ce qui suit: Entree en vigueur de Ia

partie 3 20 La

partie 3 entre en vigueur le jour de sa sanction. Mr. Chair person: It has been proposed by the minister. Mr. Storie: Explain, what does this really do? Mr. Stefanson: It is quite self-explanatory. It is the coming into force of this particular bill. Mr. Chai rperson: The question has been called, shall the amendment pass? Mr. Stefanson: If you look at page 12 , starting with

Section 18 (1 ) , it deals with the coming into force of

Part 1. [interjection] No, but I am just pointing out how the bill works. So that deals with the coming into force of

Part

Section 19 deals with the coming into force of

Part 2, but there is no provision for the coming into force of

Part 3. If

Part 3 does not come into for ce, we know what ha ppens . So this is requir ed to mak e sure everything comes into force. Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I would suggest to two members, if they want to discuss markets, that they should discuss markets somewhere else. Order, please. There is an amendment by the minister that the bill be amended. The question has been called, shall the amendment pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. Mr. Chai rperson: Pass. No? All those opposed to the bill, would you indicate by a show of hands? No? All those in fa vour of the bill, would you indicate by saying yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chai rperson: All those opposed to the bill, would you indicate by saying nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chai rperson: The amendment is accordingly passed. Shall Clause 19 as amended pass? All those in favour of Clause 19 as amended being passed, would you indicate by saying yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chai rperson: All those opposed to Clause 19 as amended being passed, would you indicate by saying nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr . Ch airperson: I declare the amendment passed. Preambl� pass; Titl�ass. Shall the bill as amended be reported?

An Honourable Member : No. Mr. Chai rperson: Is it the will of the committee that I report the bill as amended? Agreed? An Honourable Member : No. Mr. Chair person: All those in favour of the bill being reported as amended, would you indicate by saying yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chair person: All those opposed to the bill being reported as amended, would you indicate by saying nay. Some Honourable Member s : Nay. Mr. Chai rperson: The bill shall be accordingly An Honourable Member: Formal count. Mr. Chairper son : Formal count? A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 6, Nays 4.

Mr. Chai rperson: I declare the bill passed, and the bill shall be accordingly reported. The time being 8:1 0, committee rise. COMMmEE ROSE AT: 8:1 0 p.m.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-4-ed8
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 4th hansardpdf ed8.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	512e84093981b63df6a2b1a244de333acfb8eb70

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