Manitoba Hansard — 14 December 1992 (Sitting 13A, 35th Legislature, 4th Session)

35-4-13a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

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. 13A -1: 30 p.m., MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1992 Printed by the Office of the Quee n's Printer, Province of Msnitobe ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thlrty·Fifth Legislature Memb ers, Constitue ncies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERIUI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CUMM INGS, 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 GIUE SHAM MER, Harold, Hon. GRAY, Avis HELWER. Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATH LIN, 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 Osbome Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Ste .

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur- Virde n Ste inbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Cr esce ntwood 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 Flin Flon 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

490 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, December 14, 1992 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Lillian Mae Jones, Peter Ash and Dolores Bestvater and others, requesting the government of Manitoba consider taking the necessary steps to reform the Pharmacare system to maintain its comprehensive and universal nature and to implement the use of the health smart card. Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the petition of A.L. Armstrong, R. Puznak, P.

Lowe and others, requesting the government of Manitoba pass the necessary legislation/regulations which will restrict stubble burning in the province of Manitoba. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable memb er for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs). It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read ?

To the Legislature of the province of Manitoba WHERE AS each year smoke from stubble burning descends upon the province of Manitoba; and WH ERE AS the Parent s Su pport Group of Children with Asthma has long criticized the harmful effects of stubble burning; and WH EREAS the smoke caused from stubble burning is not healthy for the general public and tends to aggravate the problems of asthma sufferers and people with chronic lung problems; and WHERE AS alternative practices to stubble burning are necessitated by the fact that the smoke can place some people in life-threat ening situations; and WH ERE AS the 1987 Clean Environment Com mis sion Re por t on Pu blic He arings, "Investigation of Smoke Problems from Agriculture Crop Residue and Peatland Burning," contained the reco mmendation that a review of the crop residue burning situation be conducted in five years' time, including a re-exami nation of the necessity for legislated regula tory control.

THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Asse mbly will urge the government of Mani toba to pass the necessary legislation/regulations which will restrict stubble burning in the province of Manitoba. *

(1335) MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABUNG OF REPORTS Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speak er, I have a statement for the House. Mr. Speaker, I have risen twice to provide mem bers in this House and Manitobans with information concerning the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation. On April4, 1991, it was my pleasure to announce the official opening of the centre, which is a world-class health research institute . On February 18, 1992, I tabled a report entitled Manitoba Health Care Studies and their Policy Implications.

Today I have received and am tabling An Asse ssment of How Efficiently Manitoba's Major Hospitals Discharge Their Patients, which is a study completed by Dr. Marni Brownell and Dr. Noralou Roos. As its title indicates, the study compared the length of stay for patients in eight Winnipeg hospitals, including Brandon. Dr. Brownell and Dr. Roos adjusted for factors such as the reason for the patient's admission to hospital, how sick the patient was, his or her age, sex, socioeco nomic status and other factors.

The data used in the study was obtained from the Manitoba Health Services Commission database for the fiscal years 1989-90 and 1990-91 . We believe this report will help hospitals identify specific areas where the efficiency with which they discharge patients can be improved. This is in

491 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA December 14, 1992 keeping with our plans outlined in "Quality Health for Manit obans : the Action Plan,· which was introduced on May 14 of this year. The centre's report illustrates the amount of money provided to hospitals in Manitoba. In 1991-92, 61 percent, or $908 million, was spent on hospital services. The average daily inpatient cost in a Manitoba hospital increased from $444.19 in 1989-90 to an average cost of $490.40 in 1990-91, for an increase of $46.21 per bed or approximately $62.8 million in total expenditures. Manitoba, Sir, is not alone.

The growth in the cost of health care has left all provincial gove rnments across the country to ask how they can contain hospital expenditures. In Manitoba we are fortunate that we have the expertise of the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation to assist us in finding the right way to approach the problem to ensure that Manitobans will continue to enjoy appropriate health care now and in the future. We recognize that achieving efficiency is not an easy task, and it will require the co-operation of physicians, hospital administrators and staff.

We also recognize that government has a responsibility to Manitobans whose taxes pay for services and equipmen t in our hospitals. They expect an appropriate numb er of hospital beds will be available and that the beds will be utilized to meet their needs. I will leave it to the researchers to explain their use of data, how they compared factors affecting the length of stay, what diagnose s they compared and how they drew their conclusion. They will be in Room 254 at 3:15 this afte rnoon to go through the report for mem bers of this House , members of the media and anyone else who is interest ed.

However, in reading the report, I noted one area of comfort for patients . The literature includes studies which indicate that shorter patient stays do not have any adverse effect on the success of the patienfs care. Dr. Brownell and Dr. Roos found that this can be dem onstrated in one of the Winnipeg hospitals. Patients with psychoses who were discharged from the hospital with the shortest length of stay were not read mitted to hospital any more frequently than patients who were discharged from two hospitals which kept their patients much longer.

The average was 28 days compared to 19 days in the most efficient hospital. This successfu l use of the hospital should be implemen ted across the syste m. It is important to note the report provides feedback that hospital administrators, working with care providers, can use to identify specific areas in which le ngth-of-stay efficiency can be improved. *

(1340) The report says that depending on the approach used, more efficient hospital practices could yield approximately 150 to 200 acute care beds which could either provide treatment for more patients or allow bed closures. Reducing how long patients stay in hospital could play an important role in maintaining the availability of acute health care in Manitoba without the need for expanding other parts of the system, such as day surgery or chronic care beds . We will review the r ecom mendations of the report and work with a committee to ove rsee efforts to improve efficiency at hospitals.

I am pleased to note these initiatives could enable us to carry out the same number of procedures utilizing fewer acute care beds while maintaining quality and access to care. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am confident the centre's latest study will be very useful in assuring that our health care system continues to meet the needs of Manitobans. Thank you, Sir. Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to begin by first congratulating the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation for its ongoing work in health care and research pertai ning to this pol icy field and specifically to acknowledge the release today of the report on discharge of patients in Manitoba's hospitals. We welcome the invitation from the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) to take

part in this afte rnoon 's session, and we certainly intend on being there so that we can leam more about this situation. We all recognize we have much to learn and look forward to that opportunity. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to acknowledge in this ministerial state ment the refer ence to early discharge being very much tied to alternatives in place, whether that be day surgery or available chronic care , continuing care facilities and beds.

December 14, 19 92 LEGISLA TIVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 492 If there is one thing we have expressed concern about continually over the last several weeks, and even before that, it is that in fact this minister, this gove rnment is doing the opposite. Beds are being closed, beds are being shuffled without those alternatives in place. Here the minister has acted with great haste, put the system in considerable chaos and confusion without relying on the benefit of such valuable studies and such important research before making decisions.

It is important to note that while the minister is willing to come forth in the House today and release this report, he is sitting on a stack of stu dies, numbering well over 15 or 20, that were produced by his advisory network on health care and his Urban Hospital Council. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have been raising these numer ous stu dies and are anxious to receive the reports so that we can be more constructive in our opposition . However, the minister cont inues to sit on those st udies and, in some cases, actually acts directly in opposite to the recommend ations of those st udies.

I refer specifical ly to a study done by the advisory network dealing with obstetrics, wherein it is clea rly indic ated that the rec omme ndations th at they are advising this ministe r of do not include elimina ting one of our acute care faci lities and moving beds to community hospitals at this point . They make a number of impor tant rec ommendations that need to be addressed before the whole system of obstetrics is thrown up in the air and people are left in confusion and bewilderment wondering if care will be there when it is needed. Mr.

Speaker, we wou ld urge the mini ster to get on with pro viding us with those reports so that we can then help ensure that we are informed and so that the public of Manitoba is well informed. It is interesting that with all of the changes in obstetrics going on, the minister, by his own documents, has docu men ted well ov er 2,000, close to 2,000, deliveries unknown in terms of their level of risk .

Now it seems to me that with all the research capacity available to this minister, surely he would first question the 1 ,750 unknown births at the Health Sciences Centre, not being either high risk or low risk, before making a decision that deals with this whole area of which hospital is best able to provide the services of high risk and low risk. Finally, Mr.

Speaker, let me say that while we appreciate the odd tim e that the minister comes forward with some information, we know from experience that what is clearly lacking is this information getti ng to the public and opportunities being provided to the public for dialogue, for questioning, for expressing their concerns. Mr. Speaker, our offices have been bombarded with phone calls and letters over the last several months because of the big changes the minister is announcing and the fear and uncertainty that is growing in the public.

It was because of that that we organized a number of foru ms so that we could hear Manitoba's concerns and prov ide these Manitobans with the minister's own plan o f ac tion. Mr. Speak er, at two meetings last week, over three hundred people attended, and they all had one thing in common. They want to know what is happening. Is this really ref orm, or are these cutbacks and not ref orm? Are we getting the whole story, and how can we get more informati on? *

(1345) Mr. Speaker, I would urge the min ister today, take these st udies, take all the other studies, take his thoughts, take his plans, take them to the peopl e, get their feedback, get their advice and then act on those findings. Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Mr.

Speaker, we are very pleased to receiv e this report because, as the history of this centre is, when the centre's first announcement was made in this House , we su pported a centre because we thought the centre has one of the best people in this country and, more importantl y, North America, and we have the data in the Department of Health which can be used to make sure our health care system is going to survive. Mr.

Speaker, the question here is on the first page, that it is very importa nt for the people of Manitoba to know that we are spending about $908 million in the hospital services, and that is about more than-it is about $440 per bed per day, and these costs have to be contr olled. The cost has to be contr olled, not simply for the sake of contr olling costs , but also to make sure th at we can get the best possible services in other ways of health care delivery. Mr.

Speak er, I have not ex amined it fully, but we will read this report, and if this report has to be used here, then the basic fundamental question is, if we are going to use this report to provide more services and then we can delay and we can cut the waiting

493 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA December 14, 19 92 period, then that will help us in the long run. I would certainly ask the minister to look at that aspect, which is a very positive one. The other issue I want to ask the minister, this centre , as it has the re putation for the last number of years, we want him to expand the role of the centre , to monitor what is happening to the health action plan. Mr. Speaker, it is very positive . We want the minister to be very up front.

I think, by releasing this kind of state ment, the gove rnment is showing a comm itment, and we want him to conti nue to move on that path. Mr. Speaker, more importantly, we have to ensure in this House and to the people of Manitoba that the money will move where the patient is going to move. That can only be done if we deal with health care on a nonpolitical basis. This centre is one arm of that nonpolitical base that this government has formed, and we have support ed all along. So certainly we will ask the minister to follow with the recommendations .

Certainly we will be at Room 254, and we will be asking some questions to the presenters. More importan tly, people in Manitoba should have some comfort because the process is getting more and more open so that we can have it, we can contribute and we can tell them which way all the three parties are going to move. Mr. Speaker, it is so essential that people have to know, not only how we are going to criticize, but how we are going to deliver those servi ces. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we want our health action plan to succeed.

We want our health care to survive, but we want the minister to continue to fol low the direction they have chosen for the last five years. Thank you. *** Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report 1991 -92 for Government Services. Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I wou ld like to table the annual Financial State me nts of Boards, Comm issions and Government Agencie s ended March 31 , 199 1 . This has been distributed prev iously. Secondly, under

Chapter P230 of the Continuing Consolidation of th e Statutes of Manitoba, a state ment as to fidelity bonds. • (1 350) INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Blll1 �The ManHoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism) : Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 13 , The Manit oba Em ployee Owner ship Fund Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia Loi constituant en corporation le fonds de participation des travailleurs du Manitoba, be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time.

Motion agreed to. Bill 209-The Public Health Amendment Act Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns) : Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Thom pson (Mr. Ashto n), that Bill 209, The Public Health Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia sante publique, be introduced and that the same be now received and read a fir st time. MoUon presented. Ms. WasylycJa.Lels: Mr. Speaker, this legislation is being reintroduced again this session, because the matter of adverse reactions to vaccines remains an ongoing and seriou s concern for many Manitobans. I want to say in this short sta tement of principle that all of us in the New Democratic Party accept that immunization has been a major factor leading to the reduction of many diseases and benefits the population as a whole.

However, there is signif tcant evidence that immunization causes disability and death in some healthy incividuals. This legislation is based on the principle that the risk of adverse reactions to vaccines must be reduced or elim inated . It does so by requiring mandatory reporting of adverse reactions so that we may have a body of information to work from. It does so by req ui ring information to all parents prior to vaccination so that the risks of vaccine are truly known and people can be fully informed about poss ible adverse reactions. Motion agreed to. Introduction of Guests Mr.

Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honou rable mem bers to the gallery,

December 14, 19 92 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 494 where we have with us this afternoon, from the General Wolfe School, fifty Grade 9 students under the direction of Mr. Herold Driedger. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) . Also this afte rnoon, from the Linden Meadows School, we have twenty-four Grade 5 students under the direction of Mrs. Larsen Moore . This school is located in the constituency of the honourable First Minister (Mr. Filmon). On behaH of all honourable memb ers, I would like to welcome you here this afte rnoon.

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Repap ManHoba Inc. Employment CreaUon Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the OpposHion): Mr. Speak er, my question is to the Acting Premier. In 19 89, in March, the government promised in the dives titure announcement they made with Repap, quote, a billion dollars of new investment and some 500 new jobs that would be created in the Swan River area and the northern areas of Manitoba. We have been watching the governme nt's veracity on the initial announcement change, Mr. Speak er, in terms of the security we had in terms of the promises that were made.

We have watched the government change from: This is the greatest deal that we have ever seen in Manitoba, to: We have to renegotiate this deal, to: We are going to draw a line in the sand over the next two months, to: We have to move that line in the sand again. Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) . When can we expect the billion dollars of investment that was promised before the last election, and when can we expect the 500 jobs that were promised by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to the people of Manitoba? .. (1 355) Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr.

Speaker, as the member is well aware-and, of course , the question comes as a little surprise because the NDP were always opposed to the dives titure of Manfor-let me say th at the commitment the gove rnment entered into, the commitment was made by Repap who, given the conditions of the industry at the time, were prepared to make that significant investment of a million dollars, causing the creation of several hundreds of jobs. Let me say, Mr.

Speaker, I am told and by what I read, I believe, that because there have been losses in the industry of hundreds of millions of dollars, a billion and a haH over the last two years, because financiers today will not lend to any forest products industry because of the nature of the industry, there have been deferrals with respect to almost every significant scaled opera tion, new operati on within the industry. Mr. Speaker, the memb er talks about the veracity of the statement.

It was a commitment made by Repap, not a commitment that the government could guarantee, because indeed we did not guarantee a billion dollars. Some provinces may have , maybe the former government may have guaranteed a significant financing, but this gove rnment would not enter into that type of agreement. Mr. Doer: The minister will note that financial institutions are dealing with companies that were dealing with the new technology and not dealing with the old technology that was signed off by this Premier (Mr. Filmon) and by this Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), dealing with chlorine bleach, Mr.

Speaker, something that we debated with the minister some time ago in 1989 and 1990 . The minister will also know, Mr. Speaker, that his statements in the Chamber, in the legi slative committee, talking about the ironclad guarantees that they had guaranteed in this contract, are somewhat contradicted by the admissions of the minister here today. Mr. Speaker, my further question to the minister is-and he says he is reading the media, et cetera, on this issue. I guess he also stated a couple of weeks ago that he is going from being passive on his negotiations to aggressive in his negotia tions.

The shares unfortunate ly for the Repap corporation have gone below $2, something that I think will concern all of us. They had one of the largest declines of any stocks on the Toronto Stock Exchange last week, I think the second greatest decline of any stocks over a weekly basis. What contingency plan does the government have on the jobs and opportunities in Manitoba that were promised by this gove rnment in terms of their initial promise to the people? What contingency

495 LEGISL ATIVE AS SEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA December 14, 19 92 plans do they have, or do they have all their eggs in the one basket? Mr. Manneas: Mr. Speaker, I am dismayed also with the fall of the value of the shares. I have been engaged in discus sions as recently as Thursday last with the principals of Repap trying to determine as to what contingencies they have in place. I am led to believe that there is some portion of short selling with respect to their shares.

I am led to believe, of course, that there are some market analysts who are betting as to the demise of the company, but let me say, this is all within the marketplace. This is betwe en buyers and sell ers of shares, and ultimately the market will determ ine the value that is placed on the shares. The member talks about contingencies. I am not going to divulge all of those contingencies to him, because indeed we have, in our view, a bona fide agreement.

The contract still is between Repap and ourselves, and to begin to share with him what might be our contingencies would be unfair to that contract, it would be unfair to the people of the prov ince of Manitoba and would be most unscrupulous, Mr. Speaker. The member knows that, and he should not put his question in that fash ion. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that this minister and this Premier (Mr.

Fllmon) told us he had ironclad guarantees in the first contract, given the fact that even the Auditor has to write up the fact of the $78 million allegedly that this gove rnment placed in the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, you will under stand why we have pointed questions for a minister and a Premier who made all these "ironclad guarantees: We can see no fruition of those promises after the election that the government made before the election. I would like to further then ask-and I do not want the minister to divulge all the details of the contingency plan.

Obviously, I would not want to prej udice his bargaining position, especially now that he has gone from passive to aggressive in his negotiations. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask: Do they have a contingency plan to deal with the jobs and economic opportu nities across northern Manitoba in The Pas and Swan River areas, all those areas that were swept into the cutting areas that were negotiated by this gove rnment and the Repap corporati on? Many value-added jobs were lost in smaller enterprises in diff erent regions.

Do they have a contingency plan that will guarantee the jobs for northern Manitobans and people in the Swan River valley area? * (1 400) Mr. Man ness: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address most of the pream ble, but I am sure you will not give me enough time. I would like to indicate to the member, and to all those who are taking some interest in this dscussion that the gove rnment in its wisdom, and I would say wisely so, decided to include the southern wood cutting area. Thank goodness for that because today there are in place 50 or 60 jobs as a result of that.

The member seems to forget that 90, 000 jobs have been lost in this industry. Of course, he would try and pretend that is not happe ning-90, 000 jobs in the forest products indus try over the past two years. Mr. Speaker, you have an industry not an awful lot different from the mining industry in Canada, indeed, all the natural product industries that are reeling today as a result of a world recession. Mr. Speaker, the member asks what contingency plans are in place. Again, I am not preaching the demise of Repap Enterprises today . I fully expect that company is going to survi ve its present difficulty.

I can tell you right today that Repap Manitoba, by what I am led to believe at least, is more or less balancing the books. That is because of good management, of tremendous productivity increases by the labourers. Mr. Speaker, there still are 800 peopl e-600 to 700 to 800 people being employed today as a result of the activity of Repap and workers working togethe r.

So let the membe r not say for one moment that we do not have a good operation in place, that we do not have a good corporate citizen, that we do not have in place activity that today is not costing the taxpayers in the province of Manitoba $30 million a year, as it did under the government before us. Shoal Lake Protection Mining Exploration Ms. Marianne Cerllll {Radisso n): Mr. Speaker, the failure of this gove rnment's economic policy is most evident in the environmen tal areas. My question is for the Minister of Environment.

I assu me the minister is aware that Kenora miners and prospectors will begin a mining exploration within the Shoal Lake watershed early next month.

December 14, 19 92 LEGISLA TIVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 496 Would the minister tell the House when he was first informed of this development and what his position is regard ing an environmental assessm ent of the expl oratory mining as well as on the mine itself? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speak er, we received information that a meeting was being held on November 30, and staff attended that meeting. Interesti ngly enough, Mr.

Speaker, we do have considerable concern that has been going on for quite some time with the province of Ontario about how they are dealing with exploration in mining in the area of the source of water for the city of Winnipeg. I had occasion to speak personally to Mr. Wildman, the minister of mines for Ontario, about the same time as this meeting was occurring. Unfor tunately, I was unable to engage him in very extensive debate. As it turns out, his department is pro viding some $40,000 worth of support for exploration of this mine. I note as well, Mr.

Speak er, that the concerns probably are raised today because there was a press conference by the Winnipeg Water Protection Group held in this building. I hope they made it very clear that it was an initiative of my office that they were notified that this action was in fact taking place. Management Plan Ms. Marianne Cerll ll (Radisso n): Mr. Speaker, given the commi tment made by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) last spring-{i nte�ection] The Premier of Manitoba is the Premier I am refe rring to. Mr.

Speaker, given that the Premier of Manitoba has comm itted to basin- wide management last spring, when will the minister bring in basin-wide management prohibiting development on this side, on the Manitoba side of Shoal Lake , across to the Ontario border? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speak er, that is a good question, as a matter of fact, and one which I think the people of Winnipeg and the me mbers of the opposition will be very interes ted in, because we have been the proponents of a basin-wide management plan for this area.

In fact, we proposed regulations that we were activ ely proc eeding to put in place last year, and we were approached by the native bands in the Shoal Lake region who asked us to defer the implemen tation of those regulations while they were able to explore further options with the Province of Ontario about possible basin-wide management. Mr. Speaker, in that deferral , I made it very clear that if we were unable to see some results in terms of basin-wide management that would provide the protection that we needed, we would be quite prepared to take unilateral acti on and put those regulations in place.

Mining Explorauon Ms. Marianne Cerll ll (Radis son): Mr. Speaker, will the minister table correspondence he has had with the gove rnmen t of Ontario over this mining proposal ? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, this particular mining proposal was brought forward in what I have to refer to as unseemly haste . I would assume that the Province of Ontario, seeing it as an exploration project, believe that they can proceed with this type of development without involving the people of Manitoba.

It has always been our view and we will continue to press the position that, first of all, we do not want this type of dev elopment within the region that would pot entially impact on the drinking water. Secondly, if any proposals are brought forward, they should in fact include information and hearings in this pro vince. Shoal Lake ProtecUon Mining Explorauon Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minis ter of Environment. Mr.

Speaker, whether it has been Rafferty Alameda or Conawapa or Sho al Lake , this government has consistently failed to protect Manit obans' water supply in transboundary nego tiations. Now, the only thing that saves them is that apparently the gove rnment of Ontario is doing a worse job. Mr. Speaker, what has happened or has not happened since Nove mber 17 , 19 90-pnte�ection] Well, I hear my friend saying about research November 17 , 19 90, Premier Rae was the newly elected Premier of Ontario.

Can the minister tell us what has or has not happened since that time when Premier Filmon said after a meeting with him, quote, Winnipeggers might nev er have to worry about co mmer cial

497 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA December 14, 19 92 developments endangering the quality of water from Shoal Lake. He further said, Premier Rae gave his personal commitment that when faced with the issue of a gold mine or drinking water, people came first. Has this minister gone beyond Mr. Wildman and asked Mr. Rae? What has happened to his word, Mr. Speaker? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minis ter of Environment): Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the people of the city of Winnipeg or the pro vince of Manitoba need take much comfort from the member for St. James.

When I contacted the forme r Liberal gove rnment, they did not know where Shoal Lake was . Mr. Speaker, the Consolida ted Professor proposal was the issue on which most of this debate was originally predicated . It was the reason that the basin- wide management was contemplated, because we knew that this whole area lies within a greenbelt, and there is a great deal of pote ntial for development, development such as is now being proposed in terms of this explor atory shaft.

It is certainly our intention to make sure that the Province of Ontario continues to consider the pote ntial impacts on probably the largest single portion popula tion in this province, and we will be active ly pursuing that protec tion. Mr. Edwards: I think the minister has the wrong phone number. Again he has called the wrong party, because we have represented that seat since 1986, Mr. Speaker, in Kenora, the Liberal Party has. Mr. Sp eaker, again for the sam e minister-{interjectlon] 1986, we have represented it; Frank Miclash is the MPP. Joint Public Hearings Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr.

Speaker, again for the same minister: On February 22, 1991 , the Premier (Mr. Almon) told Manitobans that Premier Rae was, and I quote , very amenable to the prospect of having a Manitoba presence on a revie w panel of a proposed gold mine, at that time, Consolidated Professor, and holding hearings in Winnipeg. He further said that a joint management comm ittee was being discussed and was going to be set up which could rule out all gold mining on the lake.

What can the minister tell us about this order, this per mit that was issued last week, and in his discussions which he says started November 30, was there ever any discussion about joint hearings, about Manitobans being involved, about any hearings, Mr. Speaker? * (1410 ) Hon. Glen Cummings (Mini ster of Environment): Mr. Speaker, this is one of the diff iculties that we have experienced in dealing with this issue. The Province of Ontario and the proponent are not amenable at this point to having hearings in the province of Manitoba.

The fact is that as an explo ratory shaft, it is presently their view that hearings are not necessary. Mr. Speaker, my concern is that we were attempting to work with the native population in the area when they said that they wanted to be part of a larger co-management basin-management plan for the area.

I think we would be well served, as the prov ince of Ontario originally contemplated , that there would be a larger agreement between the two provinces but would also include the aboriginal inter est in that area, because basin- wide management Includes more than just the province of Manitoba and the provi nce of Ontario. Mr. Speaker, those plans are slow in coming, and in the interi m, we will be dealing and dealing stro ngly with these types of proposals, because the first line of defence is to make sure that these projects do not proceed to a point where they can have any impact on the water. Mr.

Edwards: I will say they are slow in coming, Mr. Speaker. This minister has been on this issue for over three years. I will say they are slow in coming. Management Plan Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): My final question for the same minister: Will he now acknowledge that his lyi ng-down-a nd-taking-it-on-the-chin approach with Ontario is not wor king. Mr. Speaker, in August of 1989, he said , if I am not standing up on a chair and jumping up and down, it is because I believe in taking a proactive approach and a communicative approach. That was 1989.

Will he now acknowledge three years later it is time he did his job? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minis ter of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member would not be proposing that we bring in the United Nations to negotiate between Ontario and Manitoba, but the concern tha t we need in putting in place

December 14, 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 498 wate r-qual ity manage ment and basin-w ide management where if we can put in place a plan where we have the two provinces agreeing to participate in management -on alternate sides of the boundary, between the two provi nces, that would in fact be precedent setting within this country. Mr. Speaker, we are also making every effort to be sure that the federal authorities, the federal Department of Environment, the federal Minis ter of Indian and Northern Affairs are involved in these discussions.

Because if the Prov ince of Ontario is unwilling to take the appropriate acti on to protect our drinking wate r, then it seems to me that the federal gove rnment will have to become the regulatory authority that will give the protection that we need and to support the position that this pro vince has taken from the start, that we cannot and have not been shown that this is a potential area for development without having some impact on the pro vince of Manitoba's drinking water. Health Care System Obstetric Services Consolidation Ms. Judy Wasy lycla-Lels (St.

Johns): Last week in this House, the Minister of Health confirmed reports regar ding the consolidation of pediatric beds and services into one facility, despite concerns about admitting privileges, cost savings and community access. I would like to ask the minister today if he can tell this House and the people of Manitoba if he is planning the same consolidation for obstetrics into one faci lity. Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health) : No, Mr. Speaker. Ms. Wasylyc la-Lels: Mr.

Speaker, I will table a document presented by his own department at recent stak eholder meetings on health care reform indicating Phase Ill of the minister's plans. My ques tion to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchar

d) is: Will he now confirm that his gove rnment's long-term plan is to consolidate all labour, deli ver y and post partum services, all obstetrics, all neonatal care services into one centre , and could he provide us with the rationale for such a plan? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend asks me to confi rm something that is happening in the exact opposite.

Now I know that logic conf ounds my honourable fri end, but my honour able friend the New Democratic Party critic must surely by now be aware of the LDRP program-l abour, delivery, recove ry, post partum at Victoria General Hospital , wherein the 22 beds that were closed by the NDP unilater ally, without consultation back in 1 987, in the good old days when my honourable friend planned health care and made decisions behind closed doors without consu ltat ion, uni laterally and secretively, were reopened as a labour, delivery, post partum unit at Victoria General Hospital.

They reopened that with a quarter of a million dollars less budget and have increased the number of safe deliveries and happy babies and moth ers and fathers and parents by 20 percent, Sir. Ms. Wasyl ycla-Lels: Mr. Speaker, it is the lack of logic in the minister's thinking and in this plan that is exactly why we are asking the question.

Let me ask the Minister of Health, whether this consolidation into one centre is finalized or in the planning stag es, it still begs the question, why is the min ister moving 300 deli veries from tertiary hospitals to commun ity faci li ties now at questionabl e sa vings, and despite the advice of his own advisory network, when the longer term plan- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question. Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Speaker, I guess maybe I have to take my honourable friend into my office and sit down and have a nice, long fireside chat with her so she under stands what is happening, that health care is changing, that the old- think that my honourable friend is locked into is not appropriate . It is not appropriate in Manitoba. It is not happening in Ontario. Check Ontario. Check Saskatchewan. Check British Columbia, where progressive reform is happening. Mr. Speaker, part of that progressive reform is the example I have given to my honourable friend, of Victoria General Hospital .

I will provide her with a report: six-month interim, quarter of a million dollars less budget, 20 percent more deliveries. Why? Because someone in gove rnment dictated to those mothers they should go to Victoria Hospit al?-no, Sir. They chose to be there because of the safety, the ambience and the choice of being in Victoria Hospital. Mothers chose that option.

499 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA December 14, 1992 Social Assistance Child Tax Benefh Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows) : Mr. Speaker, in October of this year, Winnipeg Harvest provided food to8,500 families, approx imately 30,000 in tot al, up from 7,500 a year ago. This morning, the Co mmu nity Coalition on Unem ployment presented the deputy ministe r with 3,500 postcards saying, food banks are not the solution to poverty , jobs are. The Deputy Premier's response was to blame the problem on the world-wide recession, suggesting there is nothing that this government is willing to do.

Well, there is something thatthis gove rnment can do. Will the Minister of Family Services at the very least promise, give us a commitment now, before the House adjourns, not to deduct the new child tax benefit from social assistance recipients? Hon. Harold Gllles hammer (Minis ter of Family Services) : Mr. Speaker, the member for Burrows has asked a number of questions within there. I want to tell you that the comm itment from our department is to provide that safety net for Manitobans who need that sort of assist ance.

We have consistently increased the social allowance rates far more than other pro vinces have. We have the third lowest incidence of social allowance recipien ts across this country. At the same time, our rates are compatible, where Manitoba should be within that syst em . We are proud of many of the enhancements that we have brought forward, and I know they have been supported by the member for Burrows. There are still other decisions that have to be made, and the gove rnment will be making those decisions in due course. Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, once again the minister did not answer the question.

Will the minister, at the very least, do what Saskatchewan has done, that is, promise not to change this current situa tion, not to make it worse for people on social assist ance? He can do this by not deducting the new payments from people on social assist ance. • (1 420) Mr. Gllle shammer: Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan probably is not a good example for the member to use. The Sask atch ewan gove rnment has consistently not exem pted a number of payments from the federal government to social allowance recipients.

I indicated to the member privately last week and in the House last week, when this question was raised by the Leader of the liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs), that there are certain aspects of changes with our rela tionship with the federal gov ernment that are under review . Before we make a decision , we want to be sure that we have sufficient time to analyze these. Mr. Martindale: Will the Min ister of Family Services then follow the lead of the pro vince of Alberta who last week by press release announced that they will not deduct the child tax benefit ? Will they follow the lead of the province of Alberta?

Will they make this announcement, rather than waiting until December 24 or December 30 , a few days before the new benefit starts? Will he give the House a decision now? Mr. Gl lle shammer: Mr. Sp eaker , what the member is refe rencing is that all provinces are looking at this new child tax benefit. Some prov inces have made decisions, and others are in the process of making that decision. I can assure the member, once decisions have been made, they will be communi cated appropriately. Social Assistance Food Allowance Mrs . Sharon Carstalrs (Leeder of the Second Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, my questions are to the Minis ter of Family Services, as well. Mr. Speaker, there is a group in this province which calls itself the nutrition and food security network of Manitoba. They are made up of individuals such as the home economists of the pro vince, some of whom are emplo yed by the prov ince, the Manitoba Medical Association, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the registered dietitians, as well as the Manitoba associ ation of pove rty . What these people have reported in this study is ver y sign ificant.

They have indicated that the pro vince does not provide enough money in its social assistance budget for a nutritionally balanced diet for the infants of the province of Manitoba. They went on to say that the City of Winnipeg's welfare system did provide enough money for infants so that their nutritional needs can be met. This province

December 14, 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 500 has chosen to push the City of Winnipeg into picking up an additional $5-mil lion cut. In light of this new information provided by these experts, some of whom are emp loyed by this gov ernment, will the minister change his policy with regard to the funding of social assistance of the City of Winnipeg? Hon. Harold Glll eshammer (Minister of Family Services) : Mr. Speaker, when we brought in Bill70 last year, we had an opportu nity to debate that legislation here in the Legislature.

It was approved by this Legislature to standardize the ability to access social allowances across this pro vince and also to give gove rnment the ability to standardize those allowances. The member is well aware that there were a number of jurisdictions across this province that paid social allowances below the provincial rate. About 60-65 percent of the municipal corporations paid the social allowances at the pro vincial rate , and we have implemented that legislation.

We will be going forward with that, come April 1 , to have one level of social allo wance across Manitoba, but at the same time, mu nicipa l corpora tions have the ability to increase that, if that is their wish, at their cost. Mrs. Carstalrs: Mr. Speaker, the City of Winnipeg, in its wisdom, recog nized that food for infants between the ages of birth and one year is probably the most impor tant nutritional period of a child's life. For that reas on, they gave them a more generous allowance for food than is provided by the provincial system of social assist ance.

Can the minister tell this House why the province will not recognize the needs of infants in their establ ishment of social assistance rates? Mr. Gll leshammer: Mr.

Speaker, in bringing forward the legislation that was encom passed in Bill 70, we had a process in pl ace where represe ntatives of the Cit y of Winnip eg , represe ntatives of UMM and MAUM came toget her on a comm ittee called the SARC comm ittee and held a number of meetings and hearings, dialogued with the municipal councillors across this province and brought forward to government the SARC report which recommended that we go to one level of assis tance. The memb er is asking that we increase the social allowances that are paid to individuals in Manitoba. We do that on an annual basis.

Two years ago we increased that allowance by 4.5 percent, last year by 3.6 percent. That was the second highest increase of social allowances across this country, and we have indicated that there will be new benefits put in place this year at the cost of living. Mrs. Carsta lrs: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that 89 percent of the social assistance recipients live in Winnipeg, but they did not make up 89 percent of the SARC comm ittee. Child Tax Benefit Mrs.

Sharon Cars talrs (Leader of the Second OpposHion): Can the minister tell this House today if he is going to at least guarantee that social assistance recipients can keep all of their money that they will receive on the new child tax benefit plan from the federal gove mment without having to pay and provide even less nutritional value for their infants than they are presently provi ding? Hon. Harold Glll eshammer (Minis ter of Family Services) : That is similar to the question asked by the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), and the answer is the sa me. CP Rail Customer Service Operat ions Mr.

Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, we have received word that CP Rail is moving to downsize their 360-employee Canadian customer service operations while centr alizing the remaining 212 jobs. Winnipeg, Calgary, Regina and Moncton are po tential loca tions for those new jobs. My question is for the Minister of Highways and Transportati on. Has the Minister of Transportation held discussions with CP Rail to det ermine what impact there will be on the Manitoba railway jobs in this situation? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr.

Speaker, we are in the process of having those meetings right now. Mr. Reid: My question is for the same minister, Mr. Speaker. What action is the minister prepared to take to protect the current 61 jobs while attracting the 15 1 new jobs that have a combined payroll of $7.8 million. Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, that is also part of the discussions that are taking place right now.

501 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA December 14, 19 92 TransportaUon Industry Employment Decline Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): It is very clear, Mr. Speaker, judging by those comm ents and the throne speech itself, that "jobs" is jus t a four-letter word to this government. My final supplemen tary to the same minister, Mr. Speaker: What action plan does the minister have to stem the growing tide of transportati on jobs that are leaving our provi nce? Hon. Albert Driedger {llolnlster of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I could spend an hour answering that question; it is such a broad question.

I just want to indicate that together with my colle agu es, the Minis ter of Finance (Mr. Manness} and the Minister of I, T and T (Mr. Stefa nson), we are in negotiations and will be meeting with representatives from both CN and CP in terms of looking at what they are doing, the impacts that it will have in the province and how we can help alleviate some of the concerns that are there. Social Assistance Housing Allowance Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer}. Mr.

Speaker, many people are facing tough times in Manitoba currently, Including tenants who are finding increases in excess of 11 percent, in a number of cases, particularly those who are on social assistance In those units. I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services a very direct question: Will he review the current guidelines for income assistance that are resulting in people, in su ites which have received increases of as much as 11 percent, being forced out of their accom modation because Income Security will not fund the additional increase? • (1 430) Hon.

Harold Glll eshammer {llolnls ter of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, if the member has a specific case that he wants to bring forward to me, we will certainly review it. Mr.Ashton: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, ! do, and I would hope that the minister would look at the general situation, because there are problems across this prov ince in regard to this situation happening. Housing Conditions Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I would like to ask a further question, Mr.

Speaker, to the minister, and that is, in view of the fact that Income Security indirectly pays a significant amount of rent in this province for those on social assistance, will he have his department take a proactive role in dealing with the increasing problems of slum housing that many income security recipients are faced with, whether it be in the city of Winnipeg, city of Thompson or many other areas? Will his department actively lobby on behalf of income security recipients to get them better accommodation? Hon. Harold Gll leshammer {llolnlster of Family Services): Mr.

Speaker, the provincial guideline for increases in shelter this year was 1 percent, and I antici pate that other provinc es- Ontario, for inst ance, have increased their housing by 6 percent. If there are specific cases that the member wants to bring forward where landlords are in violation of provincial guidelines, we would be pleased to review those . Housing Allowance Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): My final question to the minist er again, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister commit to sitting down with the Minister of Housing (Mr.

Ernst} to ensure that those who are on social assistance in this province receive a better deal in housing? As I sa id, people are either in substandard conditions , or they are being faced in some cas es, because of large rent increases, with being forced to have to leave their current accommodation. Will he lobby on behalf of those individuals with his own minister to change those regulations? Hon. Harold Glllesh ammer (llolnl ster of Family Services): Well, I suspect the honourable member had those ques tions ready for the Minister of Housing (Mr. Emst} today .

We are certainly concerned with the circumstances in which social allowance recipients find themselves in. We have worked actively with the groups such as SACOM, MAPO and WORD to address a number of their issues as far as social allowance regulations go, and we will con tinue to do so.

December 14, 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 502 North American Free Trade Agreement Government Action Plan Mr. Jerry Storie (FIIn Flon): Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for Indus try, Trade and Tour ism annou nced the government's "new positionB on the North American Free Trade Agreement, and there seems to be considerable confusion about what the government's position actually is.

In the press release, in the minister's statement, the minister responsible said that in fact they had no problem now with the North American Free Trade Agr eement because there were paral lel agreements to deal with the concerns that this government continued to have, both with respect to environmental issues and labour standards. My question to the minister is: Has he now agreed with Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Wilson that in fact the North American Free Trade Agreement will be going ahead as initialled in San Antonio, Texas? Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism) : The answer, Mr.

Speaker, is no. Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, some Manitobans will be comforted by that response. My question to the minister is then: Can the minister then table his action plan for getting the federal government to address the issues in some meaningful way before the agreement is signed on Wednesday? Mr. Stefanson: Mr.

Speaker, at the end of last week, I sent a letter to the Honourable Michael Wilson, the federal Minister responsible for Trade, outlining the many concerns we have that were addressed in some detail here in the House subsequent to the tabling of our discussion paper that was provided to members of the opposition on Friday. That discussion paper was faxed to Mr. Wilson's office on Friday as well. He certainly has the position of our government. It is not a new position, I should outline for the member for Ain Flon.

It is a consistent position, addressing the six conditions that we put on the table back in July of 19 91, that we have continued to express on behalf of Manitobans. We have been consistent, unlike in many respects what we hear from across the way. Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDE RS OF THE DAY Hon. Cla yton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call second reading, Bill 12, and we will follow that with adjourned debate, Bill 4. SECOND READINGS 811112- The Interna tional Trusts Act Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr.

Sp eaker, I move , seconded by the honourable Minister of Anance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 12, The International Trusts Act (Loi sur les fiducies internationales), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, The International Trusts Act, when enacted, would enable Manitoba to adopt the convention on the law applicable to trusts and their recognition. The convention was adopted by the Hague Conference on Private International Law in October 1984.

The principal objective of the convention is to provide for the recognition of the essential characteristics of a trust in countries that are members of the conference and whose legal systems do not recognize the concept of a trust. Here in Canada, we already recognize trusts, and the convention would extend a set of basic international conflict-of-law rules for trusts into countries that do not recognize trusts. pnte�ection] I sense, Mr.

Speaker, from the slight buzzing sound in this room, that a number of honourable members here have no t yet grasped the significance of the nature of international trusts and the importance thereof. The convention describes the primary characteristics of a trust. This is necessary because the noncommon law jurisdictions require rules for determining when a trust exists. The convention also sets out the minimum extent to which the law of the forum will recognize a trust. The forum is the country in which a trust is seeking to be recognized.

The major benefit of this convention is that it will relieve the numerous problems that arise when common law trusts have international operations or connections.

503 LEGISLATIVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA December 14, 19 92 The nonr ecogn ition of trus ts in ci vil law jurisdictions is a real and increasingly common proble m. We all recognize that the concept of a global village is becoming a reality and we are witnessing an increase in international trade and invesbnent. Here in Manitoba we have a large immigrant population. Many newcomers to our province hold property or investments in their home countries. Most of those countries do not have common law system s.

Also an increasing number of pension plan and other group invesbn ent arrangemen ts use the trust and deal with inves tments internati onally. The convention will be beneficial now and become increasingly necessary in the future. Manitoba's legislation is essentially the same as the interna tional trust acts passed by Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. The main difference is that like the New Brunswick and Alberta legislation, Manitoba's act is drafted so that the convention will not be retroac tive.

This means the convention would not apply to trusts created before Manitoba's legislation comes into force . Canada's federal gove rnment ratified the convention in Octo ber 1992 , and it will come into effect on January 4, 199 3, in the five pro vinces that have already passed legislation to adopt the convention. Canada is among several other countries to ratify the convention. The United Kingdom, Australia and Italy have ratified the convention . Luxembourg and The Netherlands have signed the convention, and the American Bar Association and the American Bankers Associ ation have endo rsed the conven tion.

The State Departmen t has initiated the process for signa ture by the United States which will lead to its ratification of the convention. This process is expected to take a number of years. Given the many benefits of adopting the conve ntion, we feel that Manitobans will be better served with the passing of The International Trusts Act. With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank all honour able members for their close attention this afte rnoon and commit this bill to their support. * (1 440) Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompso n) : I move , seconded by the honourable memb er for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), that debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 4- The Ret ail Businesses Sunday Shopping (Te mporary Amen dments) Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and To urism (Mr. Stefans on), Bill 4, The Retail Busi nesses Sunday Shopping (Temporary Amendm ents) Act;

Loi sur l'ouv ertur e des commer ces de detai l les jours feri8s-modif �cations temporaires, standing in the name of the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek, who has eight minutes remaining. Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to comp lete my remarks, and I think that I can start by suggesting to you that the legislation that we are dealing with right now is legislation that was brought in in 1 988, and this is now in place in Manitoba This legislation , I think, in today's society is legi slation that could be considered as restric ting.

It is restricting on the busi nesses that are trying to carry out business in this pro vince, and it is restricti ng the people in Manitoba, the people who are supporting those busi nesse s. We as gov ernment should not be imposing legislation on the choices of business, and we should not be imposin g legislation or affecting the choices of people in this prov ince. I can just say that if people want government to legi slate, then we have three choices.

The first choice would be shut down every thing on Sunday shopping, or shut down for what people would not normally make the choice themselves, and not allow even anybody to work on Sunday. I think that would be the extreme where policemen would not be allowed to work, or doctors would not be allowed to work, or nurses. I think we would shut down everyth ing. The second choice would be a compromise. That is where go vernment would issue guidelines in which people will have some restricted freedoms in terms of what they can do as far as shopping on Sunday is concerned.

I think that is what this legis lation is proposing to do, in pro viding the freedom s with some restrictions. The other option is to open up Sunday shopping to tally like they have in some cities in the U.S., where Sunday is no diff erent than any ot her day when it comes to shopping. I think that Manitobans are not ready for that yet, and I think that could be

December 14, 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EMBL Y OF MANIT OBA 504 found to be det rimental as far as our society and the people are concerned here in Manitoba. I choo se to bel ieve the comp rom is e this legislation is imposing is timely and what the majority of Manitobans are looking for.

Howe ver, I would suggest that if we are going to be sensitive as legislators, which is what people are looking for us to consider in view of the fact that we brought in legislation in 19 88, and to be compromising in the legislation , I think, that one thing that we could consider if we were going to be sensitive to the church co mmu nity, possibly we could look at altering the hours of legislation from say 12 to six, say from one to six.

One of the things that some of the people of the churches are looking at are the church services run from 11 to 12 or 10 :30 to 11 :30, in which case some people who are going to attend church are unable to meet the requirement of going to work, to be there at twelve o'clock and to still attend church services. The other alternative would be for churches to consider the service and instead of having church services at eleven o'clock, to moving those up to te n o'clock, which would allow them to still attend church and to meet their requirements as far as their work was concerned .

I think that the legislation in total does enable people to make the choices. I think that there are going to have to be some compromises made on all aspects, not only as far as the gove rnment is conce rned. I think that people are going to have to make som e choices which this legisla tion is enabling people to do. So, as I have indicated previ ously, Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting this legislation as it is going to provide the freedom and the choices that people are looking for and people are going to have to make some adjustments with their lives. Saying that, I would conclude my remarks.

Thank you for the opportu nity of speaking. Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson) : I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this particular bill and particularly appreciate the attentiveness of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and other members across the way, because I think this is the kind of bill that we should have a considerable amount of debate on. In the past, we have had consensus in this House. One of the rare occasions we had consensus in the Pawley era from 19 81 to 19 88, was on Sunday shopping. One only has to recall what had happened. We had legislat ion, Mr.

Speak er, that had been struck down by the Charter of Rights that dated back to the original federal Lord's Day Amendment Act in 1905. What we did in this Legislature at the time is we discussed amongst the three parties in place at the time, a position that would reflect the consensu s of this Legislature . Indeed, we passed legislation that was supported by every memb er of this House. As a result of that process, the legislation I feel was a very excellent compromise, and I will get into some of the reasons for that later on. (Mr. Harold Neufeld, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) Well, Mr.

Acting Speaker, we are here today debating this issue because this government has chosen not to follow the consensus approach. I would say not only have they chosen not to follow a consensus approach within this Legisla ture, but I would say that they have chosen not to follow a consensus approach within their own caucus. In my comm ents today, what I want to do is talk about some of the things that this debate, Mr.

Acting Speaker, is not about and more specific ally what it is really all about, because I think that we are seeing some very significant signals on some very important issues, some very significant issues that are being raised by this gove rnment's actions rather than indeed by its own words in this House. The first thing, Mr. Acting Speak er, is, let us recognize what this debate is about. This debate is about Sunday wor king. It is about the degree to which the gove rnment is sanctio ning wide-open Sunday work.

I want to state that, because it is not accurate to say this issue is strictly one of Sunday openings. Under the legislation we currently have , we have Sunday openings that are allo wed in certain cases. People can buy groceries, or could before the government made unilateral changes that have expanded upon that original legislation . They could go to resta urants. They had access to essential services.

That was all part of the consensus approach that was developed by all parties of this House, that reflected I think the concern, at the time, of many people that there should be some reflection of the concerns of rural Manitobans, of small busin ess people and indeed of many working people. I hope that the member for Portage (Mr. Pallister) , a new memb er in this House, will look at some of

505 LEGISLATIVE ASS EM BLY OF MANIT OBA December 14, 19 92 the discussion that took place that Jed to this conse nsus, because I think he would do well to look at some of the underlying reasons why that consensus was adopt ed. The bottom line, Mr. Acti ng Speak er, is, this issue is about whether we are going to be sanc tioning wide-open Sunday working, with all its various conseq uences, or not. Let us deal with the second thing that this issue is not about. It is not about cross- border shopping.

Indeed, if it was about cross-border shopping a few weeks ago, I would suggest that if there are any memb ers acr oss the way who are going to base their decision on the argument that we have a problem with Sunday shopping, that the Sunday shopping problem is to do with cross-border shopping, that this is because of the availability of Sunday shopping and of the pull, of the attraction of shopping in the United States , I would suggest that memb ers look at The Globe and Mail today, as I speak, Monday, December 14 , 1992, the current edition, which states very clearly, the headline is: Cross-border shopping is CNer. * (1 450) Why, Mr.

Acting Spea ker, is that the case? Canadian and American retailers are citing a number of reaso ns. The falling dollar has reduced the price differential between U.S. and Canadian goods. The dollar was at 88 cents last year; it is cu rrently 78 cents. A crackdown by customs offi cials has resulted in more duty being paid and, as the initial rebellion over the GST has waned, what was once a trendy habit is no longer the thing to do. Mr. Acting Speake r, if the member for Portage (Mr.

Pallister) was listening, he would note that people have observed stati stically that the problem that had existed in te rms of cross-border shopping is no longer the significant problem it was because of the three reasons I outlined. The government is saying that it is introducing this legislation by and large because of cross-border shopper, when the facts show that because of the lower dollar, because of the other reasons I outlined, the problem is no longer as serious.

In fact, people are saying now that cross-border shopping has ret umed to its traditional level. pnte�ection) The member for Portage obviously has some difficulty in acce pting what is the clear indication. If the member for Port age is not aware what has happened with curren cies the last number of years, that that might lead to a slight disincentive to shop in the United States, I would suggest he look into his economics. If he is not aware of the impact the GST has had, he should look into his economics. If he is not aware what has been happening with customs officers, he should look into that fact, too, Mr.

Acti ng Speaker, because I find it interesting that the member, who is very vocal right now, has not been quite as active in the debate on this. We are anxiously awaiting the first speech of this member on a substantive bill. I would like to hear where he stands on this bill. I am sure the residents of the city of Portage would like to hear, Mr. Acting Speaker, and I sugges t that he might want to consider speaking on the bill, instead of simply speaking from his seat pnte�ection] Mr. Acting Speaker, I would be quite willing, if I could continue my remarks afterwards, to let the member for Portage Ia Prairie (Mr.

Pallister) have his speech now. I am quite willing to finish off my spee ch after his. pnte�ection] Does the memb er wish leave of the House to speak? Well, the memb er should realize t hat we all have the opportunity to speak for 40 minutes from our feet, and he has his opportunity right now if he wishes. We are dying to hear what he has to say on the issue of Sunday shopping.

We are dying to hear how much he has talked to his constituents in the city of Portage and how he ca n defend-and how any Conservative member can defend the kind of unilateral mCNe they have made, a bill they have introduced after they have already legalized it, a bill that probably will not even be passed until after this trial period is finished, how anyone on that side can actu ally talk about consultation with individuals in their constitu encies when they are so violating the democratic process by ramming through this bill. But it is not about cross-border shopping. Mr.

Acting Speaker, as I said, we are quite anxious to hear from many of the Conservative memb ers opposite , particularly mem bers from rural commu nities, what they have to say to the concems tha t have been expr es sed by many rur al communities about this particular legislati on. As I said, Mr. Acting Speaker, the problem with cross -borde r shopping that this government, in fact the minister himself in his opening comments, refe renced so significantly as being a factor, by the very basis of statistics that we are seeing now is no

December 14, 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 506 longer the great factor. The minister, by the way, on page 392 of Hansard, said, it will help stem the flow of some spending by Manitobans to the U.S. markets. So it is not about cross-border shopping. If that was the orig inal decision of this gov ernment strictly on that basis, they should recognize the reality of what is happening in terms ofthe economy.

Well, let us talk about some other things that this issue is not about, because I found it rather interesting that a number of mem bers opposite, in their speeches, said that they did not want to see politics on this issue and then spent quite a great part of their speeches talking not only about politics but bringing in the usual Conservative approach on issues such as this, attac king labour leaders, attacking the NDP. I suppose that is to be expected . This government has, on this issue, broken away from the nonpartisan approach that had been adopted pre viously. I do find it rather unfortunate , Mr.

Acting Speaker, because I think what is happening essenti ally is that this gove rnment, in its anxiousness to jus tify this bill, which has to probably be passed under the normal course of events with which we deal with any legislation in this House, not until aft er the trial period is over, that they are going to great lengths to try and justify what is clearly a unilateral action on their part. As I said, Mr.

Acting Speaker, if they want to attack us or attack the leadership of the labour movement on these issues, they had better realize that it is not just the New Democrats in this House who have spoken on this issue who are expressing the concerns on Sunday shopping. It is not just the labour movement. It is the Manitoba Chamber of Commer ce. It is many people who are concerned in society about the impact of this particu lar bill. There is a broad number of people who have expressed concern over Sunday shopping.

Indeed, there are many Manitobans who supp ort it, but it is a concern that is broad-based on those who do oppose it and have many concerns which I do share . I want to say, Mr. Acting Speaker, that the fourth thing this bill is not about is all the buzzwords that the Conservative mem bers seem to have adopted as of late . They talk about •new." They talk about "innovative ." I notice they have spliced in now the word "choice." It is interesting how we are seeing Conservatives in this House so active proponents of unfettered Sunday shopping that they used the word "choice,"

whereas on ot her issues they do not seem to have the same affinity for the concept of choice. I was particularly struck by some of the references to some of these buzzwords, Mr. Acting Speaker, that have been creeping into speeches, in this case on Sunday shopping. The member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), in trying to justify the shift to Sunday shopping, talked about adapting to change, about the winds of change are upon us. We are in the '90s now. He even went so far as to suggest, I think the legislation as proposed is visionary , people have the fr eedoms.

He even talked about the Great Wall of China and the Soviet Union with the heavy legislation that is there . I quote, we know what happened with the Great Wall of China; we know what happened with the Soviet Union with the heavy legislation that is there . People have to have the free doms, free dom, freed om, freedom . It sounds like a Monty Python skit that I remember. Freedom to what? Is the member seriously com paring Sunday shopping legislation in Manitoba to legislation in the Soviet Union and China?

Is the member seriously saying that those who are arguing for the maintenance of the current legislat ion, those who are concerned for whatever reaso ns, whether it be the working people, the rural merchants, in fact, many religious leaders, are they supp orting legislation that we have seen in the Soviet Union and China? We may all get carried away at times. Hyperbole is not exac tly un kno wn in this legislature, but let us get serious, Mr. Acting Speaker.

When we are talking about Su nday shopping, we should not be throwing out these broad pictures, these word pictures thatthe member opposite is trying to create . * (1 500) I want to quote some of the other things that the member said, because I think this is an interesting view of what the vision of the government is. The member said in his speech that, and this is a quote, this is the time-;ve are talking about Sunday-when families can share the time with their children and go out and window shop. Is this the vision of the Conser vative government, freedom to window shop?

Is this keeping up with the change, that this is a time when families can share the time with their children and go out and window shop? Mr. Acting Speaker, if this is what the government has in its own mind as a vision, I think we are seeing just how shallow that vision is.

507 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA December 14, 19 92 So it is not about a vision; it is not about change in the '90s. What it is, is about a very conscious policy dec ision that was made after some discussion in the Co nservative caucus and that reflects a number of factors that were made. It is not about that-and I referenced this already as the memb ers opposite saying this is about choice-this is about unfettered choice. We have regulations in regard to em ployment standards, a number of issues, a wide variety of issues.

We are seeing greater pressure now, particularly in ligh t of the increasing number of two-parent families in the work force, single parents . We are seeing increa sing pressure on analysis of em ployment standards legislation, particularly for those who do not have the benefits of a union contract, because many union contracts will have as part of the fabric, part of the wor ding, part of the legality of those contracts , specific pro tection of cert ain em ployment rights on behalf of the em ployees and certa in clear agreements between the em ployer and emp loyee in terms of em ployment st andards.

What we are talking about in the case of this bill is something that particularly affects those who do not have the benefits of a union contract. It is not just in terms of Sunday shopping that we make these kind of decision s. We make them in a whole series of other em ployment issues, whether it be in terms of vaca tions, for ex ample. We have requirements that em ployees receive a minimum of two weeks a year. If one runs through The Employment Standards Act , we have requirements in terms of em ployment standards, for example, with female em ployees working late .

We have req uirements in terms of working alone. We have a whole series of requir ements. (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acti ng Speaker, in the Chair) This bill incidentally amends The Employment Standards Act. It directly relates to em ployment st andards. It is a bill that affects the em ployment standards related to Sunday working. It is a Sunday-working bill, and to talk in that way of unfettered choice that the mem bers opposite have talked about, for example, the member for Niakwa (Mr.

Reime r)-and I was rea ding his speech earlier-thumbs down to the old adage that the people and the market are dictating a choice, Mr. Acting Speaker. We do not accept that on many issues. (interjection] Well, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) says we are against. I will tell you what we are against. The dictation of choice in ways in this case are not really choice for the people who are forced to work on a Sunday.

I will get to that one later in my remarks because this is going to lead, no matter how this gove rnment phrases the de bate on this bill, no matter how they try and spin sections of this bill, this is going to lead, in fact, has already led to pe ople not having a real choice about whether they work on Sunday. So there are a lot of things that this is not about. It is not about whether there will be any Sunday openings or not because we have a compromise in place already. It is not about cross-border shopping, or at least it should not be given the latest evidence.

It is not about t he kind of debates we often have in this House whe re people tend to want to pit one group in society against another in terms of the labour movement, for example. It is not about change, innovation, a vision, and it is not about choice. What is it about, Mr. Acting Speaker? What is this discuss ion, this deb ate, all about? Let us look where the pressure for Sunday shopping, Sunday working on a wide-open basis is coming from .

We have hear d many comm ents in debate from member s opposite talking about the great demand there was for Sunday shopping, how they were responding to the public's demand, I think was the word used by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McA lpine). There were references I note also in the s pee ch from the Minis ter of Indus try, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stef anson), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) about this great public demand. I have regular office hours , I visit my constituents on a regular basis, and do you know how many calls I have had on Sunday sh opp ing?

You guessed it, I have had exactly one in 11 years up to the introduction of this bill, Mr. Acting Speaker. Mr. Harold Neufeld (R ossm ere): Which way did they go? Mr. Ashton: For the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld), I got a call once from somebody who wanted wide-open Sunday shopping. I will be right up front , Mr. Acting Speaker, one call, one phone call in 11 years on Sunday shopping. I look at other memb ers in this House. The member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), how many phone calls has he received in the two years he has been

December 14, 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 508 here? None. The memb er for Burrows (Mr. Martindale)? None. The member for Flin Ron (Mr. Stor ie), how many calls have you received? None. The member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), how many calls did you receive on Sunday? Two. Ah, wait a sec . The member for Dauphin received 200 percent the number of calls that I have received . Double, and they are both against. Well, now it is running two to one against. The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) on the Liberal benches, how many calls did he receive? Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster) : Leave me out of this. Mr.

Ashton: He wants to be left out of this. Okay. The way the Liberals are going, Mr. Acting Speaker, they do not have to ask to be left out of things; the people are leaving them out on an increasing basi s. Mr. Lamoureux: I will let you know by next week. Mr. Ashton: Yes, well, we are anxiously awaiting the member for Inkster's (Mr. Lamoureux) speech. We will see how this fits in his leadership platfo rm. We always look forward to his speeches. But, quite honestly, how many member s opposite have had any difference of experience from members on our side in terms of this being an issue?

How many calls have member s opposite received prior to this becoming an issue? Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs): The same as afterwards . Mr. Ashton: Mr. Acting Speaker, I think the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downe y), tongue in cheek, with a large element of truth there says, the same as afte rwards. The same as before, the same as afte r, we will see what happens in terms of this issue, but I think if he goes a step further, he will also acknowledge that he has not exactly received dozens of phone calls and letters and people demanding that Sunday shopping be made wide open in Manitoba.

Indeed , that was the case. We had a com prom is e . We had a conse nsus . It was su pported by the three parties in this House, and while not everybody in the pro vince was happy with that legislation, by and large there were no significant demands for it to be changed so it was not coming from the people. I know the minister respo nsible for Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Stefanson) will say, well, we ran a survey and it showed that 50 percent were in favour and 43 percent were against . Well, we know they are running surveys. We know they have probably done that on NAFT A.

We saw these great Tori es oppose NAFTA, to which I could just say, yeah, right, or in the terminology of a recent movie, the Tories opp osed NAFTA-n ot. If the Conservatives want to trot out, they have run a survey on this, and they have run a survey on that. What other surveys do they want to bring out? An Honourable Member: They ran a survey on trade and found out people do not like it. Mr. Ashton: Well, in fact they ran a survey on trade indeed, and they found out people do not like it.

I am sure the next step for this govern ment is they are going to retroac tively oppose the U.S-Canada Free Trade Agr eement, which they supported, because now, since they have run a survey showing people are against it, they are going to listen to the people of Manitoba. Well, Mr. Acti ng Speaker, is that the ex tent of the vi sion of this Co nser vative gove rnment, the latest poll they can run? Is that the essential basis on which they are making their decision, because you know I think in this House we mig ht also all want to reflect on how fickle polls can be. Does anyone remember the refer end um?

I think most memb ers in this House do. I seem to recall a poll showing the vast majority of Canadians suppor ti ng the Ch arlottetown accord, and regardless of whether we are on the one side or the other side of the issue, Mr. Acting Speaker, we saw what happened when people sat down, looked at the information and made their decisions. The result was a dramatic change in polls. That is the problem when you make decisions based on opinion polls. You make decisions that are based often on a quick reaction from people without necessary full exposure to the facts.

In a lot of cas es, you get a reaction that is changeable; it may change dramatically before you are finished. Mr. Ac ting Speaker, when I look at this Conser vative go vernment of Manitoba, the supposed heirs to the John Diefenbaker's, he had some rather graphic descri ptions of his use for polls, which I do not even know if I can repeat in this House. In fact, I know I cannot repeat it. He had some very graphic descriptions of what he saw the only use for polls were. Indeed, I already asked the gov ernment, is this how they make decisions now, they run a poll?

Is this how they decide issues such as this, on polls? I suspect that it is very much the case .

509 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA December 14, 19 92 * (151 0) It obviously was not a poll that was run other than after they decided th ey were going to look at this issue, so that is not even the reason. It may be a rationale; it may be an excuse, but it is not a reason . Why would the Cons ervative government change legislation that has been in place for a number of years , that was supported on a consensus basis by all the members of this House? Well, they got lobbied and who did they get lobbied by? Let us look at who was concerned about the prev ious legislation.

I say, previous because it is sti ll in force, but it is being ignored by this provincial gove rnment. It was the large department st ores; it was the large grocery stor es; it was from pressure from some of the malls in Winnipeg. The Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce lobbied for the openings. Mr. Acting Speake r, was it the entire busi ness communi ty? No. In f act, the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce is overwhelmingly against the actions of this gove rnment. So when it came to looking, obviously-{interjection) What I am saying to the Deputy Premier (Mr.

Downey) is that he and his colleagues in government have ignored the rural com mu nities in this particular case and have listened to the lobbying from some of the major stores in Winnipeg. Well, was it from all the businesses in Wimipeg? Are all the busi nesses in Winnipeg supportive of what has happene d? No. Once agai n, the pressure is primarily from the large businesses that were not able to open on Sunday, so I say department stores and large grocery stores. So we have a lobby. Was it from the labour movement? No. The labour movemen t has been very clear on its position on this.

Was it from em ployees at the stores the mselves that lobbied for this? No. The em ployees working in the stores did not lobby on this particular issue. So a very narrowly focused lobby put its pressure on the gover nment. The government had a discussion over about a year. I imagine they probably had some he ated and lengthy discussions. When it came to making a decision, what did they decide? Well, they did two things. They decided to listen to the Winnipeg large businesses, and perhaps, the Winnipeg Chamber of Comm erce.

They decided to igno re the Manitoba Chamber of Comm erce and many rural comm unities that expressed concerns about this. They decided to ignore the concerns of the labour movement. They decided to ignore the concerns of others who have expressed concern about this issue, many religious groups, et cetera. So they made a decisi on. That is the first thing they did in the political process, and it was based again on some very intensive and very narrowly focused lobbying. Mr.

Ac tin g Speak er, something that this gove rnment is particularly vulnerable to, and we have heard it on other issu es, whether it be this issue or Autopac, where we increasingly see who this government represents in this House and how it makes its decisions. It is based on those who can get to this gove rnment and, indeed, some people did get and others did not. There is another thing about the political process that this is about as well, and you know , Mr. Acting Speaker, it has been raised by a number of members in this House. It is about the cynical way in which this bill has been introduced.

I cannot think of anything more cynical than introducing a bill in what is a limited three-week session-end this is something we have moved increasingly to is a fall and a winter sitting-but we had an agreement that said this sitting will go no longer than four weeks, and the government chose to have a sitt ing of three weeks. So they introduce the bill which is a dramatic change from the past , breaks not only from the kind of legislation we have that may have been of support or opposed by different sides, but breaks from a consensus from all parties In this House.

They introduce it, knowing full well that the throne speech takes eight days worth of debate. The end result is, how many days of debate do we end up having in this House on this bill, maximum in this sitt ing, let alone the fact that we have other bills that are before us? Seven days. Seven days, is that not interesting? Now what is likely to happen? Well, we are adjourning on the 16 th. That is by the gove rnmenfs decision but based on an or iginal agreement. We are going to be back sometime in March. The final date has not been finalized. So given the limited amount of time available, surprise, surprise, Mr.

Acting Speaker, it might appear that this bill was introduced with the full knowledge that it certainl y was not going to pass through second reading in this part of the sitting. I want to go a little bit further. I suspect that even member s opposite know ther e would be a

December 14, 19 92 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 51 0 considerable amount of public presentation on this bill, so I think somehow along the way, somehow at the inkling, this bill might not pass by the 16 th, interes tingly. Then there is a gap. We are back in March somet ime. This is a tempo rary measure. Is it not interesting how immediately we take a chunk of time off this trial period? Knowing the way in which we proceed in this House with our compulsory hearings, I wonder if someone across the way actu ally sat down and said, oh, is this not interesti ng?

We can introduce this bill, and by the time it ever really gets to a vote , the trial period is over. Oh, no. Mr. Acting Speaker, why would they want to do that? Might it be due to the fact that some member s opposite might not support this? Is it not perhaps that those memb ers who are not in support of this might have an easier time not voting against it if the trial period had already happened? Is that not interesti ng? Talk about cynical politics.

Introduce a bill that has been brought in unilaterally, no support from other sides of the House, and then have it come in retroactive no matte r when it is passed . Mr. Acti ng Speak er, sounds awfully Machiavellian to me, and I would say when I look across the way, no one is going to be fooled about the strate gy of this gov ernment on this bill. They knew this right from the start. There is no intention of seeing this bill passed before the trial period is pretty close to over, if not completel y over.

The Conservatives know that, we know that, and it is one thing that the people of Manitoba would be interested to know. So indeed it is about the political process. But, Mr. Acting Speaker, people will say we bring in retroactive legislation on other matte rs. We do on budgetary matters, but I want to paint the scenario for you because I think this has all been thought through. It is no news to any member s on the Tory benches. What if when this bill finally comes to a vote , it is voted down? [interjection] Good question, indeed. Mr. Acting Speaker, what are we going to do?

Are we going to retroac tively enforce the law? Are we going to charge those that stayed open when it was under the old law? Are we going to ask shoppers to return their merchandise? I mean, the absurdity of bringing in retroact ive legislation under the very cynical planning they have in terms of the agenda. I mean, let us get serious-cynicism supreme. Now, mem bers opposite will say, we ll, this gove rnment brought in retroactive legislation on this or that gove rnment brought in retroactive legisla tion on that. Mr.

Acting Speaker, if they want me to say on the record that I believe this kind of retroactive legislation, as cynically timetabled as it is, is wrong and it does not matter who brings it in, what kind of gove rnment, I will do so. It is wrong . It is cynical, and I find it is particularly distasteful given the fact that on this particular legislation, we have had consensus in the past. In fact, the Deputy Prem ier (Mr.

Downey) will re memb er well discussions that took place at the time and the consensus that exis ted at the time the current legislation was brought in in response to the court ruling on the Charter of Rights. * (1 520) So this is cynical politics , Mr. Acting Speaker, and the cynicism is not just a question of running opinion polls and making decisions. It is not just a question of deciding on behalf of the Winnipeg Chamber of Comm erce and the heck with everybody else.

It is bringing in a bill retroa ctive ly that you know is probably not even going to be voted upon until after the fact, so that you do not have to face the em barrassing prospect of having some of your own memb ers not only vote against this bill but pot entially defeat it as well. So it is cynical politics of the worst kind. Let us go a little bit further and look at what this de bate is all about.

Let us talk about the rural-u rban issue, because I find it interesting that sometimes members opposite on this bill are getting into some rather twisted logic, to say the least. [interjection] Well, the memb er for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) is commenting here, Mr. Acti ng Speaker. I am glad he is doing that because it is interes ting, he said two things in his speech. He said that we need this bill to deal with people going to the United State s, cross-border shopping.

But when he dealt with the question of the rural commu nity's concern that it is going to take business out of the rural commu nities and bring it into the city of Winnipeg, you know what he said? He said, Manitobans for the most part are loyal to their communities. He is saying they are not loyal when it comes to cross-border shopping, but they are loyal when it

51 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA December 14, 19 92 comes to shopping between the rural areas and the urban areas. Mr. Ac ting Speake r, you can argue it one way, you can argue it the other, but you cannot argue it both ways. If people are loyal to their commun ities in terms of this, I think you are going to see the illogic of what is going to happen. In fact, I think if you look at what the member opposite should reflect upon, it is the fact that in many cases, if you look at the factors in terms of visits to the United State s, you have to include the question of geographic proximity.

My constituents in Thompson do not drive to the United States for Sunday shopping. Why? Because they are too far away. Mr. Acti ng Speaker , the real concern in the rural communities is in term s of co mmunities that are far closer to the city of Winnipeg than the United States shopping centres are t o those communities, indeed to the city of Winnipeg. If you look at the logic of it, if you are half an hour away from the city of Winnipeg and you live in a rural communi ty, it is more likely that you are going to cr oss from the rural to the urban areas to shop.

In the case of the Americans, it is further away even then, so if the argum ent can be made that anyone is likely to shop outside of their commun ity, it is mos t likely going to be those communi ties within a close proximity of Winnipeg. You cannot argue it both ways. You have to be very careful in terms of the arguments you use, not just in terms of debate in this House, but becau se it is important in terms of the policy decision th at you make. When you say no to the rural commu nities and the concerns expressed by them and the rural cham bers of commerce, Mr.

Actin g Speaker, you better have your facts right. You bett er have your arguments right, because I have yet to hear any persuasive evidence from members opposite , any persuasive argumen ts in terms of the concer ns being expressed by rural businesses. I want to point out in terms of the rural-urban concerns that the concern is expressed even in northern Manitoba. I had the opportunity to attend an event this weekend sponsored by many local businesses and the cha mber of commerce. I can tell you, Mr.

Acting Speaker, many people in Thompson, many small business owners and operators are opposed to Sunday shoppi ng, because we have the same sort of situation that develops. Woolco, the major department sto re, opens up. There is pressure on everybody to open up in the mall. If they do not open up-we have two malls in Thomps on somebody else will open up in the other mall. They will lose business. It puts pressure on people. You know, the argumen t of many of those small communities has been that it costs money, Mr. Acting Speaker, to open on that additional day.

It will not pay, whatever additional busi ness, if any will be received. There is another issue, as well, and it is a question of work and family. I will be continuing to raise these concerns at comm ittee and in terms of third reading. What this bill is going to do is it is not going to adequately protect those who do not want to work on a Sunday. Just talk to people who work in stores where they are having to work now on Sunday.

Most people I have talked to said they do not trust, in any kind of legislation-to stop an employer from saying, well, you have redu ced hours now, nothing to do with the fact you will not work on a Sunday, but you have reduced hours. Indeed. Nothing to stop an em ployer from saying, we are firing you for another reason, you are an unsuitable employee for this, that or the other re ason, nothing to do with the fact that you will not work on Sunday. People do not believe that, Mr. Acting Speaker. That is what this issue is about.

It is about listening to the concerns of workers, because that is a real issue, Sunday working. I would ask how many people, really, if they were asked a question , if they were going to have to work on a Sunday, how their response would be in this House. It is a question of work and family, about allowing greater family time and still prov iding the essential services that people demand. It is about fairness for small businesses, for businesses in rural northern communities, and I would say about economics, too. It does not make sense.

Let not this gove rnmen t i n its haste to jus tify its cynical political moves fool anyone with the kind of arguments that it has brou ght forward today. Let us see what the member s opposite have to say and let us see, Mr. Acting Speaker , when this bill does come to vote how they will vote . I will be voting no on this bill, and I will be fighting on behalf of the many working people and the many small businesses in my community who also are saying no. Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimll): Mr.

Acting Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to put on the record a few remarks regarding Bill 4, The Retail Businesses Sunday Shopping (Temporary Amendments) Act.

December 14, 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 512 It really should not be called the Sunday shopping act, because, although it is called that, all it does is change the number of employees that a store can have on a Sunday. The Sunday shopping act has been in effect since 1983 since the former government brought it in. It really does not change the fact the stores can still be open. (inte�ection) •n, was it? Okay. All the new amendmen ts really say is that these stores that are presently open or that could be open, they can open on Sunday, and they can have as many em ployees as they want. Mr.

Acting Speaker, I think this is a step in the right direction . Although I do respect the calls and the letters I have had from some of my constitu ents from the Sto newall area, I really believe that trying to limit the number of em ployees that an em ployer has goes against everyth ing we believe in. In no other business do we try to limit the number of em ployees a business has. Why should we do it in the retail sector? Also, there are oth er reasons. By limiting the number to four you are certai nly going to encourage shoplifting. I listened to the memb er for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) there.

He did not really say much other than I guess he really encourages shoplifting. I think that is what they really are trying to encourage over there. How can stores such as Safeway, SuperVal u, Canadian Tire operate with four em ployees? It is just not reaso nable. I realize that certainly the large stores do seem to attract customers, but that is what they are there for. They are there to serve the people. If people want to come to their stores on Sunday, they should be able to sell them something and not keep them in line for an hour, or an hour and ahaH. Mr.

Acting Speaker, I think that is one of the reasons why I su pport this bill, even though some of my constituents are against it. I have had more calls from people in my constitu ency, from the areas of Highways 8 and 9, from the Petersfi eld, Clandeboye areas, Winnipeg Beach , Matlock, saying why do they have to go to a Safeway store and stand in line for an hour and a half on a Sunday. I think that is ridiculous in this day and age. That is certainly no way that businesses should be allo wed to operate . If they want to have more em ployees, they should be able to have as many em ployees as they want to.

Just think of the number of jobs it is going to create-even in Dauphin. Safeway has a store in Dauphin. I bet they have more than four employees on Sunday-{inte�ection] Because the business is there. People want to spend their money. They want to shop on a Sunday. Pnterjection) Well, that is fine. That is good, whatever. I think there are some benefits, certainly the fact that the larger stores will be hiring more empl oyees for this part-ti me help or whate ver. It will give university students an opportunity to earn some extra money, to work on Sundays, to work on holidays and things of that nature.

This has been the case for many years. It is not something new. I think it is probably a step in the right direct ion. I did have a number of calls, Mr. Acti ng Speaker, and some letters from some of the businesses in my communi ties closest to Winnipeg, such as Stony Mountai n and Stonewall. I certainly respect their views. I think the business people in Stonewall have handled this very, very well. In fact, a week after this came in they had a meeting. They had 20 retailers there.

Out of those 20 ret ailers, 18 agreed that rather than opening their own stores such as the hardware stores and things of that nature on Sunday, they would open on a Thursday and a Friday evening until nine o'clock. * (1 530) Mr. Acting Speak er, I think this certainly makes sense. It makes sense to me, and it makes sense to a lot of people who commut e back and forth to work in Winnipeg and other com munities. This would give those people who get home by six o'clock or seven o'clock in the evening an opportunity to do their shopping locally. This makes more sense than opening their stores even on a Sunday.

Even in St onewall, there are two major grocery stores that have been open on a Sunday for many years actu ally. It is not something new. So as a convenience they are available for people who want to do their grocery shopping on Sunday. I think the Stonew all Chamber of Commerce and the Sto new all mer cha nts have acted ve ry responsi bly by opening on Thursday and Friday evenings. I think that was a positive move on their part, and I want to commend them for their actions. Just one experience I had, my wife and I, a week last Sunday, had company coming for supper.

We were, after church, on our way home and we stopped at the local grocery store to buy some

51 3 LEGISLA TIVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA December 14, 19 92 things, even thoug h I do not necessarily go shopping on a Sunday, but oftentimes we take advantage of the conv enience of the store if it is open, that we can do that. pnterjection] Well, at least you can go in and get out; you do not have to stand in line for an hour. They can have as many em ployees as they want to. Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Oh, come on, you are taking the business away from them. You are going to end up closi ng those convenience stores that you are talking about. Those are the ones that are going to close. Mr.

Helwer: The member for Dauphin is saying it is going to affect the small convenience stores. I do not believe so. The convenience stores are open probably from seven in the morning until 11 at night seven days a week, and they are there for people who want to buy things, bread, milk, cigarettes or whatev er at any time, so those are there. Mr. Acting Speaker, I think there are many businesses and many service industries- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Order, please.

Could I have the honourable mem bers wanting to carry on a conversation across the floor move Into the loge and continue there, so that we can hear the honourable member for Gimli. Mr. Helwer: Mr. Acti ng Speaker, I was going to men tion that there are many other businesses and many other services that have to be open on a Sunday and people who have to work on Sunday. The airports are an example. There are planes flying seven days a week, 24 hours a day, the trucking industry, many industries that have to be open seven days a we ek, 24 hours a day to off er the services that people req uire.

I have been in business for about 29 years ac tually in Manitoba and I know that when people want to buy something, you had better have your doors open and be p repared to sell it and offer people a service a�inte�ection] That is right. They do not want to stand in line an hour and a half at Safeway stores or SuperVal u or whatever the case may be. Even though I have some reserva tions, I certainly support this and support the business com munity at Stonewal l which has acted very responsi bly.

I think the hours of between noon and five on a Sunday of the bigger stores are not going to affe ct the smaller stores surrounding Winnipeg. Also, I should mention that I realize t he malls are now opening on Sun day also. That giv es those stores an opportu nity to make their bu sinesses available, the people there, the stores in those malls, to make them available to their cus tomers. If their customers want to come in on a Sunday, they should be there and open if they want to. H they do not want to, that is their privilege. They do not have to open on a Sunday.

They are not being forced to open, but 11- An Honourable Member: This is a very temporary measure, a trial period. Mr. Helwer : It is a trial pe riod, and we will see. Many of the calls that I received from my constituents in the areas of Clandeb oye and Petersfleld who do their sho pping in Selkirk and also in some of the large stores along McPhillips, the Highway No. 8 people who drive back and forth every day, some of them do their shopping, they appreciate the fact that they can now go into their place of busin ess on a Sunday afte rnoon and do not have to stand in line to wait for an hour and a half or more.

That was really a deterrent that people were very unhappy with. I think this governm ent has taken a com mo n-sense approach to this, Mr. Acting Speaker. I think our Minister of I, T and T (Mr. Stefanson) has acted responsibly by bringing in the bill, that is a retail businesses amendments act, to give the hour busine ss a n opportunity to see whether the Sunday shoppi ng is an option which they want to continue. After the five-month period we should be able to tell whether we will continue with this or not. Mr. Acting Speaker, those are my remarks, and I appreciate the opportu nity to putthem on the record .

Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leeder of the Second Opposition): Mr. Acting Spe aker, I am deli ghted to rise at this particular momen t and speak on Bill 4. First of all, I would like to begin by saying what this bill is not, and then I will deal with what the bill is. First of all, Sunday shopping is not going to do, with the greatest respect to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tou rism (Mr. Ste fanson), some of the things that he and his collea gues would like to say it is going to do. First of all, it is not going to stop cross-border shopp ing.

I think we have to recognize that cross-border shopping is a phenomena that we will live with each time the dollar value gets to such a

December 14, 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 51 4 level that it becomes a means by which families can stretch their incomes. If they feel that they are getting bargains south of the border because our dollar is higher or very high in comparison to the American dollar, then they will go south of the border. They will also use it as a form of recrea tion. This is a trip for a weekend purpose or perhaps longer, and they will shop when they are off on this weekend excursion. So it is not going to stop cross-bord er shopping.

The only way you are going to stop cros s-border shopping is for Canadians to make a commitment to buy Canadian or for Canadians to feel that the bargains are bette r here at ho me. Certa inly, we have seen that happen as the dollar has red uced in value from some 87 cents U.S. to some 78 cents U.S. This has resulted in fewer people crossing the border and, therefore , a reduction in the amount of cross- border shoppin g. There are also mor e and more Canadians, I think, who are becom ing concerned about the whole concept of buying Canadian. I hope so.

I hope they are recognizing that there is a need for Canadians to sti mulate their own economy and to shop here at home. The closer you are, of course , to the border, as the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) pointed out, the mo re li kely you are to engage in cross- border shoppin g. If you get far enough away that the tra vel becom es ludicrous in terms of saving any money, then you will not engage in cross-bord er shopping.

If the minister wants to be truly honest with the people of this provi nce, I do not think that he should sell the whole conce pt of Sunday shopping as a means by which he is going to prevent cross-border shopping. The second argument which I think is a fallacy about this particular piece of legislation is that it is somehow or other going to sti mulate the economy, that it is going to get people to spend more money than they would spend in the stores at the present time. I think it is not a very realistic scenario, Mr. Acting Speaker.

Families have so many dollars to spend and leaving the stores opened on a Sunday, I would suggest to you, will mean that they will choose not to shop on the Wednesday night or not to shop on the Monday morning or not to shop on the Saturday afternoon, but they will not spend any more dollars, because they do not have any more dollars to spend. So there is another argumen t that I do not consider valid for the purposes of changing the Sunday shopping legislatio n. • (1 540) There is only one reason, in my opinion, to change the legislation and that is because of lifest yle.

The reality is that lifestyles of Manitobans are changing. I do not shop on Sundays. I do not make any great deliber ate choice because the stores are open or not open, not to shop on Sundays. I do not shop on Sundays because Sundays are one of the few days that, if I am not atte nding an event, I actu ally can spend with my husband. The last thing that my husband wants to do is to go shopping and I must admit I share that-about the last thing I want to do is go shopping.

When my housekeeper worked full time as the children were small, I must admit that that was one of the things I was del ighted that she would do for me. So she went off every Thursday and brought groceries. I thought that was heave n, that somebody else would ac tually do the grocery shopping. One of the disadvantages of my announcing my re tirement, I have to say, Mr. Acting Speaker, is that my husband has been doing some of that grocery shopping late ly and I think that when I have more time, the fing er is going to point at somebody else to do some of that shopping every now and then.

Darn it all, I just about had it made in terms of not having to do this grocery shopping. The reality is that if I never had to enter a store , I would be delighted, but I also recognize that I am not at a stage of life where I am any longer a typical family. My daughters are in their twent ies. If they want anything, not only are they capable of getting it for themselves, but they are probably more interested in getting it for the mselves because their tastes are different from my tas te.

I think of the small young f amily, the single-parent mother or the family with yo ung children who may choose to shop on a Sunday because it is a valid time for them. It is also an opportunity for them to spend time togeth er, because some families do choose to spend time together in this particular way. I do not understand that, but I can accept the fact that they choose to spend their family time that way. Now there are those who will argue, look the stores are open late at night. They are open all day Saturday. There are plenty of hours in the week in which people can shop.

Well, that is easier said than done. I spoke with a few single-parent moms

515 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA December 14, 19 92 over the last few weeks, and I asked them about their days and why they found Sunday shopping appealing. They are up at 6:30 in the morning on an average . By the time they have fed breakfast to the children, they have them dressed , they have dropped them at child care centres or they have made sure that they are at a before-school centre, they go off to work. They work all day. They pick the children up at five o'clock, sometimes 5:30. They get the children home. They prepare dinner. They make lunches for the next morning's activ ities.

They get clothes ready for the children to wear. They do not have the time or the energy to go shopping in the evenings. So for them , the Saturday has become the only day of the week where it is realistic for them to shop, but that is also often the day when their child or children are involved in a myriad of activiti es, be they swimming lessons or perhaps they are taking ballet lessons or perhaps there is a socce r practice or a hockey game, all of which they want to share with their children. So the Sunday becomes that afte rnoon when they can go and participate and shop. (Mr.

Speaker in the Chair) The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) raised the argument about the wonderful old legislati on. Well, personally I thought the old legislation was asinine. I mean, quite fr ankly, how can you say that a piece of legislation which tells me that I can go to Safeway on Sunday but I cannot go to SuperValu is a good piece of legislati on? How can you tell me that it is perfectly acceptable to go to Shopper's and buy Christmas lights and Christmas balls and tinsel and anything else I could poss ibly want, but I cannot go and buy my children a pair of running shoes?

If that was a good piece of legislation, then, Mr. Speak er, I have to tell you that I do not understand goodness in that kind of inequality of what people can and cannot do. Now there are other aspects, however, of Sunday shopping that also have to be dealt with. There are individuals-{inte�ection] Yes, I do, and I raised some comments about the fact that I thought it was better than what we had but still was very unfair and iniquitous. The reality of this situation, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a good counterset of arguments to be made.

I think it is appropria te to make those counterar gumen ts, because this is really what we are doing in this case. We are balancing a series of argu ments. Certainly, there is the argument of those who belie ve that Sunday should be a day of wor ship, that it sho u ld be a day of family experiences. They obviously do not include shopping as one of those family activities. They feel passionately about this particular day of rest. It is a valid argu ment from their perspective. However, I think it is true to say that nobody is forcing those families to go and shop on Sunday, but they have a valid argument.

It also has to be raised , howev er, that there are many religious groups that, quite frankly, do not cele brate Sunday as their day of rest. They celebrate Friday or they celebr ate Saturday. They have had to cope for decades with the fact that stores and businesses function on their so-ca lled Sabbath or their day of rest. We are becoming a far more multi religious society, and I think we have to recognize that. Having said that, it is a valid argument for people on that side of the case to make.

The other argumen t which, quite frankly, I am much more sensitive to than that one is the issue of people who will be forced to work, ther

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-4-13a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 4th hansardpdf 13a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a4ef67cbae3b230987c9bb006c6831d227ecd875

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