Manitoba Hansard — 11 December 1992 (Sitting 12, 35th Legislature, 4th Session)

35-4-12

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session - Thirty-Fifth Legis lature 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. 12 ·10 a.m., FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1992 Printed by the Office of the o.-n � Printer. Province of Manitoba ISSN 0542-5492

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

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clay ton , Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PALLISTER, Brian PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann Vacant CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Welli ngton 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 Wol seley St. Boniface Mimedosa Crescentwood Gimli Point Douglas Inkster The Pas St. Norbert Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Rossmere Pembina Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Ain FJon 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

462 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Friday, December 11,1992 The House met at 10 a.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Lisa Fournier, Michael Dyck, Tom Fagan and others urging the government of Manitoba to pass the necessary legislation/r egula tions which will restrict stubble burning in the prov ince of Manitoba. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honou rable member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) .

It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read ? [agreed) The petition of the undersigned residents of the prov ince of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS the principles of health care , namely the universality and comprehensiveness, should apply to the Pharmacare program ; and

WHEREAS the Pharm acar e progra m's effectiv eness is being eroded ; and

WHEREAS in the most recent round of delisting of pharmaceuticals, appro ximately 200 have been delisted by the government of Manitoba; and

WHEREAS the strict subm ission deadl ine for Pharmac are receip ts does no t take in to consideration extenuating circumstances which may have affected some people; and

WHEREAS pharmaceutical refunds often take six weeks to reach people; and

WHEREAS a health "smart card" would provide information to reduce the risk of orde ring drugs which inte ract or are ineffective , could eliminate "double prescri bing," and co uld also be used to purchase pharmaceuticals on the Pharmacare program, thereby easing the cash burden on purchasers.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Asse mbly urge the gove rnmen t of Manitoba to consider taking the necessary steps to reform the Pharmacare syste m to maintain its comprehensive and universal nature, and to implemen t the use of a health •smart card." *** I have reviewed the petition of the honourable Leader of the second opposition party (Mrs. Carsta irs). It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read ? [agreed) To the Legislature of the pro vince of Manitoba

WHEREAS each year smok e from stubble burning descends upon the province of Manitoba; and

WHEREAS the Parents Support Group of Children with As thma has long criticized the harmful effects of stu bble burning; and

WHEREAS the smoke caused from stubble burning is not healthy for the general public and tends to aggravate the problems of as thma sufferers and people with chronic lung problems; and

WHEREAS altern ative practices to stubble burning are necessitated by the fact that the smoke can place some people in life-threat ening situations; and

WHEREAS the 1987 Clean Environment Comm ission Re port on Public Hearings, "Investigation of Smoke Problems from Agriculture Crop Residue and Peatland Burning," cont ained the recom mendation 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 regul atory control . THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Ass emb ly will urge the gov ernment of Ma nitoba to pass the neces sary legislation/regula tions which will restrict stubble burning in the prov ince of Manitoba.

463 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11 , 1992 TABUNG OF REPORTS Hon. James Downey (Min ister responsible for the Manitoba Hydro Act): Mr. Speak er, I am pleased to table the 41s t Annual Report of the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board for the year ended March 31, 1992. I believe member s probably already have copies of this. Mr. Speaker, I am, as well, pleased to table A Benchmark Report for Northern Manitoba . It is being released this afternoon by the chairman of the comm ission In Thompson. *

(1005) Hon. Glen Findlay (r.tnlster of AgrlcuHure): Mr. Speaker, I would lik e to table the 1991-92 Annual Report of the Farm Lands Ownership Board. Hon. Clayton Mannen (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the Second and Third Quarterly Reports of the Manitoba Telephone Syst em. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Hon. James McCrae (Minis ter of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker , I have a statement for the House today . Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to inform the House of a very important announcement which I will be making this afternoon .

Manitoba celebr ates the festive season every year with a number of traditions from decorati ng our homes with colourful Christmas lights to enjoying the Santa Claus parade to sharing precious times with family and friends. Over the past few years, we have added another very important tradition , our antidrinking-and-driving campaign. This afternoon I will be joined by memb ers of Citizens Against Impaired Driving, Teens Against Drinking and Driving, the RCMP and the Winnipe �Police Department in the launch of our yellow ribbo ri' campaign.

These yellow ribbons serve as a visible remin der of our commitment not to drink and drive. My office will be distributing ribbons to each of the caucus offices this afte rnoon. I ask honourable mem bers of the Legislature and all Manitobans to join us in tying these ribbons on their car door handles, antennas, anywhere they might be seen. The message is clear: If you drink, do not drive. That message is getting through to Manitoba ns. From the statisti cs gathered over the past few years, we are seeing a gradual decrease in the number of drinking and drivi ng incidents.

Our tough drinking-and-driving legisla tion, the to ughest in the country, and the efforts of such groups as CAID and TADD to educate Manitoba drivers are paying off. By changing attitudes we can and are making a difference. Drunk drivers kill and hurt innocent people. We must continue to work hard to deliver the message that drinking and driving is wrong and ver y dangerous. Thank you. Mr. Dave Chomlek (KIIdonan): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to join with the minis ter, and I am sure all mem bers of the House in commenting on this issue, particularly as we move into the festive season, when there has in the past and unfortunate ly there will continue to be a tendenc y on the part of some people to perhaps ov erindulge and engage in driving. I am very pleased that the minister is moving towards association and co-ordination between all agencies and all groups to attack this very, very serious proble m.

None of us in this Chamber will rest until-we will continue to do our duty and continue to look for new and innov ative ways of approa ching this proble m. There are changes that can be made. I am sure the minis ter has had representation made to him, as well as representation has been made to myself by some of the organizations for some additional improvements in legisla tion in the area to prevent the continua tion of any undue tragedies from occu rring. We su pport all initiatives in order to prevent drinking and driving.

If ttis effort and any efforts that we engage in can prevent o ne tragedy this season and over the next year, we are in full support of it. • (101 0) Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second OpposHion): Mr. Spe aker, I rise on behalf of my caucus to also thank the government for this announcement today. I am delighted that the ribbons are going to be yellow this year, because I think that it is significant that they not be perceived to be a decoration, but that they are perceived to be giving a very clear mes sage about the effects of drinking and driving.

December 11 , 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 464 Mr. Speak er, I am pleased also that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Mcintosh) has begun a policy within the sale of alcohol and the liquor stores to warn people of the dangers of alcohol for pregnant women. Those signs, which have recently been distri buted, are also giving a clear message that not only does alcohol kill, when it can be a factor in an accident, but it also can damage fetuses in ways that we st ill do not know the full magnitude of. I have to say that I am very disappointed that the Minis ter of Health (Mr.

Orchard) did not pick up on the same positive venture of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affa irs and not promote the publica tion on all bottl es of alcohol of the concerns that many of us have about drinking while pregnant that could have easily been brought to everybody's atte ntion by printing that, quite frankly, on liquor bottles throughout the country. The national Minister of Health has indic ated that they have not done it, because they did not have the support of pro vincial Health ministe rs in this nation , and that indeed is a tragedy.

I am glad to see that two out of three of the minist ers of this Crown are working in positive ways about alcohol and its effect on our society, and I hope that the Minister of Health will learn from them. *** Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I have a ministe rial statement. On July 16, 1991 , I outlined to the House six conditions that this gove rnment ind icated must be satisfied before we would su pport the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Since October 7 of this year, when NAFT A was offic ially initialled by the federal gov ernment, we have cont inued our analysis of NAFT A and resumed our consultations across the pro vince to access how, in the view of Manitobans, the final agreement will impact on businesses and workers in Manitoba and how well it meets our cond itions . Our consultations with representatives of various economic sectors in the pro vince revealed that many groups favour Canada's participation in NAFT A.

We saw clear support for the agreement from primary industry such as the agrifood , mining, and pulp and paper sectors, as well as from agricultural equipmen t manu fac turers, bus manufacturers and the professional services industry. Other sectors such as the clothing manufacturers told us that specHic, com plemen tary action was needed for them to remain competitive in the face of new competition from Mexico. Some industr ies, notably energy and elec tronics , did not expect NAFT A to affect them in a major way but predicted negative impacts H Canada were to remain outside of the free trade area.

Representatives of labour and environme ntal groups told us of their concerns that NAFTA may serve to lower labour and environmental standards in Manitoba and Canada. I would like now to review Manitoba's six conditions which, incident ally, arose from the views of Manitobans and how they have been addressed so far. *

(1015) The first condition was Manitoba's insistence that these trilateral talks not result in any renegotiation of the Canada -U.S. Free Trade Agree men t. Generally, we feel that there has been little backsl iding from the FTA. Canada's cultural industries remain exempt from NAFT A, as do our rights under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, to maintain quotas for our agricultural supply management syste ms. The Auto Pact is intact and Canada will sti ll screen fore ign investm ents.

Perhaps most important, the FT A dispute settl emen t system of binational panels has been retained and extended to include Mexico. Regarding textiles and clot hing, NAFTA has tightened the FTA rules of origin to ensure substantial clothing manuf acturing is done within North America. However, while the new rules of origin certainly alter the position of Manitoba's clothing industry, we feel these changes are compe nsated by NAFTA's higher tariff rate quotas and list of fabrics in short supply which are exemp t from the rules of origi n.

In ad dition, Manitoba strongly supported our local clothing manuf acturers in calling for imme di ate action on the 1990 report of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal on Canada's textile tariff re gime. Federal Finance Minister Don Mazan kowski announced last week that Canada's textile tariffs will be reduced sta rting January 1 , 1993. This action is

465 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11, 1992 vital if Manitoba's clothing manuf acturers are to adjust to and prosper under NAFTA. NAFTA will also reflect changes to Canada's system of compu lsory licensing for pharmaceuticals introduced by federal legislation Bill C-91. As Manitoba's Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has already indicated to the House , we consider these pro visions unfair, as they call for retroactive changes to this country's patent rules with no allowance for a transition period.

Manitoba believes the current drug bill proposed by the federal gov ernment should be amended to permit the granting of compu lsory licences for which bona fide applications were rece ived. Appropriate arrange ments should also be made within NAFT A to permit such a change. With new rules est ablished in NAFTA for trade in texti les and clothing, it is clear that Manitoba's first condition has not been met in the strictest sense. Howev er, our analysis of NAFT A suggests that the key gains achieved in the Canada- U.S. Free Trade Agreement have basically been protected .

Manitoba's second condition was that Canada seek assurances under any agreement that Mexican labour standards improve in line with that country's prosperity and be adequately enforced. The problem here is not the level of labour standards and workers rights that exist under Mexican law, but concern that Mexico does not enforce these laws adequately. We called upon the federal gove rnment to join in any parallel talks on labour or other issues . It has done so and, after bilateral discussions with Mexico, signed a memo randum of understanding on co-operative labour activities last May.

However, our gove rnment feels the current work plan under this memo randum does not place enough emphasis on enforcing standards and basic worker rights. We will conti nue to urge the federal gov ernment to press for an additional agreement in this area with the new United States adminis tration and the Mexican government. Third, Manitoba said that negotiations among Canada, the United States and Mexico must address the issue of environmental sta ndards. We believe NAFT A gives environmental standards very serious treatment.

The agreement includes a pro vision that would discourage any country from lowering its environm ental standards to attract investment. It also would permit any country to set its own standards at levels higher than internationally agreed levels and to work towards common standards without any erosion towards a lowest common denom inator . The agreement provides that the terms of certain international environmental treaties would override NAFTA obli gations.

As well, it al lows disp ute settlement panels to set up scientific review boards to consider certain environmental iss ues and make public these boards' findings along with the panel's report . But, despite the significant adv ance s that these prov isions represent, our government bel ieves that these pro visions are meaningless without proper enforcement of environmental standards. We need an additional agreement with Mexico and the United States to ensure procedural safeguards and remedie s in enforcing such standar ds.

The incoming adminis tration in the United States appears to share this view, and we urge the federal go vernmen t to pur sue a se parate trila teral agree ment on this important issue. As our fourth condition, Manitoba called upon the federal government to ensure that comprehensive and adequately funded adjustment measures are provided to ensure that Manitoba and Canada are equipped to capitalize on opportunities provided by trad e li beralization. So far we have been very disappointed at federal adjustment measures for busi nesses and workers in response to the Canada -U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

In the key area of training, federal financial commit men ts to Manitoba actually declined during the introduction of the Free Trade Agreement, a period when we would expect to see increased su pport for training. In 1985-86, total federal funding for training in Manitoba was over $92 million; by 1990 -91, that funding had dropped to $60 million, a decrease of 34 percent. Clearly this was a poor response to our adjustment needs . In the past two years, funding for training has recovered somewhat.

There are now more unem ployment insurance funds available for training due to dramatic increases in Ul premiums paid by em ployers and em ployees, and the fact that stricter rules have reduced the benefits being paid out. •

(1020) Manitoba has also urged the federal government to take proactive measures that will e ncourage and assist industries poised to gain new markets

December11, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 466 through the agreement to make appropriate investments and ad justments in their opera tions. A wide range of business groups have told us that there is an urgent need to educate business people in this pro vince about exporting in general and exporting to Mexico in particular. Unless and until there are signi ficant improveme nts to federal ad justment measures, this condition will not have been adequately addressed.

Our fifth condition stressed the need for consistent federal policies to reinforce the efforts and needs of Manitoba business in ad justing to freer trade. We were particularly concerned with effects on exporters of the federal governm ent's monetary pol icy. In January 1991, before the NAFTA negotiations began, the Canadian dollar stood at 87 cents U.S. We agreed with many economists at the time that this level was overvalued and had the effect of nullifying the value of tariff reductions gained under the Free Trade Agreement. Today our dollar stands at around 78 cents U.S.

It appears to be st abilizing at this level, and interest rates should come down, as international investors recognize the underlying st rengths of the Canadian econ omy. We believe these monetary conditions, combined with the changes that Manitoba businesses are making to become more competitive, bode well for our future export performance . Inflation is now at its lowest level in decades, and we hope Manitoba will be able to reap the benefits of this achieve ment. The current federal policy framework reinforces the need to mai ntain and im prove up on the competitiveness of Canadian indus try.

Manitoba believes that this must be cont inued over the longer te rm if our industries are to adjust to and ben efit from trade liber alization. Our sixth and final condition was that the federal gove rnmen t involve the provinces in setting objectives for these negotiations and in the actual negotiations themselves. To date, we feel the federal go vernment has done a good job in this area. Federal Trade Minister Michael Wilson and his officials kept pro vinces fully apprised of the issues under discussion and pro vided for our input to Canada's negotia ting posi tions.

Minister Wilson briefed his provincial counterparts on a regular basis and also listened to our views. Provincial offic ials monitored and contributed to the discussion of matters of particular prov incial interest. We were generally pro vided with draft negotiating texts as they became available. In short, the federal gove rnmen t has met this condition.

However, Manitoba believes that it remains important for the federal government and the provi nces to ne goti ate a formal federal- prov incial agreement on the role of the provinces in the negotiation and implemen tation of trade agreem ents including their participation in dispute settlement proceedings. Next Thursday, December 17, Prime Minis ter Mulroney intends to sign the North American Free Trade Agree men t in Ottawa on behaH of the federal gove rnment. There will be parallel signin g ceremonies in Mexico City and Washington.

As I have just indic ated, three of the six conditions necessary for us to support NAFT A have not been met to our satisfac tion. Solutions to these three prob lems lie outside the NAFT A agreement itseH in the parallel accords and in the measures that accom pany the NAFTA. *

(1025) So we will conti nue to work with the federal gove rnment to address the areas that concern us. We will press for further negotiations leading to separate trilateral agreements to ensure adequate enfor cemen t of labour and env ironm en tal stan dards. In addition, we will continue to urge the federal gove rnmen t to commit greate r resources towards the training of Manitobans so we can acquire and develop the skills needed to prosper under trade liberalization. Moreove r, we will insist that these issues be addressed before Canada passes legislation to implemen t NAFTA.

Un til these issues are addresse d adequately, Manitoba will not be in a position to supp ort NAFTA or its enabling legislation. While Manitoba recognizes the need for Canada to be a part of an integrated North American Free Trade market, we believe this must be on terms that will allow us to prospe r. At this time, I would like to table a more detailed analysis of these issues in a Manitoba position paper on the Nor th American Free Trade Agreemen t. Thank you, Mr. Speak er. Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the OpposHion): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to respond to the ministerial state ment on the proposed NAFT A agree ment.

467 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMB LY OF MANITO BA December 11 , 1992 I believe it was August of 1992 when the minister promised that after three weeks of consultation he would make the position known of the provincial Conse rvative gove rnment on the Conservative trade agreement with George Bush and President Salinas. Of course, we now have this belated position. I know Manitoba is the last province out of all prov inces in Canada to take a position on NAFT A.

There are Premiers right across this country, Premiers who have been taking positions on NAFT A about whether it is good or bad for their work force, for their children, for their industries over the last three months . Of course, this Premier has refused to answer any questions in the House on this issue. I guess this is part of the public relations strategy of the gove rnmen t. It was the Premier who gave us the initial prom ise that he was opposed to NAFT A and, of course, the Premier has not answered questions on this issue week after week. He has left it to his minister. Mr.

Speaker, the government some time ago stated that their six conditions were •a bottom line, • and we have watched them try to change that so-called bottom line through their deliberations and their ideological relationship with the federal Conservative gove rnment over the last three or four months. I would have expected a much stronger st atement from the ministe r here today because, if he looked at his own so-called bottom line, almost all six conditions have been breached with the proposed NAFT A agreement.

In fact, the only one that I will have to take the minister's word for is the great relat ionship he had with Michael Wilson in the input of thes e negotiations. I assume that that is correct, that he and Michael Wilson had a good relationship in discussing this issue and we accept that as one of the six conditions, but if one looks at all the other conditions that are the so-called bottom lines, where is the beef? Where is the substance ? The word "jobs• is not even used, Mr. Speaker, in the state ment from the government in terms of what it means for Manitoba.

The first condition, that no changes would be made to the U.S.-Canada trade agreement, in two very major industries of this province the changes have been made in a detrimental and a very negative way for Manitoba. The apparel industry-and we raised this question in the House to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and then later to the minister responsible on the triple transformation clause in the NAFT A agreement.

It was clear to us from workers, from owners of busi ness, from people in the industry that some 35 percent of the jobs in the apparel indus try of Manitoba were at risk with the triple transformation clause that is now entrenched in NAFTA. So why this province is the last one out commenting on that Issue is beyond me. I mean, the parliamentary comm ittee was here last week. It has come and gone . The minister did not present Manitoba's position. It is quite em barrassi ng, quite frankly, to not have a position . The second issue was the whole issue of the drug patent law.

The ministe r knows and the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) knows and the Premier knows that the trade agreement dealing with generic drugs supersedes federal legislation under the enabling le gis lation that was passed by the federal Conservative government dealing with the Free Trade Agreement with the United States. The overriding legislation In Parliament passed in 1989 says that all inte rnational trade agreements, when they are in conflict with laws of Parliament, the international trade agreement will take precedence.

So, to watch the Mi nister of Health feign indignation last week about generic drugs when it was initialled off in San Antonio at the Alamo by Brian Mulroney, George Bush and Salinas was to us an absolute contraciction. How can you speak one way in the morning and act another way on the trade agreement in the aft ernoon? Clearly, The New York Times has indicated that drug costs will go up in Canada some 35 percent, so we will lose jobs and we will have higher health care costs . That too should have been a bottom line for this government. Dealing with labour standards, Mr.

Speaker, again no reference to jobs in terms of the manufacturing sector. Manitoba has gone from 63,000 manuf acturing jobs to 49,000 manufacturing jobs, a decline of 23 percent since the Free Trade Agreement was signed. I know it is not all because of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agre ement. I know the dollar has had something to do with it. I know some other factors have had something to do with it. I know the recession has had something to do with it, but why did the United State s lose 6 percent

December 11 , 1992 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMB LY OF MANITO BA 468 of its manufacturing jobs in that period of time and why did we lose 23 percent of our manufacturing jobs in Manitoba ? •

(1030) Dealing with the environment, here again wishy -washy commen ts from the wishy-washy gove rnment opposite in terms of this issue. Mr. Speaker, U.S. environmental groups, sta rting with the Sierra Club and Mr. Pope In charge of the Sierra Club in the United State s, have clearly stated that the environmental standards in the NAFTA agreement are lik e the constitution of the U.S.S.R. dealing with human rights, because there is no enforce ment mechanism whatsoever dealing with the environment and the environm ental prote ction.

Talk to environmental lawyers in Manitoba who have done environmental impact stu dies and they will tell you clearly that this has no environmental sta ndards whatsoe ver. In terms of the ad justment strate gies, we have some wishy-washy sta tements from the pro vincial gove rnment again. The federal Conser vative gove rnment has decimated the labour training and labour adjustment provisions in Canada, decimated those provisions, and this Tory government opposite has done the same thin g with its $1 0-millio n cut to the communi ty colleges. These people do not believe in labour market ad justment.

They do not believe in labour market training. They do not believe in retr aining workers across this prov ince. They are just like their federal cousi ns. They cut and they cut and they cut when they have an opportunity to deal with training and retra ining oppor tunities. Mr. Speaker, we believe that this agreement clearly should not be signed on behalf of Manitoba.

We believe the Premier, who made the election promise in August of 1990 that he was opposed to the proposed free trade agreement with Mexico, should have taken a leadersh ip position on NAFT A and clearly stated as other Premiers have done, that we are opposed to NAFT A. It is not good for Manitoba. It is not good for Manitoba business. It is not good for Manitoba worke rs. It is not good for our environ ment. We believe in fair trade, not this trade agreement, and he should have said so clearly in this Chamber weeks ago . Thank you very much. Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I note that the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) just called across the floor, this is a recorded announcement. It seems that there are recorded announcements on both sides. I would lik e to ask the Premier and the gove rnment some very simple questions. The first one is: How many times do you have to get kicked in the head before you realize you are being hurt? Mr. Speaker, the first condition this government laid out was that the FTA not be alte red, and they offe r some solace-at least to their own feelings-that this has been achieved in the NAFT A. Let us just stop and look at what has happened to date, Mr. Speaker.

Prior to 198 5, the OECD set up an indus trial production index for the G-7 countries. They stan dardized it in 1985, and in 1985, 1986, 1987 and in 1988, Canada was at the top or right in the top half of that pack. Today Canada is the lowest. It is seven out of seve n. It has fallen further than any other of the G-7 countries, taking into account the recession, taking into account all the changes that have occurred in the world in those five years. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the FTA has failed Canada. Now, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Doer) has pointed out the loss of indus trial production capacity in both countries, but there are all sorts of other indica tors. Robert Reich, who today is going to be proposed as the Secretary of Labor in the U.S., has been on TV here in Canada and has written saying he does not under stand why Canada is not standing up scr eaming about the damage that has been inflicted on this country. Now that is the person who is going to be, in part, responsible for this agree ment.

He is also, in part, responsi ble for the discussions that have taken place with President-elect Cli nton around the prob lems with the NAFT A. What I do not understand is why this government is rushing to support Brian Mulroney in signing this agreement when, in another six weeks or so, we are going to have a president in the U.S. who may be ready to sit down and negotiate some strength into this agreement. I do not under stan d how this gove rnment can stand up and table something that says, the environmental provisions are meaningless and that three of their six conditions have not been met.

In the area of traini ng-r ememb er training. Remember that the federal gove rnment with the FTA said: Do not worry about the labour force adjus tment; we will take care of that. They

469 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11 , 1992 delivered no thing, so that all of the objective experience of the gov ernment of Manitoba is failure. All of the objective experience is that the FT A has not helped this pro vince and that the federal government has not followed through on their prom ises.

So my question is: Why are they not standing up and screaming and insisting that our federal gov ernment not sign this agreement, that we wait until we get a new admin istration in the U.S. and then we go back and negotiate some proper enfor cemen t into these agree ments before we even think about signing them? Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honou rable members to the gallery, where we have with us this morning from the General Wolfe School, fifty Grade 9 students . They are under the direction of Mr. AI Lomas.

This sc hool is located in the co nstitu ency of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett). On behalf of all members, I would like to welcome you here this morning . ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Nonh American Free Trade Agree ment Employment Creation Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposhlon): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. The Premier in 1990 took a definitive position, an unequivocal position on the proposed NAFTA agreement. The Pre mier has also taken positions in this House before on the benefits of free trade with the United States.

In fact, in 1 988, in September, in this Chamber he said: Our em pirical studies show that between 12,000 and 15,000 new jobs will be created under free trade with the United State s. Mr. Speaker, can the Premier indicate today: How many jobs does their em pirical study indica te will be created or lost with the proposed NAFTA agreement? We see some general analysis in this agreement, but we do not see a sector-by-sector tally, and we do not see the "empir ical" study that the Premier allegedly had when he agreed to the Mulroney-Bush trade agreement of 198 9. Hon.

Eric Stefanson (Mnlster of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr.

Speaker, in terms of the impact on Manitoba's economy in job creation opportunities or jobs concerns in the Manitoba econom y, I would encourage the honourable Leader of the Opposition to look at Appendix A that has been attached to the discussion paper that was circulated here today and see the exte nsive consultation that took place with all sectors throughout Manitoba-our labour grou ps, our envir onme ntal gr oups, our academic institutions-to discuss with Manitobans what they saw as the impact that NAFTA might have in terms of their individual busi nesses or their sectors .

We have gone through a detailed discussion process with Manitobans. In terms of empirical data, there is not, to the best of my knowledge, a province that has any defined empirical data on job creation or job losse s. Even the federal government's analysis is on a broad , sectoral basis. So without empirical data available from any available sources, Mr. Spe aker, we did the best thing possible. We went right to Manitobans and talked to individual busi nesses, individual workers and people who have to live with any NAFT A to find out from them what the impact is.

I have already outlined some of the areas of Sector C opportunities that I outlined in my ministerial state ment, some of the areas that do have some conce rns . That is why we carne out with a position. I should clarify for the member from Osborne (Mr. Alcock) that we oppose NAFT A, that at least a minimum of three of our six concitions have not been met. One of the most fundamental of those is a proper adjustment assistant system to meet the needs of any workers that might be negatively affected. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, one would have assumed with the empirical work one did to go in and support the Canada -U.S.

Trade Agreement with the 12,000 to 15,000 jobs that the Premier (Mr. Almon) highligh ted in his ideological su pport of the Mulrone y govern ment that their trade agreement would have been a product that we would have seen in this House today. Given you were the last province out, we would have exp ected some specific numbers in terms of jobs and opportunities in Manitoba.

December 11 , 1992 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITO BA 470 North American Free Trade Agree ment Government PosiUon Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I have a second question to the Premier. Last week, the Premier me t with the Prime Minister on a number of "feder al-provincial" issues. Given the fact that the provi nce today has said , and I am sure they had this analysis long ago, that they are opposed to the NAFT A agreement as it presently stands, what did the Premier say to the Prime Minister about this?

It was missing from his Jist of items that he released to the media on fed eral-pr ov incial discussions. What did he say to the Prime Minister? How is he going to oppose the existing proposal of NAFT A so that all the alleged six conditions can be met? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier) : Mr. Speaker, I was very public about the issues that were raised. We were in the process of putting together the official response of the gov ernment of Manitoba. That response has been released today and has been sent sim ultaneousl y by the Minister of Indus try, Trade and Tourism (Mr.

Stefa nson) to the Minister res ponsi ble for ISTC, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I assume from that answer that the Premier did not raise it with the Prime Minister, so this so-called opposition to some of the conditions that were not met were just really again public relations sta tements by this government. Point of Order Mr. Fllmon: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) obviously did not understand what I said. I said that our official position is putforward in a letter - Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is the honourable the First Minister up on a point of or der? Okay. Mr.

Doer: The Premier is not the dictator of this Chamber yet. H he is going to rise on a point of order he should point out to the Speaker it is a point of or der. He should not just as sume he is the only one in this House who does not have to follow the rules of all dem ocra tically elec ted mem bers of this Chamber. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised , I was trying to ascertai n whether indeed he was up on a point of or der. *** Mr. Speaker: Now, the honourable Leader of the Oppos ition, with his question. *

(1040) Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry the Premier is so touchy about his relationship with the Prime Minister. North American Free Trade Agree ment Tex tile Industry Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition) : When we meet with the textile workers and indeed when we talk to owners of companies in the apparel industry of Manitoba, they are all scared stiff about the Impl ications of triple transfonnati on, something we have raised in this House before . Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): You are just trying to cheer them up, right? Mr. Doer: You guys certainly are not.

What are you doing? You know there are 7,000 people working in the textile industry and we get cheap shots from the Minister of Justice across the floor. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Premier (Mr. Almon), if I might, on behaH of the 7,000 textile workers . There are 7,000 peopl e working in the textile industry in Manitoba. People working as owners of companies, workers and workers' representatives feel that the triple transfonnatlon will lose thousands of jobs in Manitoba.

They are opposed to It and they do not see the changes in the quo tas that were announced last week in Mazankowski's sta tement dealing with the fundamental problems of the triple transfonna tion. I would like to ask the Premier directly: Are the workers in the apparel industry in Manitoba and the clothing industry in Manitoba at risk with this NAFT A agreement? Is this industry safe with this proposed NAFTA agreement?

What are you going to do about getting the changes that you say are the absolute bottom line or opposing fully this NAFTA agreement, because it can put thousands of clothing workers out of work in the provi nce of Manitoba? Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): I would encourage the honourable Leader of the Opposition to read his question on

471 LEGISLAT IVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITO BA December 11 , 1992 Monday. He seems not to be able to under stand the difference between the textile indus try and the apparel industry. He interchanges the word. He refers to job losses in the textile industry. He shows his lack of under stand ing of the issu e that is before Manitoba. We are talking about the importance to the apparel industry in Manitoba, whom we have met with on many occasions over the course of the last year. The position that we have continually taken has been very supportive of our apparel industry.

The largest concern that they said time and time again was that the federal gove rnment has to act on the CI TT report. Don Mazank owski finally announced that they will be acting on that report That was the single most important issue. They also talked about issues such as research and development and em ployee assistance and adj ustment, which we are worki ng on with the conditions that we ha ve put forth here today . Mr.

Speaker, I cert ainly enc ourage the honourable Leader to clearly get a grasp of that issue, because he ob viously confuses it and does not under stand the diff erence between the sectors, and the ultimate hypocrisy, he sits across the way and he talks about ide ology-a group of people who are not prepared to look at any trade agreement on balance in terms of what is good for Manitoba, what we should be addressing, what we should not be-pure, blind ideology across the way on this particular issue. We look at it in the total context. North American Free Trade Agree ment Labour Standards Mr.

Steve Ashton (Thompson): The only ones who are blind are this gove rnment who waited so long, Mr. Speaker, till it is too late on NAFT A to be able to fight for the pe ople of Manitoba . I want to specifically focus in, in terms of labour adj ustment, Mr. Speak er, because while the federal gov ernment has been very clear in its inte ntions of pushing through the NAFTA deal, it has been very obvious to anyone that one of the major flaws with NAFTA is indeed in terms of labour standards and labour ad justment.

I want to ask the Premier directly, since we have this recent new innovation of the Premier's, this weekly sort of World Wrestl ing Federa tion, the Premier against the Prime Minis ter-! want to ask him when he first raised the question of labour standards with the Prime Minister and specifically what he asked the Prime Minister in terms of labour standards in the context of NAFTA. Hon. Gary Fllmon (Pre mier): Mr.

Speaker, as the member knows full well, we put forward the issue of labour standards as one of our six conditions that must be met as part of the ev aluation of NAFTA, and that goes back now more than a year. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker , I asked the Premier, in terms of his contacts with the Prime Minister, and I would like to ask him again, not only when he raised this matter but specifically what the Premier has done in term s of this condHion. We almo st have the NAFT A deal as a fait accompli. It is simply not good enough now .

Only a few months to go in te rms of the NAFT A being put in place by these governments, for the Premier now sayi ng- Mr. Speaker: Order, please . Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Thompson cannot ask his question corr ectly and when he asks the question cannot remember what he asked, that should not be a problem that I have to deal with. He should get his act together before he asks the question. Mr. Speaker, I answered very specifically. That iss ue was raised a year ago-more than a year ago when we put forward the six conditions.

Those six conditions were discuss ed at First Minis ters' meetings on the econom y during the past year in which we had discussions about NAFT A among other issu es, and those issues were indeed raised and put before the federal government and the Prime Minister. Labour Adjustment Strategy Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): My final question , Mr.

Speaker, once again tothe Premier is: How can any one bel ieve this gove rnment on labour adjustment, and how does the Premier expect anyone to believe that anybody can trust this gove rnmen t, when in this document it says that the gove rnmen t of Manitoba's own adj us tment mechanisms are adequate , when we know this gove rnmen t has been cutting back in terms of labour force training adjustments in this provi nce? How can anyone believe- Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

0ecEWnber11, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 472 Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the reality is that this gove rnment has demons trated by its actions, not by emp ty, foolish rhetori c, as the opposition party puts forward, that it keeps its commitments. Manitobans look to us for keeping ou r commitmen ts. That is why when we indicated that we would not raise personal income taxes that we have kept that commi tment. In fact, we have gone beyond that. We lowered the personal income tax rate by 2 percent in this pro vince.

As the New Democrats did, we did not raise corporate taxes, we did not raise the sales tax, and we have not raised personal . Those are the kinds of commitments that we make. Those are the kinds of commitments we keep. Social Assistance Recipients Child-Tax Benefit Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, earlier in the week, when I asked the Minister of Family Services (Mr.

Gilleshamm er) about the impact that would be imposed by this government on the federal proposed child tax benefit, which comes into effect on January 1 , the minister replied that he was getting additional inform ation from the federal gov ernment. Mr. Speaker, not only has the National Welfare Council done a report which indica tes that there will not be one single penny more received by social assistance recipients as a re sult of this agreement, but so too has the Caledon Institute of Social Policy indi cated that social assistance recipien ts will receive not one single penny more.

Can the minis ter tell the House today what information he has from the federal gov ernment which would lead him to believe that social assistance recipients are going to receive more money as a result of this change in the federal sys tem? *

(1050) Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, when the member raised this issue before , I indic ated that we were still in discussion with the federal gove rnment on a new program and that we were still at the stage where we were analyzing some of the information that was coming forward. The answer is the same today. Before we make a decision, we want to be able to make an informed decision and have all of the factors before us, and we will be making that decision in due course . Mrs. Carstalrs: Mr.

Speaker, since it is clear that there is no additional money for social assistance recipients as a result of this program , what is the minister considering, other than a cut to social assistance recipients? Mr. Gllleshammer : Mr. Speaker, the child tax benefit is a new way of the federal gove rnment doing business with individual families. Across this country and in every province , every provincial gove rnment is faced with the task of analyzing this new program to see how it impacts on the citizens of that prov ince and, at this time, we are still at the stage where we are analyzing these data.

I am sure that the member would want us to make an informed decision and to take a thorough look at this new progr am. Mrs. Carstalrs: Mr. Speaker, the analysis has been done, and the analysis shows very clearly that there is no additional money to be received by social assistance reci pients. Is it this governmen t's decision that they are going to take the leadership of Alberta and Saskatchewan and decrease social assistance benefits of the Pro vince of Manitoba because of this policy of the federal gov ernment? Mr. Gllles hammer: Mr.

Speaker, certainly groups outside of gove rnment are doing their own analysis of this new child tax benefit. I have met with a number of groups within Manitoba who have posed qu estions, who are trying to get a better understanding of a new program . The gove rnmen t of Manitoba, as all provincial gove rnments, has to make a decision in the near future . We are at the stage where we are analyzing that information and, in due course, we will have to make a decision . Labour Force Dev elopment Government Strateg y Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): My question is for the Minister of Education. Mr.

Speaker, the Premier has assured us in recent speeches that this gove rnment is preparing for and coping with change, but the only evidence

473 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 11, 1992 of labour force planning from this gov ernment is to be found in their em ployment proj ections for the decade 1990 to 2000, which predicts an 8.3 percent growth in em ployment. In the two years since the last el ection, Manitobans have seen a 4.5 percent decline in employment and a labour force decline of 22 percent, which transla tes as 12,000 fewe r Manitobans looking for work.

I want to ask the minister: Given this trend as we enter 1993, will the minis ter table her revised labour force predictions and explain how she is preparing for and coping with this change 7 Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.

Speaker, I think the member should be well aware of the fact that there have been difficulties across Canada in terms of employment, but Manitoba has been working very hard in terms of its labour force strategy to assist Manitobans, and I can tell the member that one of the very im portant parts of our strategy is for Education and Training to work very closely with my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) in terms of labour and apprentice ship, with colleagues in government in terms of developing a labour force strategy most appropriate and collabor atively in government for Manitobans. Ms. Friesen: Mr.

Speaker, would the Minister of Education then tell the House what plans she has in place to retrain the thousands of workers from the 11 specific indus tries which Statistics Canada predicts will face substantial decline in Manitoba in this decade: agriculture, pulp and paper, metal products, clo thing, wood products, rail transport and telecom mun ications carriers? Where are the plans? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, again our plans in the Department of Education and Training and as a gov ernment are collabo rative plans, and we are working through a number of methods available to us.

One of those methods is through our commun ity colleges. Our commu nity colleges as they move to governance are being much mor e able to be responsive to the regional needs. In fact, there are currently programs in place that are dealing very specifically with agric ultur e and wit h telec ommunic ations, and I point to Assiniboine Commu nity College and their programs for the member to perhaps inform herse lf. Ms.

Friesen: Will the minister explain why, in the absence of her inability to present any plans for labour force training in Manitoba, she specifically omitted the education and equi ty groups from her so-called made-in-Manitoba, so-called co-operative approach to labour force development boards? How does she expect to develop a training plan in Manitoba without education and equi ty groups? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker , by way of example, I wanted the memb er to know that ther e is co-operation within government.

We also tell her there is most certainly co-ope ration within the communi ty and with discussion with Manito bans. Personally, I have had discussion with many of the equity groups in Manitoba. We are making every effort to take into conside ration the needs of Manitobans.

I will point specifical ly to programs: the programs of New Careers, sponsored through Education and Training, which very specifically look at some of the Manitobans who have found it diffi cult to engage in training programs in the past; college programs in Education and Training; and the co-operation of our bu siness and indus try and labour through Workforce 2000. Sunday Shopping Impact Small Business Mr. Jerry Storie (FUn Flon): Mr. Speaker, this government is continually asking Manitobans to read between the lines when it makes public announcements, whether it is on NAFT A or rural economic development.

A number of groups in Man itoba have already stated publicly their opposition to the Sunday shopping legislation that is before us, including the Union of Manitoba Muni cipalit ies, the Can adian Fede ration of Independent Grocers, the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce, among others. My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism . Today he acknowledged that there was no objective study of the impacts of NAFT A, no em pirical evidence.

My question is: Will the minister now commit the gove rnment of Manitoba to doing an em pirical study on the impact of Sunday shopping on small busin esse s and rural communi ties in Manitoba so that we know how many jobs we are going to lose , how many commun ities are going to be closing or

December 11 , 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITOBA 474 reducing, losing population as a result of this initiative? Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr.

Speaker, I indi cated in the House the othe r day when we introduced this particular piece of legisla tion and obviously during this trial period-and I want to make it perfectly clear for the honourable member for Rin Ron that this is a trial period, and it will provide us with the opportunity to assess all aspects of Sunday shopping in terms of Manitoba's economy, the economic impact in terms of the reaction of con sum er s and indi vidual Mani tobans, not dissimilar from what other provinces have done.

The Provi nce of New Brunswick, the Pro vince of Ontario, governed by a party of the same affiliation as the memb ers across the way, ran a trial period. Clearly, it is a reasonable way to assess, because the polling that we have done indicates that the concern that he expresses about rural Manito bans, the polling that has been done is that 97 percent of rural Manitobans suggest that they will do the same or more shopping in their own com munity as they currently do.

A trial period will det ermine a lot of that but, clearly, I have the confidence that rural Manitobans will conti nue to support their comm unities as they have in the past and will do so in the future, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking for polling inform ation. If the go vernment wants to run the prov ince by polling, they are entitled to do that. I am aski ng for em pirical evi dence, as is the Manitoba Chamber of Com mer ce and many others. Sunday Shopping Rural Deve lopment Institute Study Mr. Jerry Storie (FIIn Flon}: Mr.

Speaker, my subse quent question is to the Minis ter of Rural Development. On Wednesday, I met with the Rural Development Institute , which is attached to Brandon Univer sity. They have expertise and a history of doing rural economic studies and research in the area of rural economy. My question is: Will the Mini ster of Rural Development provide the Rural Development Institute with the necessary funds to carry out the objective studies that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) now said are going to happen?

Will he give this independent body the resources to do the study that we need to have to know how many jobs are going to be lost In rural Manitoba? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Min ister of Rural Development): Mr. Spea ker, the Rural Development Institute at Brandon University, which was established under this go vernment, is one that has carried out some very valuable studies throughout rural Manitoba. Last year, we were able to sign another three-year agreement which will certa inly com mit the funds that were signed for in the agreement.

Let me say that the projects that the Rural Development Institute carries out are ones which come to them from comm unities and ones which they feel are important for them to work on in the benefit of rural Manitoba in the future. It is not an institution whereby we dictate exactly what kinds of research need to be done by the Rural Development Institute , Mr. Speaker. Mr. Storie: That is the lamest answer I have ever heard in this House. Mr. Speak er, my further question is to the Minister of Rural Developm ent.

Will the minister undertake to contract with the Rural Development Institute to do the necessary st udies? Will the minister use some of the millions of dollars additional reve nue that is flowing out of rural Manitoba because of the video lott ery terminals to invest that money in contracting the Rural Development Institute to study in an independent way the impact of this senseless and foolish initiative called Sunday shopping? " (11 00) Mr. Derkach: Well, Mr.

Speaker, now the member for Flin Flon suggests that, without tender, we should be contrac ting with somebody and just dictating that they do a particular study. That is not the approach this gove rnment takes. We have em barked on an initiative which is going to be a trial one. During that trial period, indeed, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism will be keeping a careful eye, as will our gove rnme nt indeed, as Rural Dev elopment minist er, I will be keeping a careful eye on what this trial period is going to result in. I can tell you, Mr.

Speaker, thatto date , if you walk into the store s, there are many people who are

475 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITO BA December 11, 1992 shopping on Sunday, and they are finding it a very positive experience. Medicare Eye Examinations Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Mr. Speaker, the gove rnmen t has departed from its own reform action plan when it decided to cut medical coverage for eye examinations from one per year to one exam every two years. That is as of January 1 of 1993. Mr. Speaker, eye-{inte�ection) They have not heard the full question yet. Eye exami nations are good preventative care .

They are especially important for those under the age 19 and over the age of 64. Mr. Speaker, these groups are most likely to have pro blems, and they can be corrected with a regular examination. We do not want an extre me solution as the NDP in Saskatchewan have done, where they are not cove ring anyone below the age of 18 . We have a balanced approa ch. We will ask the minister to consider the Alberta solution where the examinations are covered under 19 years for one examination per year and over the age of 64, Mr. Speaker, the most rational answer in this country. Hon. Donald Orchard (Mnlster of Health): Mr.

Speak er, I consider that to be a positive suggestion from my honourable friend, particularly the caution not to emu late the government confreres of the official opposition in a province next to us in the direction west erly. I also, Sir, will not bring in measures that are currently in place in some of the Maritime pro vinces, which are not governed by Progressive Conservatives. Sir, what we are intending to do-and I have gott en my jesting with the opposition parties out of the way now.

We are following some recommendations that we accepted in terms of eye examina tions that are not different significantly from a number of other prov inces that have recently made changes. Mr. Speaker, I think that the changes proposed in Manitoba will probably meet all of the concerns my honourable friend has and better the changes that have been put in place in Alberta, because we are attempting to provide a routine eye exami nation every two years with the exception that if medical need dictates a more fr equent eye examination that will be available regardless of age.

It will not be restricted to under 19 or above 64, but for all Manitobans who are guided by medical need for an eye examination. Mr. Chee ma: Mr. Speaker, between the period of January '90 and December 31st of '91, only 42 per cent of Mani tobans had access to eye examinations. Out of that, between the ages of 0 and 19, there were 1.3 exams per year. This is not going to save any money. It will cause more hardships. My question is to the minister. He should simply have a look at this and that will solve some of the questions he is raising to us today . Mr.

Orchard: We did undertake some national review of availability of eye examination, and it does vary signif tcantly from some provinces not offering any insu red ser vi ce provision under eye exam inations because, particularly with optom etry, one must remember that there is no requirement under the Canada Health Act that the services of optometry and optometrists be provided with any assistance from the taxpayers.

We have chosen in Manitoba over a number of years to provide that service outside of the Canada Health Act, entirely at the cost of Manitoba taxpayers, and we atte mpted to create an environment of providing adequate service which left us with the gener al rule of an eye exam ination at taxpayers' su pport ever y two years with exceptions for medical condition to apply across all ages of Manitobans. Mr. Ch .. ms: Can the minis ter tell us when we will have the list of medical condtlons that will allow the patient to have an eye examination at any time? Mr.

Orchard: I just want to caution my honourable friend, it will not be eye exami nations at any time. It will be eye examina tions accordi ng to medical need. We intend to have the regulation in place for January 1. Within the next couple of weeks we hope to have those regulations available and distributed. Immigration Manitoba Statistics Ms. Marianne Cerllll (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the province of Manitoba is missing the boat on immigration, to take a pun from yesterday's Free Press.

December 11, 1992 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMB LY OF MANITO BA 476 While Manitoba has had some of the best sett lement services from 1986 to 1991 , the number of new Manitobans due to immigration has shrunk from 142,220 to 138,595. This has occurred when the rest of the country has enjoyed an increase in immigration of 4 percent. My question is for the Minister responsible for Citizenship, and I em phasize the wor d "respons ible. • What is her explanation for Manitoba not getti ng, to use her phrase , its fair share of people moving to Canada? Hon.

Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citize nship): I am glad that my honourable friend across the way did quote me in her questi on, because I have been saying for the last two years that Manitoba has not been getti ng its fai r share of immigrants. Mr. Speaker, since I have had the res ponsibility, we have reorganized the Citizenship Division in fact so that we could very quickly move towards an immig ration agreement with the federal gov ernment.

We are getting very close to the point now where we believe that we have everything in place to encourage the federal gov ernment to give us in Manitoba more responsibility over immigration with the new agree ment so that we can have some input and some influence into the numbers of immigrants and the kinds of immigrants that Manitoba rece ives. Ms. Cerllll: Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister was for an explanation of why this is happening in Manitoba . Why are we not having the number of people coming to Manitoba that we are having in other pro vinces? I would ask the minister for an explanation.

Maybe she could tell us what her gove rnment is going to do in the area of recr uitment, since she said on Wednesday they are moving aggressively on this area for an agree ment. * (111 0) Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I wish my honourable friend would listen to the answers from the first questions and not repeat the same question the second time. I will re peat for all mem bers of the House that we are moving towards an immigration agree ment. Presen tly, Ma ni toba has no control ove r immigration, over the numbers of immigrants that come to Manitoba or the types of immigrants . Mr.

Speaker, we need an agreement with the federal government to have that contr ol. It is unfortunate that she does not understand that or know the system or know how immigration happens in Canada, but we need that agreement with the federal gove rnmen t so that we can have control over the numbers and the types of immigrants that come to Manitoba. Ms. Cerllll: Mr. Speaker, I recently read that 80 percent of the refugees in the world are women and children.

I would ask the minister: Can the minister ensure the House that not only will Manitoba's new immigration policy ensure that our proportion of refugees represents the needs in the world but, also, that the numbers will be reflected in gender and in age? Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that we are having trou ble getting the facts and the information through to the critic from the New Dem ocratic opposition. Canada, the country of Canada, presently has control over the numbers and types of immigrants that come to Canada and indeed to Manitoba. It is not the country of Manitoba that has control.

We are working towards obtai ning some of that control from the federal government with our immigration agreement. When we get that in place , Mr. Speaker, then she can ask the questions about what Manitoba is doing. She should be asking the federal go vernment. Susan Flngold Birth Parent Search Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Joh ns) : Mr. Speak er, I have a question for the Minister of Family Services, who will be familiar with the situation pnterjec:tion] Do not worry. The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) will have his share of questions all next week.

The Minister of Family Services will be familiar with the situa tion fac ing Susan Fingold , a consti tuent of mine, who has been devastated by the kno wledge about mistaken identity when she was adopted and that somewhere in the system a mistake was made, files were switched and she and the adopting parents were wrongfully told that her birth mother was Jewish.

LEGISLATIV E ASSEMB LY OF MANITO BA December 11, 1992 The redress that Susan Fingold seeks is reason able, and I wou ld like to put her request to the minister. Will the Minis ter of Family Services correct this error, rectify the situa tion, however it was made, and ensure that her search for her identity and her real birth mother is put at the top of the list, at the top of the adoption regis try? Hon. Harold Glllnhammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of adoption and the search for birth parents and the circumst ances surrounding adoption is handled by the Post Adoption Registry .

There Is a process in place whereby citizens can make representation to the Post Adoption Registry and work with that unit within our department to find those det ails. The whole issue of adoption is one which is very sensitive. It involves three sta keholders in the ability to search and find det ails, and all of those people must be taken into consideration . The Post Adoption Registry has been set up to work with individuals, whether they be the birth parents or the adopting parents or the adoptee, to assist them in finding that informati on. Ms. Wasylycla-l.e ls: Mr.

Speaker, my question has to do with the particular situation of Susan Fingold, where a mistake was made. I am not trying to suggest the minister made the mistake or his department. Somebody made a mis take in the syste m, and I am as king the minister if he would intervene in the situa tion and work with the Post Adoption Registry in his department to ensure that Susan's name is put at the top of the list to rectify the wrong that was done to her and ensure that she can get on with correcting the mistake and finding her true identity . Mr. Glllnhammer: Mr.

Speaker, there probably have been close to 90 ,000 adoptions ove r the last couple of decades, three decades, and at this time we have some 6,000 cases before the Pos t Adoption Registry. All of them bring forward individual circums tances which to them are the most significant and would like to have that service come forward as quickly as possible. We ask individuals to work with the staff at the Post Adoption Registry and try and bring forward the circumstances and the details as quickly as possi ble.

The me mber is advocating for a particular individual who I think has already approached the Post Adoption Registry. I will review this with staff and see that fair treatment is given to the specific case that the member ref erences. CN Rail Employment Decline Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, we see in the press reports coming out today where the chief executive officer of CN Rail has ind icated that CN is going to be losing 11,000 jobs in the country. My question is for the Minister of Highways and Transport atio n.

Can the minister indicate to the House and to those who are em ployed in the railway ind ustry what discussions he has had with the president of CN Rail and what impact we can expect on the rail em ployment in the pro vince of Manitoba ? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Spe aker, I beli eve the member is probably as well aware as I am of the discussions that are taking place between the exe cutive of CN and the unions in terms of rationalizing some of the operations.

In my conversations with CN, the y have indicated that their credit rating is in dire jeopardy at the present time, that unless they take some tough measures that they are in financial difficu lty . I just want to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that in all the dealings that basically CN has had with their em ployees and their unions over the years, it has always been a pretty reasonable arrangement that has been worked out for the emplo yees. My understanding is that these negotiations are taking place. Once we have the details, I think it will become public information. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Clayton Mannns (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call second reading, adjou rned debate , Bill 4. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 4-The Reta il Businesses Sunday Shopping (Temporary Amendments) Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tou rism (Mr. Stefan son), Bill 4, The Retail Busi nesses Sunday Shopping (Tem porary Amendments) Act;

Loi sur l'ouverture des cornm erces de detai l les jours feries-modi fications temporaires .

December 11 , 1992 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANI TO BA 478 *

(1120) Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr. Speaker, I rise with the opportunity of discussing this go vernmen t's initiative, this gove rnment's venture , into the area of Sunday shopping and the go vernment's expansion of the legislation to include effect ively wide-open Sunday shopping in the prov ince of Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, I want to divide my remarks into several areas and deal with ea ch of them specifically as they relate to Sunday shopping based on some of the arguments that I have heard forwar ded to our attention from memb ers opposite , as well as some of the diseussion surrounding the logic and the principle of the issue of Sunday shopping. Mr. Speaker, at the onset I can ind icate that I am not in support of the gove rnment's initiative for expansion of Sunday shopping.

Through the course of my remarks I hope to dem onstrate my reasons why I am adopting this particular positi on, as well as an attempt to deal with some of the issues that have been forwarded by the government for the adv ancement of wide-open Sunday shopping in the prov ince of Manitoba . Mr. Speaker, several years ago, in this Chamber, a compromise was reached with the concurrence of the mem bers opposite dealin g with Sunday shop ping, which, I think, was a reasonable compromise under the circumstances dealing with an issue that has been a long-stand ing issue in this pro vince.

I dare say·and I suggest that if in fact the tables were reversed and if we were the gove rnment of the day and if we proposed a measure of this kind, the memb er s op posite no w would be self-righteously standing up and attacking our position for that particular positi on. I go back to the fact that the present legisla tion is an effective comprom ise, compromising all sides of the debate and dealing with the concerns raised by all Manitobans concerning Sunday shopping. I listened with amusement, Mr.

Speak er, to the argumen ts of the ministe r who used the greater proportion of time during debate to talk about all of the studies that have been brought forward , all of the public opinion polls that he had access to, that indic ated that Manitobans were in favour of Sunday shopping. (Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) 1 have always been one of the-w ell, I do not want to single myself out as the only individual. We all attempt to gauge the opinions of our constitu ents.

We all attempt to try to represent the viewpoints of our constituents in legislation and try to reflect, in the way we vote in this Chamber, Madam Deputy Speak er, those opinions or those viewpoints and try to best reconcile those opinions, those viewpoints, together with the positions that are brought forward in this Chamber. For the minister to rely solely on polls, solely on public relations efforts of the gov ernment as the reason for bringing in legislation seems to me to be setting a very, very dangerous precedent.

In fact, if you took the logic to its fullest extr eme, if the go vernment-and I know they do weekly polls-were to actually reflect the results of its weekly polling, a vast majority of Manitobans would want to get rid of this government. The majority of Manitobans would not want this go vernment to be in power. To take that logic to its full extent, this government should res ign, because easily 60 percent or more of the prov ince of Manitoba, and far more, do not want this gove rnment in powe r, so why do they not resign if the total justification for Sunday shopping is based on their polling results ?

It is clear. If 97 percent of the public or whatever statistics the minister voices forward wants Sunday shopping, then take it to the logical extent. Take their weekly polling, which says the vast majority of Manitobans do not agree with the principles of this gove rnmen t, and call an election, because that is the logical extension of the minister's argumen t. In fact, that formed the total basis of the minister's argument. He went through poll after poll after po ll, saying this is what Manitobans want and, therefore , we are delivering this.

Consequently, Manitobans , the vast majority, do not want you as gov ernment. Resign. Now memb ers opp osit e , Madam Deput y Speak er, of course, are crying out in indignation at the suggestion that they should resign. That argumen t is illogical. I concur, but the government is relying on that illogical argument to put forward the basis of its Sunday shopping legislation. I propose that mem bers oppo si te cry out in indignation, and I agree. That is correct. So do not give me a bunch of polls and stat istics as the justification and as the underpinnings for bringing in your legisla tion, Madam Deputy Speaker.

In fact, I asked during the course of the

479 LEGISLATI VE ASSEMB LY O F MANIT OBA December 11, 1992 minister's remarks and he refus� would ask that, if the minister is going to cite all of these polls and these statistics, perhaps the minister should table those so that we can have a rational viewpoint of what those opinion polls are saying in the first ins tance. I would also like to comment on the economic arguments that are voiced by the gov ernment as justification, which is one of the other supporting argumen ts cited by the government for the introduction of this particular legisla tion, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The minis ter said-and I am roughly quoting him correctl y. I am going from memo ry-that approximately $110 million was spent by Manitobans on Sundays in North Dakota or Minnesota or some such environs or some such areas, and that, therefore, is a justification for this Sunday shopping. Madam Deputy Speaker, there is no doubt that there is a terrible problem in this country concerning cross- border shopping. We all recognize that there is a terrible drain on the economy. What the gove rnment fails to do in their approach to try to stem this flow of cross-border shopping is actually deal with the root prob lem.

If the government actually li stened to its polling, it would find out that the root cause are things like Conserva tive government fiscal policy and, most importantly, the twin peaks of their policy, the GST and the Free Trade Agre ement, something me mbers opposite support. They support the GST as they line up together with their Prime Minister, and they support the Free Trade Agreement. They line up and they support those two key financial policies, which, in effect, are the major reasons as to why we are having this terrible drain on our economy.

If the government would spend more energy trying to redirect the initiatives of the federal gove rnment, Madam Deputy Speaker, we would get a lot further in stemming the drain and in dealing with the flow of mon ey out of this country, but they will not do that. They will do that in word , and they will do it when the Prime Minister comes to town, but a number of them will dine with the Prime Minister and will attend the function and will pump money into his re-election campaign. But the Premier (Mr. Rlmon) will stand up and say, I am not going to go to dinner with that individual.

One does get the impression that there is a bit of a public relations gesture in that, but that is a topic of another speech. Madam Deputy Speaker, if they would spend their energies, if member s opposite would spend their energies trying to convince the federal gove rnment of the damaging effects that its fiscal policies have had on the province of Manitoba and all the pro vinces, far mo re can be accomplished in st emmin g cross-border shopping than by the introduction of their present legislat ion.

The oth er component that wo uld stem cross-border shopping is if this government had any kind of plans for the economy of Manitoba. One is very hard pressed to find out anything about what the governm ent's program and plan is for the economy of Manitoba. I am not an economist, and I do not purport to understand all the intricacies of the economy, but I am very hard pressed , from the time that I entered this Chamber, to have any kind of comprehension of what this government is doing in the economy.

In fact, it is quite clear from the gove rnmen fs lack of action that they are doing precisely what our Leader has said . They are standing aside . They are letting the economy drift. As a consequence, when problems arise in the economy-and, heaven knows , there are enough of them- there is a reaction on the part of the government. The reaction is usually far too late, after the fact, and it is generall y just a band-aid solution to the economic problems that we are confront ing. Hence, there is a drain on the economy, monies flowing out of the province.

There is diffi culty, and the government says, okay, we are going to open Sunday shopping as If somehow Sunday shopping will magically revive the economy. They have done the same things in a number of areas. Somehow the expansion of rules concerning video lotte ries, or considering lott eries in general, is somehow going to revive the economy, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is somehow going to miraculously pump new money into the economy. That is not just going to happen because this gov ernment has no plan. •

(1130) This gove rnmen t has had no involvemen t in the economy. They have let it drift. They have let thousands and thousands o4 people fall off the economic train, only to be picked up by welfare or by other social programs, and, at the same time, that economic train is shrinking. They do not realize , as they stay out of the economy, as the economy continues in its spiral , what happens is that tax base

December 11, 1992 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMB LY OF MANITO BA 480 upon which we rely on for so many of our program s, our initiatives, is becoming lesser and lesse r. Consequently, they have to do things like offload taxes onto municipalities and school boards through the GFT, $79 million in the last year offloaded onto municipalities, and yesterday the Premier (Mr. Filmon) had the gall to say, well, you know, if they had only had the economic restra int that we had .

I say, that is the height of hypocrisy to state that when they forced and offloaded many, many prog rams and many, many costs onto municipalities and school boards and then forced them to raise their taxes and have made the claim that somehow they have kept taxes do wn. This gove rnment has no plan for the eco nomy. It is a reactionary plan, and every move is reac tionary. You s aw it this morning in terms of finally coming around to some kind of convoluted position on the NAFTA deal. It is a total reactive government to problems that occur.

I do not fault any government in the present environmen t, in the present changing global econom y, for having some difficu lty coming to grips with adj ustment. There is no ques tion that all gove rnments of all political stri pes and all ideologies are having the same kind of difficulty. But there is a diffe rence between trying and falling and perhaps trying and accom plishing something in the econom y and doing not hing, and then reacting to put band-aids on when the problem is far worse and cannot be simply accommoda ted by the band-aid solutions that are adopted over and over again by this gove rnment.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I just reiter ate the fact that if the intention is to deal with cross-border shopping and the drain on the Manitoba economy, far more could be accomp lished by having a proper eco nomic plan for reviving this dismal state of the Manitoba economy, probably the worst in my memory, the worst cert ainly since the Walter Weir regi me, and by dealing with that and by dealing with a federal gov ernment whose fiscal policies have done nothing more than to plunge us into the worst economic straits probably since the 1930s, Madam Deputy Speak er.

So, if they dealt with the problem head on-and even if they failed, Madam Deputy Speaker, it would be hard to criticize. Butto put your head in the sand, metaphorica lly speaking, and just to pop it up every so often when a major calamity occurs, to put a band-aid solution on it, is not the way to go.

If they do not know, Madam Deputy Speaker, what the public is saying out there, if they are spending all this time polling on Sunday shopping, they ought to spend some time polling about what Manitobans think of the economic performance of this gove rnment and the desire on the part of Manitobans for this go vernment to do something to help get us out of this econom ic morass. Those are my suggestions with respect to the economic ar gumen ts that have been put forward by go vernment mem bers. The ot her ar gumen t trotted out by the gove rnme nt- An Honourable Member: Choices. Mr.

Chomlak: -trotted out as choices, and I thank the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer). I had it down here, but I thank the memb er for Niakwa for prompting me on that. That is right; it is the choices argument, Madam Deputy Speaker. The argument about choices is often made by mem bers opposite when they are in trouble on an issue, and they generally trot out the sort of PR line of choices. I am prompted to repeat the oft-quoted phrase of the great French whomever-who I cannot recall at this momen t-who said that the rich of France have the same opportunity to sleep under the bridges of France as do the poor.

An Honoura ble Member: I thought you were going to say, let them eat cake. Mr. Chomlak: The member for Niakwa indicated some other great French quotes. I reserve those for specific ministers and some of the initiatives. The choices argument is an interesting one, Madam Deputy Speaker. On the sur face the choices argument is appealing, and I know again in the polling I am sure that it is. Why not provide Manitobans with that choice? The member for Lakeside is nodd ing his affirmative why not.

On the surface the choices argument makes sense, and I dare say that people have said to me the whole question of choice-if that were only the case , Madam Deputy Speaker, then perhaps logic would dictate that would be the preva iling argument, but there are some serious flaws in that. Not everyone has the choice, and it is always the case of who gets a chance to make the choice and who does not have a chance to make the choice.

481 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITO BA December 11, 1992 A lot of people are going to be forced to work on Sundays and have no choice. Now, I know memb ers opposite will say they have put protection into the legislation that em ployees do not have to work and that they are not forced to work; it is only volunteers. I will get to that argument later, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I think there are serious flaws In that argument. The question is, who makes the choice? Where are the forces that are going to be put on individuals and families and people in society as a result of wide-open Sunday shopping?

There is no doubt that people will be forced to work. There is no doubt that people will be forced to change their lifesty le. There is no doubt that people will be forced to do things that they were not in the past, by virtue of the competition-! will agree-and by the pressures on them to stay open on Sunday and to do things on Sunday that they otherwise would not have the opportunity of doing. It will become a very major problem, particularly in rural Manitoba where the choice will be removed. They will have no choice.

Their choices will be limi ted to having to open or having perhaps to go out of business, having to work or perhaps not having a job. I always thought that one of our roles in this Legislature was to protect those , Madam Deputy Speaker, who may not have a choice. It is an interesting argument to see, when you reverse the tables, who will actually have a choice in this situation .

There will be many individuals, many businesses and many people who will no longer have a choice who will be forced to be open, who will be forced to do what goes against their principles and goes against their better judgment by opening and by participating on Sunday. I have real difficulty with that choice argument, because fundam entally it is a question of who gets to make that choice. A lot of individuals will not have that opportunity to make that choice as a result of this legisla tion that has been put in. I want to deal with the whole question of the trial period.

It is an interes ting issue that the government should choose to launch its trial period over the Christmas season, over into the holiday season when retailers generally do the bulk of their trade, Madam Deputy Speaker. I dare say that it has been my experience, and I think member s opposite will agree , that generally when something is put on a trial period it has very rare ly, if ever, been elimi nated .

I just look back to the trial period of the lotteries that were brought in, I believe, to fund Manitoba Centennial only, and I remind mem bers of this House that income tax has also been put in as a trial period on a temporary basis. I reca ll Bill Vander Zalm, the then-Premier of British Columbia, bringing in liquor openings on Sunday on a trial basis only during the course of the Expo period. We all know that trial periods gener ally become fixed in st one, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr. Marcel Laurenduu (St. Norbert): Why is that, David? Why is it that they become fixed in st one? Mr. Chornlak: The member for St.

Norbert has suggested to me, why Is that, and there is no question that once the wheels move forward and once the legisl ation is in place and once the lifestyles have adapted, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is very hard to change and to go back on. There is no question that will happen in this case. I really think the trial period argument is strictly a public relations gesture to try to assu age the rural opinion, the opinion of others who were concer ned about Sunday shopping.

It is a middle-ground position taken by the governmen t who either do not have the courage of their convictions to come forward with it or they simply do not have it, so they are bringing in trial period as a public relations gesture . So I do not think the trial period argument amounts to much in terms of argument. * (1140 ) My strongest reason, Madam Deputy Speaker, amongst many, but one of the arguments that I feel very str ongly abou1 concerning Sunday shopping has to deal with busi ness and has to deal with competition.

It seem s to me that one of the things that we are doing in our society is taking away the opportu nities and the rights of a small business, in particular, in favour of the rights of large business and large enterprises that can do quite well in our society. I cite the example of the small comer store versus the large international chains that have come in or the small gift shop versus the large departmen t stores, Madam Dep uty Speaker.

The large department stores and the large international chains can do very, very well on their own; they do not need the benefit and protections afforded to many of the smaller operations in our society .

December 11 , 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 482 I fear for a lot of the small family-run operations who in the compromise-and I indi cated at the beginnin g of my co mmen ts that the present leg islation that is now being ame nded was a com prom is e- derive some ben efit from the compromise posi tion, and that Is they were allowed to gain some income and to gain some business on Sunday when the large congl omer ates were closed and previously suck ed away that particula r business.

They are going to lose that particular competitive advantage now, and by virtue of losing that competitive advant age, we are going to see them, many of them, probably go out of business. That will seriously hurt an economy that memb ers opposite supposedly say they-1 should say the mem bers opposite always talk about being the protectors of small business. That is hope lessly wrong , and I disagree with it, but that again is another discussion . They do not do that.

They do do that in their gestures and in their economic policies, but that aside, Madam Deputy Speaker, this initiative will hurt these small businesses and these family-run operations that had a competitive advantage and had an opportunity on Sunday to make up for a lot of the business that has been lost increasingly to the large companies, to the large malls and related enterprises, all of whom do quite well and do not need that competitive advantag e.

That has been a long-held concern of memb ers on this side ofthe House and me, in particular, when I have looked at the change in the way businesses are operating and the nature of business and enterprise in our society. These small-run businesses and operations who had the oppor tunity with the compr omi se d legislation to make up for what was lost in the past are no longe r going to have that opportunity. We will see the demise of many more of them, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the loss again of many more jobs and many more advantages in our economy. That is a strongly held belie f of ours.

I think it is something that the gov ernment has not considered. I have never heard those comments considered . I mean it goes back to the question of com petiti on. I noted the commen ts of the Minister of Labou r, the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik), when he talked about market-driven economy and how we have to compete. We do accept, in our society, limi ts on the market-driven economy.

We do accept that memb ers of this Ch amber and that gove rnments have a right, that the people have a right to set lim its on the market-driven economy, that there are reasonable strictures that we put in place on market-driven economies so that they do not run rampant and roughshod over people. One of the compr omises of the previous legis lation was that it allowed these smaller businesses to have a bit of an advantage versus the large multinationals, and the large corporat ions who have been able to run roughshod over a lot of the small business and the small operations, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It was a reasonable limit to put on. I mean if we take the Minister of Labour, the member for Lac du Bonnet's (Mr. Praznik) comments to a natural extr eme, why do we have any laws on opening and closing at all, why do we not just go 24 hours a day? Why do we not just allow unlim ited sale of liquor, et cetera, and other items in the grocery stores like they do in other jurisdictions? Of course , we do not do that. That argument is absurd .

We do not allow that because we, as a society, have said that we are going to put reasonable lim itations and reasonable restrictions on the free-driven market economy for the benefit of our society. Why Is that? Madam Deputy Speaker, we had the interesting announcement this morning, which we support, of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) and one of the memb ers for Brando n, that the gov ernment is taking a strong initiative against drunk driving. We agree with that. Well, if we take the market-driven economy, as brought forward by the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr.

Praznik), to a national extrem e, why do we not allow liquor sales 24 hours a day? We do not allow liquor sales 24 hours a day because we do not want people who are intoxicated or otherwise going into a liquor store at 2 a.m., purchasing liquor and perhaps driving and causing havoc and destruction on the highway. That is a reasonable lim itation that is put on our citizens. I think most mem bers of the public would agree, Madam Deputy Speak er.

So the ar gumen t that some how this market-driven economy should run it all and that is why we should allow Sunday shopping just does not hold water with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I think logically does not make any sense. There are reasonable limi ts that should be put on. We had a reasonable compromise in our previous legislation, and that reason able compromise is being lost by

48 3 LEGISLAT IVE ASSEMB LY O F MANITO BA December 11 , 1992 virtue of the government's move towards wide-open Sunday shopping. I generally, Madam Deputy Speaker, try to keep personal anecdotes out of speeches, but 1 just want to relate an experience of mine In Los Angeles several years ago when I was visiting and had occasion on a Sunday after noon to be wandering through a mall. I was just struck at how an American society and societies outside of Manitoba seem to have lost any comprehension of some of the ethics and some of the mores that we prev iously adopt in our society.

I can remember remarking to my wHe at the time how again this was an example to me of how things were a little bit different in Manitoba and how we oper ated diff erently in Manitoba. To add to that anecxlote, I recall being in rural Manitoba many times on Sunday mornings and thinking how diff erent we are than in many American places with the hustle and bustle of the downtown, even In smaller commun ities and the lack of any kind of cohesion in society.

Now I venture to say-and this Is strictly a personal opinion-that this initiative will go a long way towards further undermining that little distinctiveness and that little bit of difference that we have as Manitobans and as Canadians from our American counterparts. It inextricably binds us more and more towards a sort of North American global economy and a North American global society view of things which, In its ultim ate conclusion, will be nothing more than an integrated society, an integrated economy and indeed perhaps an integrated cultu re.

There are these little things, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we should really pay atte ntion to in terms of where we are going as a society and where we are going as a people.

I think this is just one of those flagpoles and one of those flags that raises and says , we should step back and say, ls this what we want, is this the di rection we want to move in, because again the logical exte nsion of that would be, well, now that we have Sunday shopping and we are stemming the flow of money from Canada, let u&-geez, liquor is a problem, you can get booze anywhere in the United State s, or many places on a Sunday, maybe we should allow boo ze sales on Sundays in all of these places, maybe we should allow it on a 24-hour basis . You see where that argument takes us. *

(1150) Member s opposite may not agree, but I sincerely believe that it really Is the thin edge of the wedge, and that we should take a very close look at where we are going as a society and what this particular legislation will do to the fabric of our society and where we are heading as a society in this regard . Earlier in my commen ts, I alluded to the fact of choice and the government's insistence that volunteerlsm will rule the day with respect to working on Sunday.

I think that is hopelessly naive , and it Is a hopelessly naive argument on the part of the gov ernmen t to assu me that somehow Sunday shopping and the volu nteers who will work on Sunday, that system will somehow not result in undue press ure being placed on em ployees to have to work on Sunday because we all know that in human relations--«nd heaven knows, in labour relations, subtle pressures and influences are placed on individuals and on em ployees every single day.

Even if the argument can be made that there will be no overt pressure and no overt insistence on the part of empl oyees to work on Sunday-and I do not even know if that will be the case, but if that is the case-there will be all kinds of subtle pressure and all kinds of subtle influence on the part of individuals and on the part of em ployees to work on Sundays. Its effect will be obvious, and those individuals will have no choice. Those individuals will be forced to work on Sunday with all of the ramifications and all of the effects that working on Sunday and that those factors will have on life and lifestyle.

I would also like to deal with the Iss ue of Sunday shopping from a perspective of many concerns that have been raised to me by constitue nts, and that is, trad itionally in this country we have set aside one day. Many individuals whom I represent set aside another day, Saturday, as a religious day of observ ance and as a religious day of rest Many others observe Sunday as a religious day of rest and as a day for religious experience , and other faiths and other religions reserve different days.

I think that we can redress wrongs in our society , and perhaps the unfairness that has been attributed to some of those religion s by not perhaps recogn izin g as strongly as we should the ir opportunities for their religious observances, although I think we have gone some way towards recognizing religious observ ances and experiences or other mem bers of other religions.

December 11 , 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITO BA 484 Nonethe less, Sunday has been trad ition ally a day for a large number of Canadians of religious experience and of rest. While this has been the case, this legislation, no doubt, will be disruptive to that recognition . I do not want to get into re ligious arguments one way or the other because I am very wary of venturing into that field. I have my fundamental spiritual and religious beliefs, and I know memb ers of this Chamber have theirs and hold them as sincerely as I do. So I have no right to impose my views on them or vice versa.

Noneth eless, I think that the effect on our society and on those individuals who perhaps wish to practise their religion on Sunday, there will be an effect on them . I think that is something that has to be considered in this legislation and has to be considered ove rall in terms of how we approach this issue.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I could probably talk for a good deal of time on this particular issue on a whole series of grounds and a whole series of arguments, but I also know that time is short on this day and that mem bers on this side of the House want to put some comments in the record as well with respect to this. So I will wrap up my comments. For the reasons cited, I will not be supporting this leg isl ati on. I have dis cu ssed it with many cons tituents on a con tinuing basis at the door . I will continue to do that.

I think, in principle , the compromise that was reached previously made good sense for the province of Manitoba. I believe that most of the arguments that have been trotted out by the gove rnmen t are not logical and do not stand up under scrutiny. I think that, in the final analysis, this is in fact a political reaction on the part of the govern men t to try to appear to be doing something in the economy. The interes ting thing about this is that it does not create any more money. There will be no one spending any more money on Sundays. There will be no more money creat ed, no more wealth creat ed.

All that will happen is that what was previously spent in the province of Manitoba on six days will now be spent on seven days . So the economic argument holds no wate r. Clearly, there is an argument with respect to st emming some of the money that flows out of the prov ince on cross -border shopping.

As I indicated earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, that problem can be addressed in a far superior way by a concerted econom ic plan on the part of this gove rnment and by some initiatives and, in particular, pressure on the federal gove rnment to deal with the matter of the GST and to deal with the entire fiscal mess that the federal gov ernment has put us in. So the economic argument in terms of creation of wealth and somehow that this is going to give a boost to the econom y does not make a lot of sense to me and can certainly be addressed in other ways and in ot her fas hions.

For that reason and the reasons that I cited earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, I certainly will not be supporting this legisla tion. I hope that those members opposite who have been kept in check and kept in tow by the go vernment with respect to this legislation will think through clearly what their position is and will look at the illogic of many of the gove rnment's, in fact, of all of the gove rnmen t's arguments, and will look to the advantages that have been cited by many of us on this side of the House to the present compromise situation that is in place and will take a sta nd.

I am urging mem bers opposite to take a stand on this issue and to not give in under pressure from their colleagues and to do what their cons ciences tell them to do, to do the right thing, and to not support this legislation. Thank you very much. Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Cree k): Madam Deputy Speaker, I feel that it is important to speak on this topic. I mus t admit, though, I have given this a considerable amount of thou ght.

When I hear the members across the way-although I may have some hesitation in Sunday shopping and adapting to change, which I think is something that everybody is having difficulty in dealing with, when I hear the member s across the way, it even convinces me more to support this legislation that probably is long over due. We are in the '90s now. I think we have to consider the fact that this is a time when we are all subject to change, and especially in the '90s the winds of change are upon us, as we make refe rence to in the throne speech, and I think that is ever so prevalent.

We always have to be examining our positions in life. H we do not do that, we are not going to be able to deal with the respo nsibili ties that are put on us as gove rnment and mem ber s representing our constituents.

485 LEGISLAT IVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITO BA DecEWnber 11, 1992 I think the legislation that is proposed is visionary. It is something that we as politicians have to examine from time to time, and through consultation with our cons tituents we have to do the thing that is best for them. One thing that is really prevalent through this whole aspect of legislation is I think that we have to consider the fact that the people are the governmen t and we have to listen to what the people are sayi ng. The decision to allow Sunday shopping on a trial basis responds to the public's demand. It expands the choices that people are looking for. •

(1200) People are looking for choices, and the freedoms in gove rnmen t seem today-if we follow the legislation and the direction that the opposition speak of we would have more gove rnment, more legislation that would actually curtail the efforts and the freedoms that people are looking for today. This flexibility of choice has been available to Canadians in other provi nces for some time. You know, when we consider the opposition in terms of how they speak out against this, it seems that they want to build walls around Manitoba. They do not want to let people come into Manitoba.

They do not want to entice tourism. They do not want people leaving the pro vince. 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. That just does not work, and we have to address that. People have to have the freed oms. We are living in the best country in this world , and we do not want to take away the freedoms that have been offered and we have gained over those years. The current legislation that we have now restricts the retail ope ration to four em ployees. This restriction creates unnecessary inconve nience.

For anybody who has gone into a shopping mall or to Safeway or any other place for that matter on a Sunday, the inconvenience is unbelievable. People are frustrated with that, and they are looking to government to open up the options that are available to them. When we consider the freedom that we have in this country, when we have restricted Sunday shopping, I just really do not understand the mentality of some people when they take that attitude. With more and more two-income families that we have out there today, single-parent families, the weekend is the only time for these people to shop.

I think we also have to cons ider the fact that this shopping can also be a family time. This is a time when families can share the time with their children and go out and window shop. We talk about disposable incomes. We do not need to have more incomes as far as we are concerned within Manitoba. What we want to do is to attract people and give them the opportunities to come into this provi nce and to spend their free time and to spend their money and their dollars here in Manitoba.

All aspects of our econom y, particularly the reta il sector, such operational barriers that we have in existence today with four em ployees just does nothing to e ncou rage or improve the retail sales busi ness activity in the province. The results of several econom ic studies and opinion research weigh heavily in the fav our of Sunday shoppi ng, but some people would choose to ignore that. This goverrvn ent chooses to listen to these people because this Is where the research is being done . It is talking to the people of Manitoba wher e these researchers have gained thei r information. (Mr.

Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) Studies conducted in North Dakota show that Sunday shopping has clearly had a positive impact on that state's economy, and I do not understand how anybody could think that if it works in North Dakota why it would not have an effect, and a positive effect, on our econom y here in Manitoba. Unfortunate ly, North Dakota's gain has been our loss . How long are we going to continue to do this? I mean, we have to get with the '90s.

We have to get with the times to be able to provide the tax dollars and the services that we as Manitobans are looking for and people are demanding more and more all the time. Mani tobans' spe ndin g in Nor th Dakota is estimated to be approximately $92 million as a result of ope ning on Sunday. Sunday shopping has become an economic boost to the people of North Dakota-$92 mil lion. Can you not imagine what that would do for the economy of Manitoba, for the retail business of Manitoba, the hotel assoc iation?

Several memb ers on this side have made men tion of tourism do lla rs coming into Manitoba-North Dakotans, Minnesotans. They

December 11 , 1992 LEGISLAT IVE ASSEMB LY O F MAN ITO BA 48 6 come in on a Friday night for a hockey game. They come in to support the Winnipeg Blue Bombers. They come in for the Folk Arts Council, the Folklor ama. Sunday shopping is not available to them, and they laugh at us. I mean, it is a real joke. I am em barrassed in many cases when I look at-1 get to hear the responses of these people coming into Manitoba and sayi ng, what are you doing here? Why are you not looking ahead ? It is all over the States, in 50 states in the United States and all of the pro vinces all around us.

The combined spending by Manitobans in Minn esota in total cross- border shopping attributable to Manitobans spending in the U.S. on Sundays is approximately $110 mill ion. That is an annual esti mate. Our estim ates show that shopping in Manitoba could have a positive econom ic impact on our pro vincial econom y and re taining any portion of that $110 milli on would be of benefit to Manitobans. It would be a benef rtto the retail sector of our pro vince.

All you have to do is to drive down Portage Avenue in the Sturgeon Creek area to see the number of businesses where the doors are closed , or the number of places where the lease signs are up. How can you not support it? When these businesses are going out of business, what is that doing? Who is showing concern? Sunday shop ping is not going to solve the ills of all the econom ic conditions of this pro vince, but anything that we can do to enhance it is going to be of benefit to Manitobans.

It is going to enhance the opportunities for people to work more freely with the hours that are available to them in Sunday shopping. It is going to add a lot of oppor tunities to Manitobans and to the tourists that are coming in and spending their money, and that, I think, is really first and fore most. There have been attempts to identify the volume of goods and services that would be purchased here rather than in the U.S. with the introduction of Sunday shopping here in Man itoba. These estim ates show in creased annual reta il expenditures ranging from about $1 00 mil lion to a maximum of about $315 million.

In addition to these findings, all of which suggest pote ntial econom ic gain for the Manitoba econom y, opinion research shows that in term s of personal pref erence, a majority of Manitobans supp ort the introduction of Sunday shoppi ng. Fifty-four percent of respondents surveyed favour Sunday shopping unconditionally, and self-described cross-border shoppers were among those most in favour of Sunday shop ping.

More than three-quarters of the respondents favoured Sunday shopping under at least one of these conditions, and even among those opposed to the Sunday shopping or unsur e of their position, 37 percent of these opposed favoured an initial trial period which we have proposed with this legislation . * (1210 ) There is some concern that Sunday shopping will shift consumer spending in smaller towns to larger centr es, and I do not really believe that, because Manitobans, for the most part, are loyal to their communi ties.

I think they have to examine, and I think they are also loyal to Manitoba, but for anybody to say that the rural com munities are not going to exam ine their economic futures and to support the businesses that are in their co mmunities, I think that is absolutely wrong. I think they will identify with the importance of maintaining those businesses, and they will under stand that they have to su pport those businesses, that only Sunday shopping is not going to make the difference in keeping them in business. They are going to have to support them five and six and seven days out of the week.

To say that people are going to not support their rural co mmunities is absurd . You are not even examining the issues that are before us today . 1 think that for the most part the only thing that 1 can do in list ening to the memb ers across the way is that they are looking only at the political opportunities that are available, and all they want to do is to oppose the government. They want to ignore the fact the people-this gove rnment is list ening to the peopl e, but they want to ignore that. The research supp orts Sunday shopping.

Nine ty-seven percent of the rural Manitobans surveyed say Sunday shopping would not change their shopping habits, and they say that they will continue to do the same volume of shopping in their own communities. Only 3 percent indicated they might shop less in their own communi ty, so when the memb er for Swan River (Ms. Wo wchuk) says that that is not the case , the research does not support that. I have to ask her, and oth er member s on the other side, what research have they done? To me, you are putting your head in the sand. Most

48 7 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMB LY O F MAN ITO BA December 11, 1992 other Canadian peo ple and provinces currently allow Sunday shopping, and the research conducted in these jurisdictions has shown strong support for expanded shopping on Sundays. The key findings of the research : the studies conclude that over three-quarters of all respondents survey ed favo ured Sunday shopping; and over three-quarters of tho se who work on Sundays favour Sunday shopping. Further, the support is highest among single parents, working women and those who work irregular hours.

Can you imagine how difficult it would be for a single parent with a child, or a person who works irregular hours to go out and be able to shop, do their Chris tmas shopping? It does not make sense. Why should we restrict those people? Are you trying to suggest that there is a law for the rich and a law for the poo r, because that is what you are suggesting? A large majority indicated Sunday shopping does not interfere with their family activities. I go to church on Sunday morning. I get out at 12 or 12: 30 p.m. There is still lots of time for me to spend time with my family.

There is time for me to go and shop if I have to. There is nothing wrong with that. Would you want to restrict the freedoms of Manitobans in having the choice of whether or not they shop, or whether they do not, or whether they go to a movie? What is the differe nce? They go to movies on Sunday. I think if we were to take a survey of this Chamber, we would find that most members in this Chamber do something, either in their jobs or somethi ng other than go to church or spend time with their fam ilies. I am sure that every one of us do that. Why should we not have those freedoms?

HI wish to spend time with my family, it does not necessa rily have to be on a Sunday. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) God said that if we want to save Sunday for the Sabbath-God never said that Sunday was the only day that we should have rest. What about the Seventh Day Adventists? Do they look at that? Are you going to restrict them of their fre edoms? They do not shop on Saturday. So you are going to restrict the Seventh Day Adventists from shopping on Sunday.

Since Sunday sho pping hurts these individuals more than any other in any other society, fai lur e to introduce Sunda y shopping shows a lack of sensitivity to the needs of these groups and the time pressures under which they must function and to point out that the demographics continue to show increases in the number of Manitobans who belong to these groups. We cannot live in the past. We have to live in the future. As I said in my speech in the reply to the throne speech, you have to look at your future, because that is where you are going to spend the rest of your lives.

H you do not addr ess that issue, we are going to be a have-not province which is what the NDP or the opposition are suggesting that they want us to be. They brought in the legislation in 1 988 that restricted Sunday shopping and that was pas sed unanimously. Why can the opposition not come forward and say, listen, this is for the betterment of Manitobans ? An Honourable Member: let us take the politics out of it. Mr. McAlpine: Let us take the politics out, because that is exactly what you are doing.

This is a political opportunity for you to stand in your seats and oppose the government. pnterjection] It is not enough today. People are f ed up with people who are oppos ing legislation just f or the sake of opposing legislation and trying to gain some points that would enable them in some remote poss ibility, the pie in the sky, that they might be re-elected come the next election. I have news for those people, because this go vernment is listening to the people of Manitoba, and we are listening to the people of Manitoba with this legislation.

I want to stress that the legislative amendments we are proposing in con nection with Sunday shopping are designed to provide choices to all gr oup s affected by the ch ange . While the amendmen ts respond to Man itoba consumer interest and expanded shopping options, they also protect the rights of retailers and their employees. Through an amendment to The Employment Standards Act, employees are empo wered to refuse to work on Sundays. "They do not have to work on Sundays if they do not want to.

This right to refuse work applies only to employees of those businesses that are allowed to open now as a result of the Sunday shopping trial period. All they have to do is to give 14 days notice to their employer, and the employees may opt out of working on Sundays. • (1 220) The amen ded leg islation fur ther protects emp loyees' rights. It prohi bits employers from

December 11 , 1992 LEGISLATI VE ASSEMB LY OF MANITO BA 488 discharging staff based solely on their refusal to work Sunday shifts or based on any emplo yee efforts to enforce these rights as defined under the amendment For the opposition to suggest that an employer is going to take unfair advant

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-4-12
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 4th hansardpdf 12.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e9202406fad72915d4a7f832c573c987475eba7e

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