LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday, December 9,
1992
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, I beg to presentthe petition of
Martha Cinch, Shelly Perkins, Sharlyne Neufeldand others urging the government
of
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Karen Holden, NicoleMcCrank, Pat Tognet and others requesting the government of
Mr. Speaker: I have
reviewed the petition of the honourablemember for The Maples (Mr. Cheema). It complies with theprivileges and the
practices of the House and complies with therules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read?
To the Legislature of the
WHEREAS each year smoke from stubble burning descends
uponthe
WHEREAS the Parents Support Group of Children with Asthma
haslong criticized the harmful effects of stubble burning; and
WHEREAS the smoke caused from stubble burning is not
healthyfor the general public and tends to aggravate the problems ofasthma
sufferers and people with chronic lung problems; and
WHEREAS alternative practices to stubble burning arenecessitated
by the fact that the smoke can place some people inlife‑threatening situations;
and
WHEREAS the 1987 Clean Environment Commission Report onPublic
Hearings, "Investigation of Smoke Problems fromAgriculture Crop Residue
and Peatland Burning," contained therecommendation that a review of the
crop residue burningsituation be conducted in five years' time, including are‑examination
of the necessity for legislated regulatory control.
THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the
LegislativeAssembly will urge the government of
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.Speaker, I am pleased to table the
financial statements for theyear ended March 31, 1992, for the
*
(1335)
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism):Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual Report, 1991‑92, ofthe
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 12‑The
International Trusts Act
Hon. James
McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the honourable Minister ofFinance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 12, The
International Trusts Act(Loi sur les fiducies internationales), be introduced
and thatthe same be now received and read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to
Oral Questions, may I direct the attentionof all members to the gallery, where
we have with us thisafternoon from the
Also this afternoon, from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcomeyou here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Economic Growth
Employment Statistics
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, myquestion is for the First
Minister (Mr. Filmon). Last spring,when
we unfortunately had the news that we were in last place ineconomic
performance, the Premier asked us to look at hispositive perception of how
things would go in 1992. He pointedto
employment growth potential in
We have unfortunately yesterday received statistics in
We are over double the national average in terms ofemployment
decline. Given the fact that this
Premier has told usyear after year just to look forward to the next six months
orthe next year, and every time we get there we see somedevastating results,
why is the Premier's economic strategyfailing?
Why are we in eighth place? Why
are we not having jobsthat are growing in our province? Why are we declining massivelyas we are
today? Why is this economic strategy
that is chairedby the Premier not working?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would have thoughtthat the
Leader of the Opposition, in keeping with the advicethat I gave him yesterday
to start to look positively instead ofalways knocking
I might have thought that he might have looked at thestatistics
that were put out by Statistics Canada just lastFriday that show that
I might have thought, Mr. Speaker, that he would have
pointedto the total capital investment in
I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition
wouldhave spent a little more time on that, rather than always gropingand
searching for anything negative he possibly can raise.
*
(1340)
Mr. Doer: Mr.
Speaker, the Premier knows, or he should know ashead of economic committee of
cabinet, that all the sectors thathe cherry‑picks to answer my question
are included in the declinein employment in
Royal Trust
Relocation
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I want to ask anotherquestion, a specific
question on a specific announcement made bythe Premier dealing with our
economy. In June of 1991, at apress
conference that he held with the Minister of Industry,Trade and Tourism (Mr.
Stefanson) in the city of
I would like to ask the Premier: What is the status of thatannouncement, given
that his own words in the media the next dayindicated that in the spring of
1992, we would see some of thosejobs and they would continue on developing in
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of theOpposition
has been reading the financial pages during the pastwhile, he will be well
aware of the difficulties that Royal Trusthas been facing, difficulties that I
might say have resulted inthem laying off substantial numbers of people in
We have remained in close touch with the Royal Trust
people,have had continuing discussions with them. They still arecommitted to an investment in
I might say to him that I am surprised that he has not
made acomment about a company that he maligned substantially last yearwhen he
gleefully talked about the MacLeod Stedman people beingdown to an employment
level of 120 people. They have since, ofcourse,
been bought out by Cotter, and the employment levels arenow double what they
were last year, and he was knocking thatcompany, Mr. Speaker. That is the kind of negativism that hebrings
to the floor all the time.
I can assure him that we have remained in close touch
withthe people from Royal Trust, that they are still committed to aninvestment
in
Mr. Doer: Mr.
Speaker, I asked the Premier a specific questionabout Royal Trust.
We have talked to laid‑off workers from Great‑West
Life whofeel that they have the same kinds of skills and abilities to getthe
jobs that the Premier promised in June of 1991, the jobs thatthe Premier
promised to the people of
Given the fact that it was the Premier who negotiated thedeal
with the Royal Trust company, given the fact that it was thePremier who had the
press conference and made the statement thatthere would be 200 jobs starting in
the spring of 1992, what arethe specific numbers of jobs that we will have in
Mr. Filmon: Mr.
Speaker, I know that the Leader of theOpposition would want to turn this into
as negative a situationas he could. I
know that he does not want to understand thedifficulties that Royal Trust has
faced. All you need to do isto read the
articles in the business sections to find out what ishappening with respect to
Royal Trust.
I will not repeat the layoffs and the reductions that
theyhave had in other provinces. I will
repeat that we have remainedin close contact with them, that they still remain
committed toan investment in
Now, he can either take a positive view on this and work
withus to ensure that
If that is what he wants to do, if he wants to destroy aninvestment
opportunity, Mr. Speaker, he will be demonstrating topeople just exactly where
he stands.
*
(1345)
Decentralization
Politicization
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Today, given that I have a government communication
strategyon decentralization which I will table, which talks about theelection
on the horizon, dangling the carrot in front of ruralManitobans and pork‑barrelling,
I want to ask the ministerresponsible whether he will now admit that
decentralization wasan election ploy, that they were dangling a carrot in front
ofrural Manitobans. Will he further
admit that jobs were deliveredafter the election on a political basis?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, you know, we have thegreat
hypocrisy of the New Democrats, who fought tooth and nailagainst
decentralization, now going out and trying to make apolitical issue of
decentralization, when this government made acommitment to the people in rural
and northern
I might say, Mr. Speaker, to show the equanimity and thefairness
with which this government has dealt withdecentralization, we have reviewed the
numbers in every possibleway we could to assess fairness since those phony
accusationswere made yesterday.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that despite the fact that in
ruraland northern Manitoba New Democrats represent 34 percent of thatpopulation
outside the city of
Mr. Speaker, that is fairness, that is equanimity, that
isdealing in a way that is totally nonpolitical, something thatwould be foreign
to New Democrats, foreign totally to NewDemocrats. I know that they cannot understand it,
because theydo not practise that kind of fairness when they are ingovernment,
but we do.
Communication Strategy
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask this government if they are socommitted
to decentralization and if they say there was nopolitical manipulation, why was
there such a manipulatedcommunication strategy?
They called for no media‑‑in
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, this is the mostfoolish line of
questioning I have ever heard. Here we
have,during the announcements, the unveilings and the openings ofthese
decentralization offices, New Democratic members clamouringto be on the stage,
like the member for Brandon East (Mr. LeonardEvans), wanting to be there in
front of the cameras, wanting toget his little 15 seconds of fame. We have the member forInterlake (Mr. Clif
Evans) wanting to be in Ashern next week aspart of the announcement, asking the
minister responsible‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please.
*
(1350)
Point of Order
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Ihave an
invitation from government to attend this function inAshern.
Mr. Speaker: The
honourable member clearly does not have a pointof order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Filmon: What
greater example of fairness could be given, Mr.Speaker? There we are, inviting the New Democratic
members sothat they can share in the credit, so they can bask in thelimelight,
so that they can be part of a positive announcementdespite the fact that they
voted against it in the House. Icannot
think of anything more fair.
Politicization
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I want to ask again if this government will admit that
theywere using political manipulation in dealing with this. Theyknew technology was not in place. They knew that theirfacilities were not in
place; yet they announced projects inareas where there was no technology and
after they lost thoseseats they did not follow through with putting those jobs
inplace.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we promised a couple ofyears ago
that there would be, I believe it was 600‑plus jobs.We have delivered
almost all of those jobs.
Mr. Speaker, there have certainly been close to 90
percent ofthe jobs decentralized. We
have opened offices and we have putthe functions in place, and everybody in
every community hasgiven us nothing but credit for having done this
program. Theyhave given us credit in
Thompson, which is a New Democraticconstituency, where we promised 33 jobs and
we delivered 52 jobs.
Mr. Speaker, in her constituency we promised five jobs
and wedelivered five jobs. I cannot
understand this line ofquestioning. We
have done what we said we would do, and we havegot nothing but credit from
those rural communities. The onlypeople
in this whole province who are unhappy are the NewDemocrats.
Brighter Futures Program
Social Assistance
Recipients
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.Speaker, my question is to the Minister of
Family Services (Mr.Gilleshammer).
Families throughout
The Minister of Family Services has not told Manitobans
howthis will impact on them, particularly if they are in receipt ofsocial
assistance benefits. Will the minister
now make adefinitive statement on what will be the impact, on his paymentto
these people, on social assistance benefits?
*
(1355)
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr.Speaker, we have been very interested in
acquiring informationfrom the federal government on their new Brighter
Futuresprogram. We are still working
with officials from the federalgovernment to acquire some of the details of
that program, andthese are the subject of ongoing discussions.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr.
Speaker, it is very clear from all of thematerial that has been prepared that a
person on socialassistance will receive not one new additional penny from
thisbenefit program.
Will the minister now assure social assistance
recipientsthat they will not be penalized by this provincial governmentbecause
of this new change in federal policy?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr.
Speaker, we will continue to monitor thedevelopments that are taking place at
the federal governmentlevel. We are
acquiring more information almost on a daily basisas to the details of that
program. We will use that material tosee
how it fits with the provincial program, and certainlydecisions will be made in
due course.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr.
Speaker, the statements of the minister arevery, very disturbing. He is clearly stating that he has notmade a
decision as to whether he intends to cut benefits ofpeople on social
assistance.
Will he tell this House today that no social
assistancerecipient will receive less money from this provincial
governmentbecause of a federal government change in policy?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I want
to assure the member and other membersof the House that we have constantly
reviewed our socialallowances benefits to Manitobans, and are probably one of
twoprovinces last year to increase those benefits at the rate ofinflation. At the same time, we have brought in a number
ofother enhancements which I alluded to in my comments the otherday. As we get more information from the federal
government, wewill be making those decisions in due course.
Chris Davis
Wheelchair Purchase
Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis (
Mr. Speaker, it is not health care reform when
thisgovernment drags its heals on funding a specialized wheelchairfor Chris
Davis so that he can live in the community and savetaxpayers' dollars. It is shameful when this government will
notcommit to paying for this wheelchair, and yet one of
I want to ask the Minister of Health if he will now
followthe example of
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member has put
herquestion.
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as Iindicated on Monday, the
issue of a wheelchair is not the issueon placing this individual in other than
an acute care hospital.It is the medical condition and the stability of that
and theability to provide this individual's medical needs safely inother than
an acute care hospital that is the issue that I amcoming to grips with.
Mr. Speaker, I indicated to my honourable friend that
thewheelchair program in
*
(1400)
I congratulate
I know my honourable friend has not phoned the
doctorinvolved at
Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table thestatement delivered today by Chief
Ken Wood at
I would like to ask the Minister of Health, who should
beembarrassed and hanging his head in shame today, will he not nowtell Chris
Davis and the
Mr. Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, so that my honourable friend does notget too excited in front of the
television cameras, maybe myhonourable friend ought to consider what I have
been saying andconsider it rather seriously.
My honourable friend seems wontthat we should immediately place this
individual outside of ahospital.
My honourable friend has not taken the time to discuss
themedical issue with Dr. MacKenzie.
Perchance she should, becausethe wheelchair, Sir, is not the issue
preventing that movementfrom the acute care hospital to an alternate care
location. Itis the medical safety, the
medical condition and thecircumstances of providing safe alternate care that
drives thisprocess, not the existence of a wheelchair, as my honourablefriend
would believe.
Please, for the interest of the individual involved,
would myhonourable friend take time to check with Dr. MacKenzie at
Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis:
Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier (Mr.Filmon) a question, who will
know from reports of this issue thatin fact the medical requirements of Chris
Davis can be met in thecommunity if the government is willing to do so and if
they canget their act together with respect to interdepartmentalco‑ordination.
I want to ask him if he will put a mechanism in place
tobring together the Departments of Health, Housing and FamilyServices so that
people like Chris Davis do not fall between thecracks and so they can live in
the community and make acontribution to our society.
Mr. Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, you know, again my honourable friendrefuses to acknowledge the medical
circumstances that I havealluded to.
I would simply like to say to my honourable friend that
sometime ago, Sir, before this individual's admission to an acutecare hospital,
the kind of co‑ordination my honourable friend isurging upon me today
took place and, in fact, we had theopportunity for community placement for this
individual. It wasthere, but the
individual's medical condition changed so thattoday those circumstances cannot
be met in the circumstance thatwas available as of June of this year.
Sir, I realize my honourable friend does not have
thatinformation, and my honourable friend has refused to phone Dr.MacKenzie at
Point of Order
Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis:
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believethat the minister has been
imputing motive throughout hisresponse to my questions and suggesting I have
not done myresearch.
I would like to table a copy of a letter indicating that thisminister's
Department of Health approved funding for thewheelchair back on August 10, and
the minister has broken hisword.
Mr. Speaker: We will
accept the tabled document, but thehonourable member does not have a point of
order.
School Divisions
Medical Services
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my question is for theMinister of
Education.
The province has offloaded millions of dollars of cost
toschool divisions. Hundreds of jobs in
education have been lost.Now a further $17 million will be cut in the Education
budget.
Since The Manitoba Teachers' Society has passed a
resolutionindicating that teachers will not provide medical services
tochildren, what plans does the government have in place to provideassistance
to school divisions in order to provide these medicalservices?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.Speaker, first of all, the member insists
on continuing tomention a speculative number, an unconfirmed number. I willremind him of the fiscal position of
this province and thatManitobans are expecting this government to be extremely
fiscallyresponsible in our planning.
In relation to the medically fragile child, I have
beenworking with our colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard).We have
been looking very carefully at a plan that we will behoping to bring forward.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary is to the sameminister.
Can the minister outline whether or not she will
beresponding or the ministers will be responding to a report thathas been on
her desk for a year and a half calling for thisco‑ordinated plan? When will we see the plan? There has been areport on her desk for a year
and a half, and she has not evenresponded.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.
Speaker, well, certainly, there has been aresponse, but I believe what the
honourable member is asking isperhaps are we meeting as a government, and I can
tell him, yes,we are.
He is confusing, however, two matters. There is one matterwhere there has been
working already from among four departments,an interdepartmental co-rdination
team. The Department ofJustice, the
Department of Health, the Department of FamilyServices and the Department of
Education have been working tobring forward a plan in relation to the very
specific issue ofthe medically fragile child.
My colleague the Minister of Health(Mr. Orchard) and I have been working
on that issue.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr.
Speaker, given the budget cutbacks andpotential cutbacks from this government,
can the minister outlinetoday when she will come forward with a plan to allow
the schooldivisions, which must set their budgets now, to know whatservices
will be in place to provide for the medical services ofchildren in the system?
When will that plan come forward? The budgets are duealready this week.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.
Speaker, certainly I am in communications withschool divisions on a very
regular basis, and my colleague and Iare endeavouring as soon as possible to
bring forward the plan.
Foreign Domestic Workers
Minister's Awareness
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
In particular with regard to Lenore's case, the Minister
ofImmigration said that he did not want to intervene because he waswanting the
federal court to make a decision before he wouldcomment on that particular
case.
Mr. Speaker, what we want is to see Lenore able to stay
hereuntil the federal court at least has made that decision. Ibelieve that the minister is fully aware of
these two domesticworkers.
I would ask the minister:
Can the minister indicate to thisHouse if she has had any contact with
her federal counterpartwith respect to the Lenore Panas case?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage
andCitizenship): Mr. Speaker, my officials have been in touch
withimmigration officials from the federal government on an almostday‑to‑day
basis regarding this issue.
Our understanding is that one of the women did
leavevoluntarily about a week ago, and my understanding is that thesecond woman
has agreed voluntarily to leave a week or so fromnow and let the process take
place. If the member for Inksterhas any
more information that he would like to share with me thatI might be unaware of‑‑as
of yesterday, that was my understanding.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr.
Speaker, Lenore Panas definitely wants tostay in
My question to the minister is: Would the minister indicateher support to
allow this resolution to be debated today?Because it is so time sensitive, Mr.
Speaker, we are looking athaving this resolution debated today so that we can
send a strongmessage.
Point of Order
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker,this question is certainly out of
order. That is a matterdealing with
House business, Orders of the Day. I
would say thatthis question is totally out of order.
I am a recipient of a request from the second party
Houseleader requesting a certain matter be dealt with in respect tothe number
of resolutions and the manner in which they are dealtwith, Mr. Speaker, and I
will be replying to the member in duecourse.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): On thesame point of order, Mr. Speaker, the
government can choose whichminister to answer the question. If the government House leaderfeels it is a
House question, he could have stood up and answeredthe question as the House
leader.
This is a question that I have asked the Minister of
Culture,Heritage and Citizenship if she herself would support, because Ibelieve
that she is being very sincere on this particular topic.We are just trying to
find out if, in fact, she would.
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. On the point of order raised,
thehonourable government House leader indeed did have a point oforder.
The honourable member's question is out of order
according toBeauchesne's 410(10) that "the subject matter of questions
mustbe within the collective responsibility of the Government or theindividual
responsibility of Ministers."
I believe the honourable member's question indeed
couldbetter be settled outside this Chamber in conjunction with theother two
government House leaders. I would ask
the honourablemember for
* * *
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr.
Speaker, my question then would be to theminister. Will she agree to contact her federal
counterpartlater on this afternoon if at all possible and report back tomyself
either on this side or to the Chamber?
*
(1410)
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker,
I intend indeed to get an updatethis afternoon on exactly what is happening and
ask whether thathas been a consideration by the federal government.
Immigration
AgreementStatus
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
I would ask the minister, what seems to be the problem
interms of
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage
andCitizenship): Mr. Speaker, my department is aggressively
workingtoward the finalization of an immigration agreement with thefederal
government.
Since the creation of the Citizenship Division just less
Executive Director
Dismissal
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, the
I want to ask the Minister of Culture, Heritage
andCitizenship what action she has taken to ensure that fairprocedures and
principles of natural justice have been followedin this case.
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage
andCitizenship): Mr. Speaker, the Arts Council has been an arm'slength
organization of government for many, many years. It isnot my policy to politically interfere
with either grantingdecisions or administrative decisions that that arm's
lengthorganization takes. I believe they
will act in the bestinterests of the arts community, and they will certainly
bejudged based on the decisions that they make.
Arts Policy
Government Position
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, does this dismissalindicate a
change in
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage
andCitizenship): Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in
thisgovernment's policy or procedures.
The Manitoba Arts Council performs a very valid
functionwithin our provincial government.
We understand and recognizeand realize the importance of our cultural
community and whatbenefits there are to
Annual Report
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, will the minister tellthe House
when she intends to follow the recommendations of herown Arts Review Committee,
the DeFehr report, and require thatthe Manitoba Arts Council report annually
directly to theLegislature so that public accountability can be ensured?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage
andCitizenship): Mr. Speaker, we have implemented some of
therecommendations of the Arts Policy Review Committee. We willcontinue to move along that path and
implement otherrecommendations as time and resources become available.
Federal Environmental
Review
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, my question is forthe Minister
of Environment. We have seen in this
country thatthere has been the Rafferty-alameda dam; there has been
I would like to ask the minister: What progress is beingmade to ensure that
this major development in
An Honourable Member: Old
Glen, we call him.
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please.
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): I am not used tobeing heckled from behind,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the member incorrectly categorizes this
processas in any way avoiding proper environmental review and action.The fact
is the Department of Environment has laid out somefairly wide‑reaching
and encompassing guidelines for which theproponent will have to respond to, and
this will be a completelyopen and very full process.
Water Conservation
Policy
Implementation
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, my supplementaryis for the
Minister of Environment or the Minister of NaturalResources (Mr. Enns).
Why is it taking so long to ensure that
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, therehas been an enormous amount
of work done in this province inrespect to the environmental assessment
process.
Anytime that there is a project, particularly one of
thisnature, that requires a lot of examination from an environmentalpoint of
view and certainly has a broad aspect of communityinterest on both sides, this
is the type of process that isideally suited to allowing public discussion and
input on bothsides so that environmental and social issues are properly
lookedat.
Water Sales/Transfers
Government Policy
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I would remindthe minister that
a full consultation was done and completed in1986 and this was the document
produced. I would think that alot of the
problems as I have read would still apply.
I wouldlike to ask the minister:
How is the government dealing with thecontroversial and serious issue of
sale and transfer of water andwater rights between water users? What is the government policywith respect to
water sale?
*
(1420)
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, Iwould remind the member, and she
was referring to work that wasdone to provide preliminary information on this
project, that ourprocess is driven by the rapidity of response and application
of,first of all, the proponent and, secondly, those who wish to haveinput into
the process and then how quickly the proponent willrespond to guidelines that
are produced as a result of that.
The fact is that the concerns and the issues that the
memberraises will be well and fully dealt with through theenvironmental
assessment process that we have in our province andthe hearing process that
flows from that. I think that themember
only needs to look at the projects that we haveimplemented or have put through
the process in the last threeyears to know that we have one of the most full
and complete and,in the eyes of many people, rather time‑consuming
process.
Mr. Speaker: Time for
Oral Questions has expired.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker,second readings today of the
bills in this order: Bills No. 3,No. 5,
No. 4, Nos. 2, 6, 7 and 10.
SECOND
Bill 3‑The Oil and
Gas and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, Imove, seconded by the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness), thatBill 3, The Oil and Gas and Consequential
Amendments Act (Loiconcernant le petrole et le gaz naturel et apportant
desmodifications correlatives a d'autres lois), be now read a secondtime and be
referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Downey: Mr.
Speaker, let me at the outset indicate to themembers of the Legislature that I
am the owner of some mineralrights in southwestern Manitoba which could well be
perceived asa conflict by some individuals, and it is stated in my conflictof
interest forms where they are, as well as the Leader of theOpposition (Mr.
Doer) sometime ago tried to make a big to‑do overthe fact that I had some
shares in a small oil company.
Well, Mr. Speaker, nothing has changed. The value of the oilshares have not gone up;
they have in fact gone down, and I wouldinvite him if he wants to talk to me
about them later. I do, Mr.Speaker, want
to declare that to the House in the introduction ofthe Oil and Gas Act.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce The Oil and Gas
Actfor second reading.
When one thinks of the oil and gas industry in
By way of history, oil was first discovered in
I can as well add that I remember in the community of
which Ilived in southwestern
Through the '50s, development of fields in the Virden
areabrought a boom to that part of the province. During the 1960sand '70s, drilling activity
was reduced but ongoing productionoperations provided a strong economic base
for the Virden area.
In 1978, the previous Conservative government of the
day,recognizing that
I will be visiting Waskada later on today to meet with
myconstituents to discuss some of their concerns. Of course someof the concerns relate to value
that has been added to the landbecause of the oil development.
Mr. Speaker, we continue to believe that
The Oil and Gas Act provides the rules of the game, so
tospeak, and for sustainable development of the province's oil andgas resources
for the benefit of all Manitobans. It
establishesthe rules that we consider fair and comprehensive which willenable
people to operate in the province in the full knowledge ofthe requirements and
expectations placed upon them.
Private sector investment in the province's oil and
gasresources will be encouraged through simplification oflegislative
requirements. Further, regulations will
be developedunder the act to accommodate changing technology and provide
apositive investment climate.
We hope, through these initiatives, to build
Manitoba'spetroleum industry into an integral part of this provincialeconomy.
Over the past two or three years, staff from the
departmenthave been aggressively marketing petroleum investmentopportunities in
Geophysical exploration is up over last year. A number ofexploratory or wildcat wells have
been drilled. It is our hopethat
introduction of this act will foster that interest and leadto successful
development of
In all cases, this legislation has been significantly
amendedfor nearly 40 years. As a result,
the current legislation failsto address developing technology and, more
importantly, society'sconcern for protection of the environment. Additionally, theexisting statutes are overly
complex, confusing and at timescontradictory.
I should note that even though the currentlegislation is deficient in
providing for protection of theenvironment, over the years the Petroleum branch
of my departmenthas introduced a series of operational policies and
regulationsthat have filled the environmental gap in the legislation.
The industry, by and large, has accepted its
responsibilitieswith respect to the environment and complied with the
policiesand regulations. There do
remain, however, problems ordeficiencies that cannot be dealt with through
regulation orpolicies. The proposed new
Oil and Gas Act is designed toaddress these problems in a fair and workable
manner. Theproposed Oil and Gas Act is a
companion piece of legislation toThe Mines and Minerals Act which was
proclaimed in the spring of1992. Similar
to The Mines and Minerals Act, the 10 principlesof sustainable development are
central to the Oil and Gas Act.
Part of the act which is subsection 2 of the act, 2(1) in
thebill, states in part:
"The objects and purposes of this Act are
"(a) to provide for, encourage and facilitate the
safe andefficient development, and the maximum economic recovery of theoil,
gas, helium and oil shale resources of the province inaccordance with the principles
of sustainable development;"
The next subsection sets out these principles in the
contextof oil and gas development. For
example, the bill requires thatdecisions respecting the development of oil and
gas resources beintegrated with decisions respecting the protection
andmanagement of the environment so that oil and gas industryactivity is
conducted with due regard for its impact on theenvironment, and environmental
programs and initiatives areinstituted with due regard to their economic impact.
*
(1430)
The bill also requires that government and
industryacknowledge in their respective policies and practices theirstewardship
of the oil and gas resources of the province, so thatthe economy is developed
and the environment is preserved for thebenefit of the present generation and
future generations ofManitobans and that the responsibility for sustaining a
sound,healthy oil and gas industry in the province is shared byindustry and
government alike and specifically that land which isin environmental terms is
damaged or diminished by oil and gasindustry activities be rehabilitated.
If you refer to Section 2 of Bill 3 you will see the
itemslisted under sustainable development closely parallel the 10principles
established by
The account will be funded by industry through surcharges
onwell licence fees and by annual levies on inactive wells orfacilities. The fund will be used as a last resort and
anyexpenditures out of the fund constitute a debt of the operator tothe
Crown. The effect of this is that where
legal issues havebogged down a company's operation, the fund could be used to
takeaction forthwith to return land to product activity and to repairany
environmental damage.
The act also provides a clear enforcement mechanism that
isvery specific and effective in addressing problems arising
fromnoncompliance. The new act will
correct a major deficiency inthe existing legislation by putting substantive
legislation intothe act itself, shifting it out of the regulations. This isconsistent with the rules of our
Legislature, which require thatregulations should not contain substantive
legislation but shouldbe confined to administrative matters.
For example, in the past, tenure of Crown‑owned oil
and gasrights, which is an important element in any petroleumdevelopment, has
been dealt with by regulation. In other
words,the provisions for obtaining a lease of Crown‑owned oil and
gasrights could be changed by Order‑in‑Council, which has been
donewith fairly significant results.
For example, in 1992, the government of the day
discontinuedCrown‑leased sales, thereby eliminating a mechanism for
industryto obtain Crown oil and gas rights in a competitive mannersimilar to
systems in place in other western Canadianjurisdictions. This measure contributed materially to a very
lowlevel of activity in the 1970s. I
should add that in 1979 theConservative government of the day restored the
Crown‑lease salesystem again by regulation, and we are now placing it,
Mr.Speaker, in the act.
In spite of the apparent bulk of this bill, we are in
factstreamlining the oil and gas legislation.
In addition torepealing the remaining provisions of the old Mines Act
dealingwith oil and gas, this bill will also repeal The Pipe Line Act,parts of
The Gas Storage and Allocation Act and specificprovisions of The Securities Act
relating to gas and oil.
The new act incorporates in a single act the
necessaryprovisions of the legislation being repealed. Furthermore,substantive provisions that were
formerly in the regulations havenow been put directly into the act; the size
and the scope of theregulations will be correspondingly reduced.
On that point, regulations under the new act are currentlybeing
drafted with the goal of having them ready for consultationwith client groups
which coincide with or shortly after the billmakes its way through the
legislative process.
Part 1 of the act includes definitions and the objectives
andpurposes of the act. In addition to
sustainable development ofthe province's oil and gas resources, purposes of the
act includethe prevention of waste and the protection of the correlativerights
of owners of oil and gas rights. The act
also providesfor the safe and efficient construction and operation ofpetroleum
pipelines situated entirely within
Part 2 sets out the powers and the duties of the
minister,Director of Petroleum, Petroleum Registrar and PetroleumInspectors. It also includes guidelines on conflict of
interestfor employees.
Part 3 establishes the Oil and Gas Conservation Board,
whichis designed to operate as an independent review and advisory bodyto the
minister. Through this board, the public
and theinterested parties will be provided a hearing and review processon
matters resulting in petroleum resource decisions ofsignificance.
Parts 4 and 5 deal with tenure of Crown oil and gas
rights,while Part 6 requires registration of agents that acquire leasesfrom
private owners of oil and gas rights. At
present there aremore complex licensing and registry systems under The
SecuritiesAct.
Part 7 provides for licensing and standards for
geophysicalexploration.
Part 8 provides for the licensing of wells and clearly
statesthe responsibility of the well licensee in respect of operationsof the
well or problems arising from those operations.
Part 9 provides a framework for development and
production ofthe province's oil and gas resources, including provisionsrelating
to well spacing, production rates, enhanced recovery andprocessing of gas. The part also contains important
provisionsrelating to the prevention, control, cleanup and reporting of oiland saltwater
spills and the abandonment of wells andfacilities. The operator's responsibilities for
rehabilitationof land damaged by its operation is spelled out in this part
ofthe act.
Parts 10 and 11 deal with pooling and unitization which
areoperating arrangements designed to permit the efficientdevelopment of oil
and gas resources when multiple operators andresource owners are involved.
Part 12 provides for the construction and operation of
theflow lines and pipelines. Flow lines
are the smaller diameterpipelines that carry fluid from a well to a primary
processingfacility called a battery.
Pipelines, on the other hand, aregenerally larger diameter, longer
systems that gather productionfrom a number of batteries for delivery for the
even largerinterprovincial pipeline systems.
The provisions in this partrelating to pipelines replace the provisions
of The Pipe Line Actwhich is being repealed.
A significant change is that acquisition of surface
rightsfor purposes of a pipeline are being brought under The SurfaceRights
Act. Previously, if the proponent of the
pipeline and alandowner were unable to come to terms, the proponent
couldproceed under The Expropriation Act.
Part 13 provides for storage of hydrocarbons in
naturallyoccurring underground reservoirs, replacing similar but narrowerprovisions
in The Gas Storage and Allocation Act.
There arecurrently no underground storage reservoirs active in
Part 14 requires that an applicant for a licence or a
permitunder the act provides a performance security to ensurecompliance with
the act. The security can be in the form
of adeposit which is refundable after the site of the operation,well, or
facility is rehabilitated in accordance with the act anda certificate of
abandonment signifying such rehabilitation hasbeen issued. A performance security can also be in the
form of anonrefundable levy on licences issued or on wells and facilitiesthat
are inactive. These levies are deposited
in the abandonmentfund reserve account that I mentioned earlier.
Part 15 provides a process by which provisions of the act
canbe enforced. The process includes
notices of noncompliance andshut down, shut down orders and, if all else fails,
seizure.Under seizure the minister may authorize the director to seize awell or
facility and effect compliance with the act.
This partalso provides a method of appeal to an order of seizure made
bythe minister.
Part 16 provides for royalties on production from Crown‑ownedoil
and gas rights and further provides authority to theLieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council
to vary a royalty in specialcircumstances; for example, to encourage the
application ofunproven or, one may say, exotic recovery technologies.
Part 17 provides for collection of debts due the Crown
underthe act, while Part 18 deals with record keeping and reportingrequirements
as well as with confidentiality of information.
*
(1440)
Part 19 covers offences and penalties, and Part 20 addressesa
number of general issues and provides regulation‑makingauthority.
The remainder of the bill includes, in Part 21,
transitionalprovisions, and in Part 22, repeal of certain statutes
andconsequential amendments of others.
Mr. Speaker, these are some of the highlights of the new
Oiland Gas Act. I commend it to you,
Sir, and to the House.Because of the complexity of Bill 3, I would like to take
thisopportunity to extend an invitation to make arrangements for ourstaff to
provide opposition critics with a special briefing fortheir assistance. I welcome that at the convenience of
thosemembers of opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I commend this bill to the House, to
thecommittee of the Legislature and would hope that we could see arelatively
smooth passage of this Legislation.
Thank you.
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I move, secondedby the member
for
Motion agreed to.
Bill 5‑The
Northern Affairs Amendment Act
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs): Mr. Speaker, Imove, seconded by the Minister
of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns),that Bill 5, The Northern Affairs Amendment Act
(Loi modifiant laLoi sur les affaires du Nord), be now read a second time and
bereferred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Downey: Mr.
Speaker, I am extremely pleased that mycolleague the Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns) secondedthis bill.
It gives me a lot of comfort, and I am sure themembers of the opposition
should find comfort in that, that hehas seen fit to allow his name to stand to
second this importantpiece of legislation.
I am pleased in the introduction of Bill 5, The
NorthernAffairs Amendment Act, that this bill identifies two changes thatare
primarily process orientated. One change
is to clarify theexisting consultation process with our community
councilsregarding the reissuance of permits of a current occupation ofuse of
Crown land.
Presently, with respect to Crown land permits of
occupationor use, we only consult with community councils with respect tothe
initial disposition. This process is
well understood andaccepted by Northern Affairs communities.
We have added, Mr. Speaker, subsection 9(2.1) to
establishthe existing process in legislation.
A failure to do so wouldrequire repetitive consultations and give the
volume of Crownland permits issued in northern
If a new lessee were to come along, then it would
require, Iam sure, again consultation with the community. However, ongoingleases would not in fact have
to be reconsulted, because it wouldtake tremendous amounts of staff time and
cost to carry out suchan activity.
The second change will make applicable to local
committeesand community councils the same process which applies toincorporated
community councils with respect to issues otherwisewithin the jurisdiction of
the Public Utilities Board. Thisinvolves
the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) givingapproval for matters such
as community by-laws affecting sewerand water rates.
The balance of amendments, Mr. Speaker, deal with changes
inlanguage for the process of incorporating our community councils,again, a new
initiative, or a major initiative which thecommunities are anxious about.
At the time, Mr. Speaker, The Northern Affairs Act
wasinitially enacted,
Mr. Speaker, these are the amendments which are part of
theongoing review of my department as established in regard to TheNorthern
Affairs Act. Just to further add, I
would like to saythat it is my understanding that we have received
communicationfrom the chairman of the Public Utilities Board supporting themove
to have the Minister of Northern Affairs set the levies forthe sewer and water
rates for our communities as is done underother acts of this Legislature.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope for the support, ask for
thesupport of the members opposite again in supporting this bill forthe support
of northern
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by themember
for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 4‑The Retail
Businesses Sunday Shopping (Temporary Amendments) Act
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism):Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education andTraining (Mrs.
Vodrey), that Bill 4, The Retail Businesses SundayShopping (Temporary
Amendments) Act; Loi sur l'ouverture descommerces de detail les jours feries‑‑modifications
temporaires,be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of
thisHouse.
Motion presented.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr.
Speaker, as the members of this House areaware, our government recently
announced its intention tointroduce legislation to allow Sunday shopping on a
trial basishere in
This proposed new legislation, The Retail Businesses
SundayShopping (Temporary Amendments) Act, is retroactive to November29, 1992,
and will be in effect until April 6 of 1993.
Mr.Speaker, during this five‑month trial period, retail
businessesnormally operating with more than four employees will bepermitted to
open any time between 12 noon and 6 p.m. on Sundays.
Stores that normally operate with four or fewer than
fouremployees will be allowed to continue operating under the sameterms and
conditions that applied prior to the introduction ofthese amendments. Based on assessment of this trial period,
Mr.Speaker, government will decide whether to proceed with Sundayshopping on a
permanent basis and, if so, under what would beappropriate terms and
conditions.
Mr. Speaker, the decision to allow Sunday shopping on a
trialbasis responds in part to public demand.
It expands the choicesavailable to all Manitobans, giving them greater flexibility
indeciding when to shop. This
flexibility of choice has beenavailable to Canadians in other provinces for
quite some timenow. Right now the
Provinces of British Columbia,
What is interesting to note is some of these changes
haveoccurred in the last handful of months and that we havegovernments representing
all three major political partiesbringing in these kinds of changes, whether it
be
*
(1450)
Mr. Speaker, we do not pretend that by allowing
Sundayshopping cross‑border shopping will come to an abrupt end, but wedo
believe that it will help to stem the flow of some spending byManitobans in
other provinces and in U.S. markets by providingthe consumers here in Manitoba
with an option that until nowexisted only beyond Manitoba's borders. Obviously, there is anopportunity to keep as
many dollars as possible here in theprovince of
The Manitoba Hotel Association is a good example of
oneorganization that has a great deal of interest in tourism, thathas expressed
support for what they recognize Sunday shopping cando in that particular
industry. In fact, I was talking just
theother day to one of our downtown hotel operators who indicatedthat he is
currently in the process of pursuing bus tours here toManitoba to entice them
to come and spend a weekend or more daysin Manitoba, and part of his package
will be that he willencourage them to shop here in Manitoba on Sundays. Obviously,other aspects of the current
economy might well help thatindividual operator and other operators, Mr.
Speaker, in terms ofthe current state of the Canadian dollar and other
issues. He asan individual hotel operator
sees a significant opportunity toentice and to draw Manitobans here to the
Another personal example:
I was on the flight home on Sundayfrom Toronto with a group of
Manitobans because of the successfulbid for the Pan Am Games in 1999, and the
stewardesses were goodenough to announce that over the PA system on the airline
on twodifferent occasions during that flight.
When they heard we werefrom
At the same time, restrictions on Sunday shopping can
have anegative social impact. With
changes in employment patterns anddemographics, families are finding it
increasingly difficult toconfine all of their shopping activity to one day over
theweekend, Mr. Speaker.
Of course, the existing legislation does allow some
Sundayshopping activity, but the current restrictions are not practicalfrom the
consumer, retailer and retail employee standpoint. Thecurrent legislation restricts retail
operations to fouremployees. For
consumers this restriction creates unnecessaryinconvenience. With more and more two-income families
andsingle-parent families, the weekend is in fact the only time toshop for many
Manitobans.
For retailers the existing legislation creates
considerablehardships as well. By
limiting the capacity for retailers toprovide adequate service and security,
Mr. Speaker, it is asignificant barrier to their operating efficiencies. In light ofthe economic downturn which has
affected all aspects of theCanadian and our economy, and particularly the
retail sector,such operational barriers do nothing to encourage improved
retailbusiness activity.
From the retail employees' standpoint, restricted
Sundayshopping also creates some difficulties.
By restricting storesto a maximum of four employees, the existing
legislation makes itunnecessarily hard for employees who must cope with the
difficultconditions created by a reduced-staff complement on Sundays.
The results of several economic studies and opinion
research,Mr. Speaker, weighed heavily in favour of Sunday shopping.Studies
conducted in North Dakota show that Sunday shopping hasclearly had a positive
impact on that state's economy.Unfortunately,
Our estimates show that Sunday shopping in Manitoba
couldhave a positive economic impact on the provincial economy.Obviously a
retention of any portion of that $110 million, letalone what is spent in other
provinces and other jurisdictions,is a positive impact to the economy of
Manitoba.
In addition to these findings, all of which suggest potentialeconomic
gain for the
Today, Mr. Speaker, over the wire service, we also see
that arecent survey was done by Prairie Research Associates Inc. Itreads that a majority of Manitobans
surveyed recently by PrairieResearch Associates said they approved of wide-open
Sunday shopping. More than 50 percent
gave a nod of approval to theManitoba government, which is running a five-month
test of Sundayshopping. Only 41 percent
said they do not approve of Sundayshopping.
What is interesting‑‑and I will get to it in
a minute. Thisis on the basis of
unconditional‑‑in fact, the question that wasasked by Prairie
Research was: As you know, the
provincialgovernment approved a five-month trial period for wide-open Sunday
shopping; would you say that you approve or disapprove ofwide-open Sunday
shopping?
When you get into potential conditions, Mr. Speaker, you
seethat the numbers do change somewhat in terms of the level ofsupport. Support for Sunday shopping rose with the
applicationsof conditions, as I have already mentioned, conditions such
aslimited hours‑‑an example, in the trial period, the limited
hoursare to operate between 12 noon and 6 p.m.‑‑the season
ofoperation and the provision for a trial period. More thanthree-quarters of the respondents
who were surveyed favouredSunday shopping under at least one of these
conditions.
So, Mr. Speaker, you see that it goes from just over
50percent unconditionally to about 74-75 percent when you start toattach what Manitobans
consider to be reasonable conditions toSunday shopping. Even among those opposed to Sunday
shopping,the people who said they were opposed to Sunday shopping orunsure of
their position, 37 percent of those people favour aninitial trial period.
Even the people who were opposing it said that they
wouldfavour a trial period to see just what the impact is on theeconomy, to see
what the reaction is of consumers, to see whatthe reactions are in rural and
urban Manitoba and so on. So eventhe
people opposing it indicated that a trial period was areasonable thing to do,
not unlike what was done in the provinceof
There is some concern that Sunday shopping will
shiftconsumer spending in smaller towns to larger centres, but as partof the
survey again, Mr. Speaker, 97 percent of rural Manitobanssurveyed said that
Sunday shopping would either not change theirshopping habits, as they say they
will continue to do the samevolume of their shopping in their home town, or
they would spendeven more on purchases from their home town merchants‑‑97
percentsaid that. They would either
spend as much or more in their hometowns.
Only 3 percent indicated that they might shop less intheir own community
or do not know what they would do.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, this clearly shows that a
trialperiod provides the opportunity to assess just how valid thatstatistic
is. It seemed as though some of the
members across theway had their own information on this that does not seem
tosupport what we are saying. This is
research material done. Wenow have it
again today with Prairie Research confirming thekinds of numbers that we have
outlined.
As I have already noted, most other Canadian
provincescurrently allow Sunday shopping.
Research conducted in thesejurisdictions has shown strong support for
expanded shopping onSunday. In
*
(1500)
Key findings of the 1990 Goldfarb study include overthree‑quarters
of all respondents surveyed favoured Sunday shopping there as well, a similar
pattern to what we are seeingin
Mr. Speaker, based on these results, it appears that
limitingor restricting Sunday shopping particularly affects singleparents,
working women and people whose jobs require them to workirregular hours. Since Sunday shopping restrictions hurt
theseindividuals more than any others in society, failure to introduceSunday
shopping shows a lack of sensitivity to the needs of thesegroups and the time
pressures under which they must function.
I also hasten to point out that demographics continue to showincreases
in the number of Manitobans who belong to these groups.
Mr. Speaker, the Goldfarb study also found that
anoverwhelming majority of respondents believed Sunday shopping inOntario had
exerted no negative or detrimental impact on theirfamily, personal or religious
life. These are examples of peoplewho
were tested functioning under that environment.
Also, theserespondents did not feel that Sunday shopping had
negativelyaffected quality of life within their communities. Among thesesame respondents, a full 90
percent said that they do not spendany less time with their families because of
Sunday shopping.Furthermore, two‑thirds of the survey respondents agreed
thatSunday shopping allows for weekends, and I quote: To be betterorganized to create family
contact time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to stress that the legislative
amendments that we are proposing in connection with Sunday shopping aredesigned
to provide choices to all groups affected by the change.
Point of Order
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, the minister is makingconstant
references to studies. I wonder if the
minister wouldbe so kind as to table these studies and the polls that he
isspending most of his time in his speech referring to.
Mr. Speaker: The
honourable member does not have a point oforder.
* * *
Mr. Stefanson: Mr.
Speaker, as I was saying, I want to stressagain that the legislative amendments
that we are proposing inconnection with Sunday shopping are designed to provide
choicesto all groups that will be affectd by the change.
While the amendments respond to
Through an amendment to The Employment Standards
Act,employees are empowered to refuse to work on Sundays. This rightto refuse work applies only to
employees of those businesses thatare allowed to open now as a result of the
Sunday shopping trialperiod. By giving
14 days notice, employees may opt out ofworking on Sundays.
The amended legislation further protects employee rights,
Mr.Speaker. It prohibits employers from
discharging staff basedsolely on their refusal to work Sunday shifts or based
on anyemployee efforts to enforce these rights as defined under thisamendment.
Employee complaints concerning violation of the right
torefuse work on Sundays will be investigated by the Department ofLabour's
Employment Standards branch.
Mr. Speaker, retailers, too, have their rights
protectedunder these proposed amendments.
They may or may not elect toopen their doors to the public on
Sundays. The choice is theirs,whether or
not the retailer wants to open on Sunday or not.Whether they are in a strip
mall or a stand‑alone business orwherever they may be located, the choice
is to the individualretailer whether or not they will open their doors on
Sunday.
Stand-alone retail businesses have, of course, always beenable
to choose their hours of operation within the parametersoutlined by provincial
law. However, commercial shopping
centretenants have traditionally been required to open their doors tobusiness
during the shopping centre's established hours.
With the amendments that we are proposing, these
retailerswill have the option to close on Sundays, regardless ofprovisions in
their lease or any other agreement, Mr. Speaker.This provides a more level
playing field for all retail businessowners and ensures that those who wish to
remain closed onSundays can do so without penalty.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that these changes
toThe Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Act, which allow expandedshopping
during the specified trial period, will not apply to thestatutory holidays of
Christmas Day or New Year's Day. I
wouldalso like to stress that we will closely monitor public responseto this
decision.
Mr. Speaker, this is a reasonable trial period, and
willcover both the best and the worst time frames in the retailsector. Some retailers in
It is our hope that this move will help to
stimulateManitoba's economy and will ensure that our province maintains
acompetitive pace with the economic jurisdictions that surround us.
I have already outlined, Mr. Speaker, what is happening
inthe rest of
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, the minister'scomments in
introducing this bill for second reading were veryinteresting and provide a
rich background and a field fordiscussion and debate on the theory and the
practice behind Bill4 that we are discussing today and will be discussing by
severalof our caucus members.
There are some specific issues that I am prepared to
raise,and I know other caucus members are too, about some of theramifications
of this bill on the people of
First is the whole issue of the process that this bill
ispart of. Mr. Speaker, as we know and
as government members wellknow, in the parliamentary system that we are a part
of, thenormal process for legislation is for a piece of legislation tobe
introduced, first reading, for second reading and debate inthe House on the
principles of the legislation, then a publichearing process‑‑and
parenthetically, I am very proud thatManitoba is the only province in the
country that requires publichearings on its legislation, and I think that is
something we inManitoba can all be proud of‑‑and finally, third
reading beforepassage or defeat of the bill, of the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, in virtually every case, this process
isfollowed before the impacts of the legislation are felt by thepeople of
Manitoba, and that is only logical, that you have abill that changes how the
people of Manitoba go about their dailybusiness debated and have input from the
public before theimpacts of that bill are felt.
Mr. Speaker, in this case, the government of the day
hasunilaterally, and I would suggest without due process andcertainly without
due consultation, undertaken to abrogate thespirit if not the strict legality
of this process that has helpedframe the parliamentary system for over a
thousand years inwestern society.
The process does not and has not allowed for
publicconsultation. It has not and it
does not allow for input byinterested individuals and organizations in this
province, andtherefore, we are very much opposed to the process that this
billhas undergone so far. We have stated
publicly and will continueto state in the House that this bill should not be
debated,should not be passed or defeated by us in the Legislature whilethe bill
is, in effect, in force in the community.
The publichearings should have been undertaken. The process should havebeen followed before
the wide‑open Sunday shopping was actuallyallowed. So, Mr. Speaker, the process is far from
perfect andsmacks of this government's lip service to the concept
ofconsultation, rather than its support of consultation inactuality.
*
(1510)
Mr. Speaker, the minister referenced several
"studies"showing support for Sunday shopping. He began with anecdotal"studies"
from flight attendants whom he met. If I
may, thegender-neutral language, which the Minister responsible for theStatus
of Women (Mrs. Mitchelson) should have informed hercabinet colleague of, is
flight attendant, not stewardess.
Mr. Speaker, the minister spoke about the comments made
byseveral flight attendants on a trip he had back from
Mr. Speaker, as the member for Kildonan (Mr.
Chomiak)requested, it would be very interesting and very helpful for uson this
side of the House to have access to those figures, toknow where they came from,
to know how specifically they wererelated to shopping by Manitobans across the
border on Sunday.
Mr. Speaker, even if those figures are accurate for
thiscurrent year or the last year or whatever year they are accuratefor, the
minister chooses not to understand that much of thereason Manitobans have cross‑border
shopped in the past is due tothe fact, not that stores in Manitoba have not
been open onSundays, but due to the fiscal and monetary policies of both
thefederal Conservative government and the provincial
Conservativegovernment: the high
interest rates, the high dollar, the Bankof Canada's propping up the dollar,
the other fiscal and monetarypolicies, not the least of which is the goods and
services taxthat was put on the people of Canada by the federal
Conservativegovernment with absolutely no outcry, feigned or real, on thepart
of the Manitoba Progressive Conservative government.
The goods and services tax, along with the Free
TradeAgreement, have been the twin pillars of our destruction, not thefact that
Manitobans cannot full-blown shop on Sundays throughoutthe province.
Mr. Speaker, as well, the minister spoke about
severalstudies that were done, in particular one by Prairie ResearchAssociates,
where he said only 41 percent of those surveyeddisapproved of wide-open Sunday
shopping. I would like tosuggest that
traditionally a political party in the province ofManitoba who gets only 41
percent of the popular vote forms amajority government and in some cases a very
substantial majoritygovernment. This is
a very, very high percentage of peoplesurveyed under any circumstances who say
they do not want wide-open Sunday shopping.
I have a couple of questions, Mr. Speaker, for the
minister.I would appreciate his tabling or responding as quickly aspossible
while we are still debating this issue some of theparameters of that survey.
Number one, who was sampled? What was the number of peoplewho were
sampled? Number two, from where in the
province werethey sampled? Where do
these people live? The minister saysthat
97 percent of rural Manitobans said that Sunday shoppingwould not change their
shopping habits. I would like to know
ifthat 97 percent of rural Manitobans come from Thompson, SwanRiver, Dauphin,
Souris, Virden or, if they, like upwards ofthree‑quarters of the
population of the province of Manitoba livewithin 75 kilometres of the city of
Winnipeg. Are some of thesepeople rural
Manitobans who are in this survey?
Many of the people in
Mr. Speaker, the third issue that I would like to talk
aboutin the minister's comments this afternoon is the whole issue
ofchoice. I find this amusing. It would be amusing if it were notso
potentially tragic. The whole idea that
employers, thatemployees, that retailers throughout the
Mr. Speaker, this government has espoused, like its
federalcounterpart in
We on this side have talked at great length about
theinherent pitfalls of that market economy‑driven ideology. I willnot go into that discussion now, except
to say that as many ofthe small businesses in the ring around the city of
Winnipeg,within a half hour to 45 minutes of the city of Winnipeg, havesaid,
Mr. Speaker, they have absolutely no choice.
If they aregoing to survive, they will have to open on Sunday. They willhave to open on Sunday because of
the market‑driven economicforces at play in this bill, because they know
that the largeretail chains, which are the major proponents of thislegislation,
will open on Sunday. Their high volume,
theireconomies of scale will demand that the smaller retailers stayopen on
Sunday.
*
(1520)
The only thing that has protected small retailers
throughoutthis province, not just in the rural areas around the city ofWinnipeg
but in the city of Winnipeg itself, the corner stores,the small individual
retailers, the small businesses that formthe backbone of our economy‑‑65
or 70 percent of the jobs in thisprovince are from small businesses. What is going to happen tothese jobs when
they do not have the one protection that they hadunder the old legislation,
which is that the large volume‑drivenretail outlets could not open fully
on a Sunday? That was theone time that
many small businesses could make some additionalrevenue, could have some chance
at having some competitive, levelplaying field with the large retail chains.
(Mr.
Jack Penner, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
Mr. Acting Speaker, the idea that this provides, as
theminister said, a level playing field for all of the retailoutlets in the province
is laughable. It just is not true. Whatit does is that it eliminates any
possibility of even themarginal level playing field that we had under the
limited Sundayshopping that was in place before this legislation was
imposedwithout having been passed by the House.
What it means is, as Ihave stated before, that individual small
businesses will beforced to remain open seven days a week. They may have to remainopen longer hours
during the week. They will have to not
haveany choice as to whether they are open six days a week. Theywill have to remain open seven days a
week.
So the idea that this provides for choice is‑‑for
theminister to stand in his place and say this provides for anincreased amount
of choice is reprehensible. If he is
going toargue for his bill, argue for it on realistic premises, not onissues
such as choice.
Finally, I would like to speak in response to the
minister'scomments about the concept of protection for workers. It wasdelicious, I might say, that the
minister is all of a sudden soconcerned and solicitous for the rights and the
best interests ofwomen employees, of single parents, most of whom are women,
ofwomen who work in the retail sector. I
think this is just theheight of ridiculousness as well, Mr. Acting Speaker. Everythingthis government has done in its
complete lack of strategiceconomic planning has been designed and has had the
impact andthe effect of making life more difficult for retail workers, forsmall
businesses, for single parents and for women in thisprovince.
We have story after story, statistic after statistic,
failureafter failure of this government to provide any kind ofprotection for
the workers and the families of this province,except the large retail
corporations and the large businessesthat have been lobbying for this change.
The minister speaks about the changes to The
EmploymentStandards Act that will allow for the absolute right of refusalto
work on the part of employees and that, if there is anyconcern about this, the
Employment Standards branch of theDepartment of Labour will investigate any
employee complaints.Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, I know that the Minister of
Labour (Mr.Praznik) is prepared to speak on this issue today, and I will askthe
Minister of Labour now to please address if he can in hisremarks these
questions that I have.
What happens if an employee refuses to work on Sunday and
anemployer lays her, which is usually the gender of employees inthe retail
sector, off? Mr. Acting Speaker, most of
theemployees in the retail sector in
A couple of questions, Mr. Acting Speaker. Given the factsof the new changes to the
Unemployment Insurance Act, given thefact that women and low‑paid
employees and employees in sectorssuch as the retail trade, which are less
stable than almost anyother sector in this economy, are under enormous
pressures withthe federal changes to The Unemployment Insurance Act, giventhat,
given the fact that an employer could lay off an employeewho refused to work on
Sunday, what kind of time frame is thatemployee looking at between the time
they are laid off and thetime they get a decision made by the Employment
Standardsbranch? Is the Minister of
Labour during this five‑month trialperiod prepared to put on additional
staff in the EmploymentStandards branch to take care of these issues in an
expeditiousfashion?
Mr. Acting Speaker, I do not expect to hear a response
fromthe Minister of Labour that will make me or any of the retailworkers in
this province happy, but I thought it was important toput these questions on
the record. Again, as in the idea
ofchoice, the idea of protection for workers would be laughable ifit were not
so frightening for workers and families in
Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to spend my remaining
timetalking about some of the principles behind this piece oflegislation. The minister spoke of consultation that had
beenundertaken and the fact that there was public demand and thatmany consumers
had been calling for. Again, I would
like tostate that I would imagine that the consumers who are calling forand the
public demand is coming largely from the large retailerswho will be very happy
with the wide‑open Sunday shopping anddoes not reflect the full range of
public opinion in Manitoba,which the government could have sampled far more
effectively thanthey did in their survey had they chosen the
legitimateparliamentary route of introducing legislation and going throughthe
public hearing process, having public hearings throughout theprovince of
Manitoba on an issue that has this wide‑rangingimpact on people and
businesses, particularly those outside thecity of Winnipeg.
The government might have found that there was a very
largesegment of the population who will be very adversely affected bythis
legislation, but no, the government consulted with the samegroups that the
government always consults with‑‑big, big, bigbusiness, the large
corporations, the large retailers.
Thequestion I have to ask the government is, why all of a sudden wehave
to have this piece of legislation, why all of a sudden thegovernment felt
incumbent upon it to implement the legislationprior to its being passed or
debated in the House. The answers,I
think, are fairly clear, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Mr. Acting Speaker, one of the premises upon which
thislegislation is based is that there will be more economic activitygenerated
by wide‑open Sunday shopping. I
would suggest thatfrom consumers outside the province of Manitoba, such as from
thenorthern tier of the United States coming across the border toshop in
Manitoba, that number would be far more increased by achange in the federal
fiscal policies‑‑reduction if notelimination of the goods and
services tax, a change in themonetary and fiscal policies. Sunday shopping in
*
(1530)
Mr. Acting Speaker, if we assume that much of the
additionalrevenue will be coming from Manitobans‑‑I just do not
understand,because if you have $100 to spend, you are going to spend
$100whether you spend it in six days or seven.
The additional day ofshopping is not going to engender the kind of
additional revenuefor the vast majority of Manitobans. As a matter of fact, asubstantial argument
could be made that the reverse will actuallybe the result of wide‑open
Sunday shopping, that there will be inmany instances and in many sectors less
money available to spend.
The small retailers who will now be forced to stay open
onSunday or longer hours will have to increase their costs.Because they operate
on such a narrow profit margin as it is,they will have to increase their costs
to take into account theincreased overhead expenses that they will have to
incur, and aone‑seventh increase in the heating and utility rates, not to
sayanything about the increased staffing costs, is a very largepercentage
increase for a small‑business person who is operatingon a minimal profit
margin at best.
This will have the impact, Mr. Acting Speaker,
particularlyin small businesses, of forcing an increase in rates, in
theirprices, with the additional impact then of people going to largerretail
outlets. Surprise, surprise. It is not thesmall‑business person in
Another argument that was made by the minister is
thatcross‑border shopping will be eliminated or cut down by havingwide‑open
Sunday shopping. He spoke about the fact
that BritishColumbia is one of the provinces that has had Sunday shopping.As a
matter of fact, they have had it, I think, for approximately10 years. So
Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, what has actually happened
inBritish
Sunday shopping in
Mr. Acting Speaker, the provincial government has spent
muchof its time in the past four years talking about the need for
thestrengthening of the family, a need for a return to moretraditional, and I
use the phrase advisedly, family values.
Ittalks about how we need to strengthen families in the province
ofManitoba.
One of the worst impacts of wide-open Sunday shopping in
theprovince of
Mr. Acting Speaker, I find it interesting to say the
least tohave on the one hand the pious mewlings of the government on theneed
for traditional family values and, on the other hand, takingunilateral actions
that will decimate the family in the provinceof Manitoba, even more than it
already has been by the financialtroubles facing the families of Manitoba.
It is not only that Sunday has traditionally in our
societybeen a day of rest. It is not
just that; it is that there hasbeen one day where families generally could gather
together, oneday where families generally did not have to worry about
workingseven days a week, one day where the vast majority of familiescould
gather.
Mr. Acting Speaker, we have a modified Sunday shopping
lawwhich has worked very well in this province for six or sevenyears now, which
has allowed for the large retail stores, largegrocery, food stores to open, but
not to open fully so that theytake away the level playing field, but to open
with the samenumber of people that other stores would have. Frankly, we feelthat that compromise has
worked very well for the people ofManitoba.
It has allowed the vast majority of people who work inthe retail sector,
in the small‑business sector, to have one daywhere they do not have to
work, to have one day that they couldspend with their families.
What the impact of this will be is that not only will
thosesmall businesses need to remain open seven days a week, thelarger retail
businesses will remain open seven days a week, andthe employees of those businesses
will also have to work sevendays a week.
So it is not just the small‑business community thatwill be
negatively impacted and the people who work in thesmall‑business sector,
it will be the thousands of retail workersin this province who work in the larger
retail chains and retailstores throughout the province who now will have to be
faced witha very difficult decision for them to make. Their employers aregoing to say: You do not work on Sunday, fine; I do not
needyou; I will hire someone else. In today's
economic situation,many people will not be able to have the choice that
thisgovernment says they will have not to work on Sunday.
Another impact that this is going to have, and not just
onthe small‑business sector but on the large retail outlets aswell, is
that because there will not be the massive increase inrevenue coming to those
outlets, those stores, this whole sector,there will be a decline in the number
of full‑time employeesheavier than we have seen, and we have seen a large
decline inthe number of full‑time employees in the retail sector. So therewill be a decline in the number of
full‑time employees, anincrease in the number of part‑time
employees and a loweringof‑‑[interjection]
Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, the government benches are
talkingabout the fact that some unions are opposed to this legislation.I would
suggest that it only makes good business sense for thegovernment to not support
this as well, because if you haveemployees who have a lower hourly rate, whose
take‑home pay isreduced substantially‑‑guess what?‑‑they
do not have money to spend.
*
(1540)
I do not understand, Mr. Acting Speaker, why it is
sodifficult for the government, not only the provincial governmentbut the
federal government, to understand that if you do not havemoney, if you do not
have a job, you do not have money to spend.It is simple. If I do not have any money, I cannot
spendanything. If I have a good, full-paying,
full-time job that hasa modicum of job security, some sense that I can move up
in mychosen field if I prove myself to be a good employee, if I havesome
security that my job will be there next week, next month,next year, then I am
confident in my ability to provide not onlythe basics for myself and my family,
but also maybe spend some of that discretionary income.
If, on the other hand, as is the case in
We are choosing not to buy houses, never mind the
Premier's(Mr. Filmon) comments earlier today.
If he had read further inthat article or quoted further in that article,
he would haveseen the negative parts of the housing market as we know
ittoday. They are not buying cars. They are not buying washersand dryers.
The reason people are not shopping and are not spending
isbecause they do not have any confidence, they do not have anymoney.
Wide-open Sunday shopping is only going to increase the
lackof confidence because people will not have full-time jobs.Again, the small
retailers are going to be substantially hurt;workers in the retail sector who
work for the large retailoutlets are going to be substantially hurt.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the government talks about
itsconsultative process, and we know on this side of the House thatwhat the
government means by consultation is either another wordfor lack of action, for
dithering, for doing nothing, or itmeans, we consulted with people that we knew
would tell us whatwe wanted to hear.
That is why this government chose toimplement this legislation before it
had come before the House.That is why they did not hold public hearings
throughout theprovince. They have not
even held public hearings as required bythe legislative process.
The retailers throughout
This will not benefit Manitobans as a whole. It will onlybenefit the large retail
chains. It will only benefit
employerswho now have yet another stick to hold over their employees, andit
will not have a net positive impact on the financial health ofthe province of
Manitoba. But then why, Mr. Acting
Speaker,should we be surprised by that?
There has been nothing that thisgovernment has done in the four and a
half years since its firstelection to increase the economic health of the
people ofManitoba, the corporate sector of Manitoba, the small-businesssector
of Manitoba or any other part of this province.
The shop owners and the chambers of commerce in the
smallcommunities surrounding
We know on this side of the House that the reason
thegovernment chose this backhanded, cowardly way of implementingthis
legislation by not going and following the parliamentaryprocess, we know the
reason they did that is that they are wellaware of the problems facing the
people of Manitoba, but they arelistening to the corporate sponsors who support
the ProgressiveConservative Party in this province and in the country as awhole. They are being very consistent in their total
lack ofsupport for the families of
Others of my caucus colleagues will be speaking on
thislegislation, caucus colleagues of mine from the inner city ofWinnipeg, from
suburban
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Acting Speaker, Iam very happy to have the
opportunity to join in this debate.
Ithink we will truly have a very good debate in this House. Iknow there will be many members on all sides
of the Assembly whowill want to participate in it.
The previous speaker, the member for
I think the member for
I note from this side of the House, Mr. Acting Speaker,
thatmembers of the New Democratic Party continually fail to make anyreference
to New Democratic Party governments in other parts ofthis country. In fact, I would even suggest that in
theircollective minds, if you ask them, they would be hard‑pressed toeven
admit that there are any other New Democratic Partygovernments in
It seems that the remarks of the fall of 1990 after Mr.
Rae'selection in Ontario and the Premier Bob comments of the memberfor Thompson
(Mr. Ashton) and others, we do not seem to hearthese any more, Mr. Acting
Speaker. They seem to all have
beenforgotten as New Democrats stand very sanctimoniously in thisChamber on the
issues of Sunday shopping and other issues,pontificating about their philosophy
and beliefs in the waythings should happen, very conveniently forgetting that
their ownparty, people that they break bread with regularly at
nationalmeetings, people that they send their staff to support inelection
campaigns have done all the things that they stand inthis House and so
sanctimoniously condemn.
I would remind the member for
The member for
This trial period is one that takes into account the
greatestretail period of the year, the period before Christmas, andprobably the
worst retail period of the year, the period afterChristmas and around Autopac
renewal time. It is a trial periodthat
tests the best and the worst in the retail trade to see whatin fact will
happen. At that time, Mr. Acting Speaker,
we willsee what Manitobans have said about Sunday shopping, because onething
that is very certain is that Manitobans will ultimatelydecide this issue. They will vote upon it with their feet asthey
have been doing regularly since 1985-86 when thislegislation was last
amended. What Manitobans do will be
provenin this period. If Manitobans do
not want Sunday shopping, thenthey will not frequent retailers who open on
Sunday. If a verysignificant number of
Manitobans want Sunday shopping, then theywill vote with their feet during this
period.
I have to tell members opposite, and I am sure
thesesentiments are shared by many members of my caucus, this decisionwas not
arrived at easily or certainly quickly.
It was adecision to go to this trial period that was arrived at after
alot of thought and contemplation about our society, about whatthe public was
doing and what was happening out there, Mr. ActingSpeaker.
*
(1550)
I can tell members opposite, I have never been a
strongpersonal supporter of having wide‑open shopping all the time. Ihave been someone who, at least in my beliefs,
has thought verystrongly of the need for a common day of rest, but yet I
cannotstand here as a hypocrite, because the family business in which Iwas
involved, the fruit and vegetable business in the R.M. of St.Andrews, we
regularly opened on Sunday. We did
because it wasour best retail day. It
catered to our customers, a large numberof whom were the Sunday drivers on
Highway 9, off for a visit toLower
Mr. Acting Speaker, what concerns me so very much in
theremarks of the member for
Mr. Acting Speaker, the law that the New Democratic
Partybrought to this Legislature in 1985‑86‑‑and I was not a
member atthat time, so the date escapes me‑‑but the legislation
that theybrought to this House provided for openings with four or
lessemployees. If they were serious at
that time about just allowingretailers to open with the small retailer, they
would haveprovided in that legislation for only retailers who normallyemployed
four people, but they did not do that.
The member forWellington (Ms. Barrett), I hope she listens to this
remark, butthe New Democrats did not put the prohibition on opening tostores
that normally employed four, the small retailer that shetalks about
protecting. What they did was to allow
any store, nomatter what its size, to open if they could do it with just four employees.
So what that created was a scenario where today we
haveSafeway opening up on a Sunday, and people waiting 40, 50minutes, an hour
in line to make their purchase, choosing to dothat, Mr. Acting Speaker, but
very unhappy with that. Asituation where
major retailers in the electronic industry, inthe lumber industry could open
their stores with four people anddo, sometimes at great inconvenience to their
customers. It didnot stop those
retailers from opening, but it created a veryuneven playing field. Larger retailers who competed with
theSafeways and the electronics stores that opened and the lumberyards and the
furniture stores that were able to open on Sunday with four‑‑those
that could not do it with four could notphysically open. So it created a very uneven playing field
inthe retail market, and that has been one of the driving forcestowards further
amending our Sunday shopping legislation.
The fact is that big retailers did open and that
consumershad a taste of Sunday shopping, Mr. Acting Speaker, right here
inWinnipeg, and constituents of the member for
So two of the major pushes for a change to this
legislationwere a direct result of the 1985-86 legislation that was broughtin
by the New Democratic Party. So to somehow
try to hide todayand say that the previous legislation was wonderful and a
greatcompromise and did not create any problems is simply not true.
The door was very much open by their legislation, and
itcreated two of the driving forces behind the current test periodand the
current demand by so many Manitobans who on Sundays havegone out and shopped or
wanted to shop that has resulted in thistrial period.
Mr. Acting Speaker, as I have indicated earlier, as
anindividual I am someone who has traditionally espoused the viewof a common
day of rest. I am not someone who
intends to shop onSunday. I do not like
shopping at the best of times, and Iprobably avoid shopping. It is not one of the activities Ienjoy, and I
certainly do not intend to do it on Sundays but, forthose of us who have had
that viewpoint, even though I do notwant to be accused of being a hypocrite‑‑I
was a part owner of abusiness that opened on Sundays and worked in it on
Sundays‑‑onehas to look at how even those who have taken that
position havebeen undermined somewhat in making that argument.
In my own community of Beausejour that I represent in
thislegislature, a few months ago one of the three grocers, anindependent
grocer, one of the small grocery stores that themember for Wellington (Ms.
Barrett) speaks of, decided to openfor limited hours on Sunday. The Home Hardware store that openeda year or
so ago in Beausejour, probably one of our two largestretailers, has, since it
opened, opened on Sundays. So we havehad
Sunday shopping in Beausejour.
They have managed to open under the rules of less than
fouremployees but, if you fight this argument, if you fight this billon the
basis of the principle of opening or not, under thecurrent law we have had
Sunday shopping in a town likeBeausejour, and I am sure that is repeated in
other communities.People are in those stores shopping. It happens.
So for those like myself who have had some sense of
having acommon day of rest in our own communities, we have seen thatprinciple
undermined somewhat by the activities of retailers inour own towns, and that is
despite the local Chamber of Commerce in Beausejour opposing an expanded Sunday
shopping but, yet, theyhave it in their own community.
* (1600)
Again on a personal note, when I go to church in the
villageof Garson, where I live, after church on Sunday if one goes intothe
local Garson grocer, our local store, many of the people thatI go to church
with are in that store after mass on Sunday.
Theyhave chosen to shop on Sunday.
They may not think about that,and they may not be comfortable with
larger retailers being open,but they in fact are choosing to shop on Sunday.
Then one gets into the arguments of fairness and
levelplaying field, but more and more and more, no matter how muchmyself, the
member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) or any member ofthis House, the member for
Lakeside (Mr. Enns) would like to havea time when we do have a common day of
rest in which we have noretail, the fact is that the people of Manitoba,
indeed, thepeople virtually of all of North America, have with their feetvoted
to do otherwise, because they go to those retailers. Theyhave accepted the principle of shopping
on Sunday.
This test period again will prove whether or not
Manitobansgenerally want expanded Sunday shopping or not because Manitobanswill
vote with their feet, and we have to respect that.
Mr. Acting Speaker, if one goes back a little farther and
onthe principle of a common day of rest, one should not forget thatin this
country‑‑in fact, the original Sunday shoppinglegislation was
struck down by the courts of Manitoba, because itoffended the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms, because it provideda day of rest on religious grounds.
Our society has changed greatly. The principle of having afree Sunday was very
much part of the religious heritage of thiscountry, but we as Canadians,
rightly or wrongly, accepted aCharter of Rights that prevented us, as our
courts struck downour Manitoba legislation in the mid‑1980s, rejected
thatprinciple, and so left us with a position today probablyreflective of what
society wants. Where we do not have
thosesame types of restrictions, we have much more freedom on whatpeople can do
throughout the week and when they choose to havetheir day.
I say this, Mr. Acting Speaker, I am in agreement with
someof the comments from the member for
The member for
But they pull out the ideology, and, of course, a good
termfor a New Democrat to throw out is we should not have amarket‑driven
economy. Well, that says to me‑‑and
I hope no onewould fault me for speculating here a little bit‑‑but
it says tome, and I speculate, that the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett)has
never thought about what that really means.
Mr. Acting Speaker, because if one does not have amarket‑driven
economy, then one has a centralized or a controlledor a planned economy which
means somebody makes the choicesinstead of individuals doing it for
themselves. It means someonedecides what
kind of shoes I should wear or when I should buy theshoes or what I should eat
or how much I should eat.
When one thinks it through a little bit, it becomes
verysilly. If the public that we
represent ultimately do not want toshop on Sunday, if significant numbers do
not want to shop onSunday, there will be no demand. Let us face the realities thatI have outlined
already, that more and more people in our societychoose to shop on Sunday,
whether it is in stores that arecurrently open, whether it is stores in the
United States or itis in stores that will be open under this test period. The testperiod will prove one way or another
how Manitobans feel as theyvote with their feet.
I would remind members opposite as well that, as I
haveindicated in the Speech from the Throne debate, my remarks inthat debate,
and as I indicated earlier in my remarks today, theNew Democrats tend to
operate as if there was no world outside ofManitoba. They conveniently forget that in our country
today,six provinces have already adopted some form of more open
Sundayshopping.
One has to realize that we live in a world with
neighboursand that the world is changing for better or for worse and
thatManitobans are no different than consumers and citizens of any ofthose
other provinces that have Sunday shopping, including threeNew Democratic Party
provinces, or any states in the UnitedStates, Mr. Acting Speaker. We are all part of the samecontinent, and we
are not immune to those kinds of changes forbetter or for worse.
Mr. Acting Speaker, if I may for a few moments talk
aboutsome of the concerns that I think members of this side of theHouse do
share with many critics of this legislation, we areconcerned about how in fact
this bill does operate. IfManitobans
demonstrate during this test period that they in factwant expanded Sunday
shopping, if they vote for it with theirfeet, then we will be faced with the
issue of how we deal withthat on an ongoing basis.
This legislation was not designed to be the final word
onSunday shopping. It was designed to be
a test. From this testperiod, this trial
period over the next five months, we will seehow various aspects of this work,
how the public reacts to it,how employers react to some of the rights that we
have providedto employees, how they are carried out. From the informationthat we garner during
this trial period, if, and I underline if,it is the decision of government to
move forward with a bill tobring forward Sunday shopping on a regular permanent
basis, thenwe will use the results of this period in the consultations.
I would like to indicate clearly today that both myself
andthe Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) havecorresponded
with the Labour Management Review Committee to seektheir opinion on the
specifics of any bill or the results of thetrial should that in fact happen. We will then be looking to, ifwe decide to
proceed, draft legislation that will deal with manyof the very legitimate
specific concerns that may arise duringthis trial period.
I, as Minister of Labour, am very concerned about
theabsolute right of employees to opt out with sufficient notice ofthe right to
work on Sunday. Mr. Acting Speaker, it
is somethingwe are monitoring and will monitor very closely to see how thatis
respected and what sanctions, if in fact they are needed,would prevent any
problems that do arise. I would remind
membersopposite that we currently have the same absolute opt-out right for
overtime. I am advised by the chair of
the Labour Board thatthere have been very few situations, none in fact that he
couldrecall at the time, where we have had a complaint to the LabourBoard about
the exercise of that same absolute right to refuseovertime.
Today, I do want to use this opportunity to send a very
clearmessage to the business community that we in fact will bewatching how they
recognize that absolute right of employees toopt out. Mr. Acting Speaker, I say to them very
clearly, if theyare in fact good managers I am sure they will use this as
anopportunity to find those amongst their current staff who wish towork on
Sundays, and many do because of their circumstance,convenience, students, for
example, who work in the retail trade.
Seek the volunteers who wish to work Sunday hours, Mr.
ActingSpeaker. Seek the volunteers in
their own establishments, and Iam thinking of the larger retailers, their
employees who wish towork the additional hours on Sunday and, in cases where
they donot have enough, hire other employees to fill that gap.
But, Mr. Acting Speaker, this side of the House
hasrecognized very clearly that many Manitobans‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner): Order, please. I have adifficult time hearing the speaker,
and I was wondering whetherwe could have a bit more order in the House so that
I could hearthe speaker. Thank you.
*
(1610)
Mr. Praznik: Mr.
Acting Speaker, we recognize, we have providedin this legislation for that
absolute right. We are monitoringit
through the Employment Standards branch.
Included in thisright, of course, are the appropriate remedies that are
currentlyavailable, and we will be seeing how they play out during thistrial
period.
But I say this to employers, if employers wish to abuse
thatright, Mr. Acting Speaker, then they will have to face theconsequences of a
decision of this government at a later time,whether it is to proceed at all or
whether there are otheractions that would be included in a bill that would be
bringingforward Sunday shopping on a permanent basis.
So I issue that warning very clearly today, Mr.
ActingSpeaker. Employers have a
responsibility to recognize that rightwe have provided, and if one looks at all
of the people who wishto work in the retail business who are not now, there is
reallyno reason or very few reasons why any retailer wishing to open onSunday,
particularly the larger retailers, would not be able tofind sufficient staff to
operate their stores withoutinconveniencing or diminishing or denying the
absolute right oftheir employees, with proper notice, of opting out of working
onSunday shopping. So I put that on the
record today, and we willbe watching it as I have indicated already.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to conclude my remarks by
statingagain that we know that this is a very difficult issue. Thereare many Manitobans who will have
difficulty with this inprinciple. There
are many Manitobans who feel, as I have, that acommon day of rest, based on
religious grounds or others,certainly is something that should be considered or
be part ofour society, but we have to recognize, as well, that society
hasevolved beyond that, and not because members of this side of theHouse have
deemed it to be or chosen that to be the case orchanged legislation, but the
door in Manitoba, in response towhat was happening across the country, was
opened by members inthe Pawley administration.
In fact, their own legislation was designed‑‑I
do notknow‑‑knowingly or otherwise, in such a way that it created
twovery strong forces that have led us to this day, and our fellowcitizens,
whether they be the people I go to church with inGarson, who go into Garson
Grocery on Sunday after mass and shop,whether it be my constituents who go to
Home Hardware inBeausejour or to the grocery store on Sunday that is open,
orManitobans who go to convenience stores, they have accepted theprinciple of
shopping on Sunday.
The question is, Mr. Acting Speaker, how far is that
toadvance, and Manitobans, by those thousands who flock to theSafeways every
Sunday, to those who flock to the other storesthat have opened, have
demonstrated their growing preference toshop on Sundays. They have demonstrated that.
Mr. Acting Speaker, whether the member or I as an
individualthink that is good or bad, whether members opposite think that isgood
or bad, the fact is our society, Canadians, indeed, NorthAmericans, have moved
more and more to that position over thelast two or three decades, and we are
not going to stop that.But members of the New Democratic party again tend to
demonstratethat they can build a wall around Manitoba and turn off thelights
and not see what has happened everywhere else, not evensee what Manitobans have
been doing, not‑‑
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): The
Mr. Praznik: Well,
the member for Brandon East (Mr. Evans) talksabout the Manitoba Chamber. In my own community of Beausejour,as I have
indicated, the Beausejour Chamber of Commerce hasopposed it, but two of the
major retailers in Beausejour bothopened on Sundays and created the pressure on
other retailers.
Mr. Acting Speaker, for me to get up in this House
andsomehow say very sanctimoniously that there should be no Sundayshopping, my
own constituents are shopping on Sunday; my ownretailers are opening up and,
even before this trial period, wereopening up to sell on Sunday; and more and
more of myconstituents were going to shop.
So somehow to think that we canmaintain some righteous position when
those trends are all movingtowards more Sunday shopping is somewhat silly.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to just tell
honourablemembers across the way a little personal story that I
thinkexemplifies how positions have changed.
This last year I had occasion to attend Mass at the
Vaticanin Rome, and when I walked out of St. Peter's basilica at noon,on a
Sunday, at the Vatican, in Rome, I looked at the Vaticanstore, which is right
outside the exit, and, Mr. Acting Speaker,I counted at least 14 nuns in habits
selling a host of souvenirs,including a beer bottle opener with a picture of
the Pope.
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
Mr. Speaker, as a Catholic whose church has taken a
positionagainst Sunday shopping, I was somewhat embarrassed because
thatoperation would be illegal in Manitoba, but it underlines howoften we like‑‑and
all of us do‑‑to hold to those principles thattalk about a common
day of rest, talk about the family, talkabout some traditional values, but yet,
in reality, oursocieties, even the church of which I am a member,
haveundermined that in those actions.
How do I stand here today and oppose this kind of trial
thatManitobans have been moving towards since the New Democratsopened the door
in '85‑86? In response to changing
demand ofsociety, how do I stand here and honestly say that we should stopthis,
when my constituents shop on Sunday, when retailers in myriding were opening on
Sunday long before this bill, and when myown church operates a store that would
be illegal in
It is hard to do, so I say that I look forward to the
resultsof the trial period, and I know that if it is the result of thetrial
that Manitobans do with their feet vote for this that wewill have to bring in
legislation to deal with the issue on apermanent basis, that a lot of the
specific issues legitimatelyraised by the Federation of Labour, by members
opposite, bymembers of this caucus, that we will have to address those atthat
time if we move to Sunday shopping on a permanent basis.
I have committed, as has the Minister of Industry
(Mr.Stefanson), to consult with labour‑management review at that timeon
the employment aspects of such a bill.
So I indicate thosesafeguards to members opposite and I look forward to
thecontributions of other members in the course of this debate.
Thank you.
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr. Speaker, the story of thehonourable
Minister of Labour induces me to tell another story.When Ronald Reagan was
still Governor of California, being on theextreme right, he was asked by a
reporter why he could not trythe Keynesian position for a trial period, and the
good Governorreplied: Well, Nancy and I
tried it last night and it did notwork.
Mr. Speaker, due to the economic recession, business in
thisprovince has been bad. There was a
wholesaler who had a lot oftrouble getting a retailer to pay his accounts, so
the wholesalersent a threatening letter to the retailer and the retailer
wrotehim a reply explaining how he pays his accounts. Every month, hesaid, I place all my bills in
a hat, and then I figure out howmuch money I have to pay all my accounts. Then I have mybookkeeper draw as many bills
as I can out of the hat that willbe covered by the money that I allocated to
pay all my bills. Hesaid, if you do not
want my way of paying the bills, next month Iwill not even put your account in
my hat.
Business is terrible nowadays, and many people in
businessare grumbling so much. One of
them I overheard said, I canhardly wait for things to improve so that I can
afford to go on anervous breakdown.
There are many honest businessmen who wouldeven go to the extent of
putting on an out‑of‑business sale and,if they are truly honest,
then they will really go out ofbusiness.
*
(1620)
Business these days is a really uncertain
enterprise. It islike a bicycle. Unless you keep the bicycle moving forward,
itwill wobble. Business requires some
kind of human relations. Itis like
playing tennis. If you do not serve your
customer well,you end up being a loser.
It is usually the case that theindividual himself decides whether or not
he would like to gointo business, but whether he will stay or not in business
is notfor the businessman to decide. It
is usually decided by hisclientele, his customers, the buying public whether or
not thebusinessman will stay in business.
Before anybody would venture and go into business he
musthave to do a lot of preliminary study and preparation andplanning, because
going into business without planning is likehaving an automobile without an
engine. The automobile can runonly if it
is going downhill. If any businessman is
doing theright thing and he had planned well, he cannot even be sure ofsuccess
in his enterprise, because there are so many imponderablefactors at work in the
success of an enterprise.
With respect to this issue of Sunday shopping, I will try
torestate some of the issues and then review the arguments infavour of the
government or the proponent and then come up withsome counterarguments.
The first issue in this debate on Bill 4 is whether or
notSunday shopping will stimulate the economy in
As we have stated before, we are tied to the world
economiccondition. The worldwide
collapse of the prices of forestproducts and metals and minerals and other
resources hassomething to do with the economic condition that we are sufferingnow. It is not due to a lack of Sunday shopping.
One reason why we are in a recession today probably is
due tothe policy of the federal government, the high‑interest policy
inorder to boost up the exchange value of the dollar, because ofcourse it is
down now. Ideally, when the interest is
down weshould be improving our exports.
Another cause of this economic condition is of course
theincreasing deficit position of the budget of the federalgovernment. It is not due to shopping. The Sunday shoppingissue has nothing to do
with our economic situation. It does
notmean that because there is Sunday to shop, customers who haveallocated some
of their money for shopping will have more money.They will still have to spend
the same amount of money that theyhave budgeted for their shopping activities. Therefore it willnot necessarily stimulate
economic activity. What they can do
onSunday, they can also do five days, six days of the week, and ifthey have
very limited money to spend and they are withholding onpurchases because of
economic insecurity, Sunday shopping willnot help. It will not stimulate economic activity.
Will Sunday shopping discourage cross‑border
shopping in theUnited States? That is
another issue. Maybe one of thearguments
of the government and the proponent of this Sundayshopping law is that Sunday
shopping will at least stem the tideof Canadians crossing the border and buying
stuff in the UnitedStates and bringing these things home.
Let us analyze.
Why do people go and cross the border andhave to travel several miles to
buy things in the United Statesdespite the low exchange value of the Canadian
dollar? To pay toget one U.S. dollar,
you have to pay $1.29, so that alone shoulddiscourage Canadians from going and
spending their money acrossthe border.
Why do they still do it?
Rightly or wrongly, there is aperception that the price level in the
United States is generallylower than the price level in Canada, and this is
sometimesattested to by people who go there and buy things like a dress.I have
personally heard of somebody who went there and said shegot a party dress for
$99 at the Target store which wouldnormally cost $300 in Eaton's. Of course, with such savings likethat, people
will persist on crossing the border and buying inthe
An Honourable Member: Did you
buy one?
*
(1630)
Mr. Santos: I did
not. I am a frugal person. I use all myclothing. Have you seen me change my clothes? I do not believein ostentatious show. I believe in utility. Rightly or wronglyalso, people perceive that
there is a higher quality of goodscoming from the United States, and when they
compare what theybuy here and what they buy there, despite the fact that they
haveto pay transportation or gasoline money in order to cross theborder, some
of the Canadians, despite the high rate of exchangeto exchange your Canadian
dollars with U.S. dollars, they stillwould persist in going there because they
perceive there is someadvantages they get in going across the border.
That explains why there is cross‑border
shopping. It hasnothing to do with
Sunday shopping. Sunday shopping
thereforewill not stem the tide of people going across the border, becausethey
can do two things all at once: buy some
product of whichthey like the quality at a lower price, and at the same time
havesome sightseeing opportunity while they are travelling across theborder to
the
The third issue is whether or not Sunday shopping will
createadditional jobs. The reasoning is
that because there is need toopen the shop on Sunday, therefore, the employer
will have tohire extra hands to do all the selling on Sunday. Will thisresult in the creation of additional
jobs? Well, ask anyemployer. The employer would probably ask the regular
employees,particularly those who are not on any union contract, to do somework
on Sunday, rather than hire new people.
If these employees refuse to do it when they are
notprotected by any collective agreement, that itself is grounds forfiring
those nonunionized workers. But the
unionized workers atleast are protected by collective agreements. Usually aprovision in the collective
agreement is that working on a Sundaywill be based on a voluntary basis, that
they cannot be coercedor compelled if they do not want to. If there is an insufficientnumber of
volunteers to do some selling on Sunday, the employerwill then have the option
of asking the nonunionized worker.
Ifthere are not any, then that is the time for the employer to hireextra
hands to do some selling on Sunday. Let
us remember thatSunday is one of those traditionally observed special days
forour society.
That reminds me of a job seeker who was looking for a
job,and he happened to see an advertisement which said, theopportunity of a
lifetime. So he went and asked what the
jobentailed. The retailer said, well, I
have too much worry in thiscompany, in this firm. I am trying to create a position thatwill do
all the worrying for me. The applicant
said, what doesthat mean? What do I
do? What are my duties? How much do I getfor this worrying? The employer said, well, you get
$30,000.Where are you going to get the $30,000? asked the applicant.Well, that
is your first worry.
There are so many people looking for jobs that pay good,
butthese people are not necessarily looking for work, like a studentwho went to
the employment centre and asked the counsellor thathe would like a job. He said, are you willing and ready
towork? Not necessarily, he said, but I
want a job that has goodpay. Many people
want a job. They want salary, but they
do notwant to work. It is work that is
important. It is work that weare being
paid for.
Sunday is a day of rest.
Indeed, it is one of the TenCommandments. It says there, six days of the week, thou
shallwork, very clear, but on the seventh day, you shall not work,neither shall
your wife nor your maidservant nor yourmanservant. They shall not do any work. That is a directcommand, and now we are
making a human law contrary to the law ofGod.
Who do we follow?
I tell you, it is not merely the moral basis of this,
thereis a biological basis for the need for rest. The human bodyitself, under pressure six days
of the week, needs rest at leastone of the seven days. If you do not have that rest, try to goto
work on a Monday after you have overworked yourself on theweekend and see how
you feel. It is biologically needed forrejuvenation,
for rebuilding of our system, of our physicalbodies, mentally, physically, that
we need a rest at least oneday of the week.
Aside from the biological reason, there is also a social
andfamily reason. Usually, Sunday is the
only day in seven daysthat the members of the family are gathered together and
sharethe same dinner. You have heard of
the saying, families that donot eat together, they do not stay together. We are now livingin an almost alienated
society, everybody doing his own thing.It is essential that we keep family
values, that at least once aweek we eat together and share together in order to
make ourlives more comfortable in the sense that we have confidence, anetwork
of support around us when we face the challenging world.
So there are both biological as well as social reasons
whypeople would be opposed to Sunday shopping.
You have heard thecommand, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto
God what isGod's. We have to follow all
these moral laws, because they areall designed for our own good. It is because of thismaterialistic drive in
this world, people wanting to have moreand more of the same things, that has
driven us to evenexpropriate the only one day that we should be devoting to
thedivine Creator. We need a day of
rest.
Another issue is:
Will this Sunday shopping encourage thetourism industry in this
province? The argument is that if wehave
Sunday shopping, then the Americans will probably cross theborder, come here
and shop on Sundays. That is the argument. Doyou think that is the case? That will happen if they have noSunday
shopping across the border, but they do.
Why should theybother doing all the travelling if they want to do some
Sundayshopping? All they need to do is
stay home.
*
(1640)
So it is not the case that tourism will increase because
ofour Sunday shopping law. No American
will come to Manitobasimply for the reason that the stores are open on Sunday,
becausethere is Sunday shopping across the border in the United
States.Normally, the high exchange value of the U.S. dollar, as I said,will
encourage Americans to come across the border and spendtheir dollars across,
because then their money increases from $1to $1.29 Canadian. Then they will look at the price of
thegasoline. They will look at the GST
over and above the PST, andthey say, to heck with it, why should I go there and
pay theirtaxes? Therefore, we know that
the Americans do not come herebecause of our GST over and above the provincial
sales tax. TheAmericans do not come here
because generally the price level isalso higher here compared to the
Tourism is suffering because of inadequate promotion,
becausewe do not want to spend enough promotional money in order toattract the
tourists in
We should be happy in this country. This has been voted asone of the best places
in the world to live,
Well, there is even some buying and selling that I heard
onthe radio on Saturdays. [interjection] Well, if it is vegetarianpizza, it is
good for the body. It is a well-balanced
diet. Itis okay. [interjection] I do not
know, but if you will ask me, Ibelieve more in eating than in exercising.
Let us take the case of that guy‑‑what is the
name of the guywho invented jogging? I
think his name was Jim Fixx. Heinvented
jogging. Where is he now? He died jogging. Yes, hewas jogging when he had a heart attack
and died. So ConradSantos will just keep
on eating. Where is Conrad Santos
whokeeps on eating? He is here, still
alive. [interjection] No,because jogging is strenuous, especially in
wintertime. Try tojog. There are some people who are so addicted to
jogging, theyjog even if the situation is unfavourable, like it is cold. Itis strenuous to the heart, and people who
are already‑‑and I amreminding you, do not shovel snow too much
because you may have aheart attack.
So we have seen that the lack of Sunday shopping is
reallyirrelevant to the economy of
Look at what happened in the
An Honourable Member: Two
wrongs do not make a right.
Mr. Santos: Yes, and
we have to observe all these values when wechange our laws. The truth of the matter is that the law
cannotso terribly depart from the beliefs or attitudes of the peoplethat are
being governed; and if the people said, that is notmorally correct, we should
not do it. I have always said
thisbefore, Mr. Speaker.
I can even sing to you if you want about my belief on
themorality of the law:
Morality is principle, essence of politics.Nothing is
truly viable unless based on ethics.Nonpolitically correct if it is morally
wrong,Policies that we must reject if we are to rule for long.Obscurity is more
likely for those politiciansWho are guided by expediency in making decisions.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Leonard Evans: I rise
to participate in a debate on a matterthat has caught the attention of many,
many Manitobans and hasdivided Manitobans.
For all the fun that members opposite wantto make at the criticisms
being offered by this side, I want toremind those honourable members that some of
their greatestsupporters are opposed to what this government is doing. What weare espousing in many ways are the
arguments made by the samesupporters of some of these MLAs across the way on
the governmentside.
An Honourable Member: Leonard,
they were opposed to what you didin '87.
Mr. Leonard Evans: That may
be, Mr. Speaker, and I recall thatthere was a certain talk show, certain radio
station in theSteinbach area that had an open‑line program, for
example. Theywere asking people what
they thought of Sunday shopping and,frankly, the fact is that a totally
overwhelming number of thecallers were opposed to Sunday shopping, and the
memberrepresenting the constituency of Emerson knows that.
*
(1650)
The fact is that there is a great deal of hostility outthere. You can read quotes from various church
ministers in thepaper. For instance,
Pastor Roland Marach of the
I think above all else what causes the people of
Manitobagreat concern is the fact that this government announced it andput it
into place before this Legislative Assembly has debated itand has decided upon
it. Mr. Speaker, that is nothing short
ofan arrogant move by this government.
We do not need arrogance in government, but I am afraid
Ihave to observe that this particular move is a very arrogantmove. I would like to know whether the police of
this provinceare now carrying out the law of the province. The law of theprovince is that not more than
four employees should be employedon Sunday, and yet there is a breaking of the
law.
An Honourable Member: What did
Bob Rae do?
Mr. Leonard Evans: I am
talking about the province in which I amelected to be a member. I am talking about the province ofManitoba,
where we have the responsibility. This
is ourjurisdiction, and I will be concerned about what we do in
thisjurisdiction. The fact is we have a
massive breaking of the lawcourtesy of this government, and that is simply not
acceptable,Mr. Speaker, totally unacceptable, totally an act of arrogance inmy
mind and has annoyed thousands upon thousands of Manitobans,not just the
issues, not just the fact that we are opening thedoors to Sunday shopping, but
the fact that you have done itwithout adequate consultation, without fulfilling
the democraticconstitutional method of lawmaking in this province. If for noother reason, we should stand up and
oppose this legislationhere, because you have done it in a way that
isantidemocratic‑‑you do it; you announce it.
I do not know what the police forces in this province aresupposed
to be doing. If they were doing their
job upholding thelaw, they would be charging all those stores that have been
openthe last couple of Sundays. They
should be charging, because thelaw has not been changed.
The cabinet is a powerful mechanism. The cabinet is apowerful organization. You are not the dictators, but you areacting
like dictators. Well, this is a dilemma,
is it not, forthe police forces? I mean,
what a way to carry out agovernment. I
mean, what is the rush?
Surely there should have been the normal procedures,
thedebate in this House, and then the opening of the committeeprocess whereby
people, the public at large, could makerepresentation, so that we would have
something in the order ofgenuine consultation.
We also know from talking to people about this matter
thatthey feel this government has consulted and has listened but to avery
narrow group, mainly representatives of the large retailsector in
particular. That is not only me saying
that, becauseyou can read reports in newspapers where small‑business
peoplethemselves are saying that the government is not doing them afavour by
moving as they have to open Sunday shopping.
They arenot doing the small-business person a favour. You can quote oneretailer after another in
the newspapers of this province to thatextent.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether this government
isprepared to have a free vote on the matter, whether the Premier(Mr. Filmon)
is ready to allow the members on the back bench onthat side to vote according
to their conscience or even accordingto what they deem to be the wishes of
their own particularconstituents. I deem
I would not be surprised if there were notsome constituencies, because I know
the minister can quotesurveys that have been done and most Manitobans saying in
thesurvey they agree with this, but I dare say there are many
ruralconstituencies, in particular, where if you did a survey and youdid it
honestly and carefully, the bulk of those people areagainst this move by this
particular government. You would
thinkthat those MLAs, the Emerson MLA (Mr. Penner) in particular,would get up
and represent those constituents.
I know in my own case, Mr. Speaker, I have not been able
tocarry out a survey, but I know not only does the Brandon DistrictLabour
Council oppose it, but so does the Brandon Chamber ofCommerce.
I spoke to the president of the Brandon Chamber of
Commercethe last weekend when we had our annual Christmas parade andtried to
ensure that they had not changed their position. Theysaid the position is the same. The position of the BrandonChamber of
Commerce is to oppose the Sunday shopping legislationwhich we have before us. So I would say, it would be veryinteresting
to see how members of this Legislature voted if thePremier (Mr. Filmon), if the
government was prepared to have afree vote.
I think it might ease the conscience of some of the
membersopposite if they were allowed to vote according to theirconscience in
this matter, rather than in accordance with somepressure or consensual move‑‑[interjection]
Look, Mr. Speaker,the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) is making comments
fromhis seat and trying to come with some kind of perverted logicsaying that I
am saying that the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce hasnot got a legitimate
position. There can be a
legitimateposition on either side. I am
not saying that.
I am simply saying that who are we speaking for and who
doyou think wants this. I am saying, do
not give me this. Youhave done a survey,
and it says a great percentage of the peopleof
So you can talk to the president of the Brandon Chamber
ofCommerce; you can talk to some of the retailers who were quotedin the
newspapers or you can talk to some employees affected. Irecall in my house a couple of weekends ago,
one particularemployee was so unhappy that she had to work the next day. Thiswas a Saturday, she was going to have to
work the next day. Shedid not know how
she was going to do it. She could not
bereplaced because of her knowledge of the particular job. It isnot that easy to say, oh, we will get
someone else to take yourplace if you cannot do the job.
In many of these establishments, there is a certain
expertisethat is needed, there is a certain knowledge of the products,there is
a certain knowledge of the techniques and you justcannot simply replace
employees. So this person has had noalternative. She says, Len, I am being forced to
work. She wasdamn mad at this government
for forcing her to work, she says, onSunday, because this was her day to take
off, and she was very,very annoyed. So
what you are doing, whether you like it or not,you are forcing a lifestyle
change on many families in thisprovince that do not want it. [interjection]
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think back, yes, we brought in
areasonable measure with the three employees.
You know what?Sterling Lyon‑‑how often was Sterling Lyon
accused of beingarrogant? But you know
what? Sterling Lyon did not do this.What
Sterling Lyon did was change the figure three to four. Hesaid, well, that is reasonable; instead of
a three limit, we willhave a four‑person limit. That was reasonable. Sterling Lyonwould not have done this.
An Honourable Member: He was a
parliamentary supremacist.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Sterling
Mr. Speaker, I say that there are people out there who
arereally upset with what this government is doing. I mentioned theBrandon Chamber of Commerce. I mentioned Brandon District
LabourCouncil. The Union of Manitoba
Municipalities have passed aresolution opposing it. I have got a letter today, as I am suremany
of the rural members across the way have.
To whom it mayconcern‑‑this is by a gentleman, I do not know
him, Mr. ClareTarr, who lives in the MacGregor area: We are again faced withthe prospect of Sunday
shopping. We have noted opposition in
therural areas, including the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce, the UMM,the Union
of Manitoba Municipalities, and numerous communitieshave contacted this writer.
We have been led to believe that a split may exist
alonggovernment lines, that is urban‑rural. Sunday shopping will havea detrimental impact
on the rural economy. It is
stillregrettable that rural
*
(1700)
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please.
When this matter is again before the House, the
honourablemember for Brandon East will have 28 minutes remaining.
PRIVATE MEMBERS'
BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: The hour
being 5 p.m., it is time for PrivateMembers' Business.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 1‑‑Stubble
Burning
Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis (
WHEREAS the inappropriate use of the practice of
stubbleburning creates health problems for considerable numbers ofManitobans
each year; and
WHEREAS the autumn of 1992 proved especially
problematicbecause certain factors, such as the lateness of the harvest andthe
heaviness of the stubble, caused greater numbers of farmersto resort to
burning; and
WHEREAS this situation led to intolerable levels of smoke
inthe
WHEREAS the 1987 Clean Environment Commission
Report,recommended that a five‑year review of the practice of
stubbleburning should be undertaken to document any hazards to publichealth or
the environment caused by this practice; and
WHEREAS such a review was never undertaken; and
WHEREAS stubble burning is in no one's long‑term
interestsince it depletes the soil; and
WHEREAS the policy of voluntary guidelines for
theappropriate use of stubble burning, when this practice isnecessitated by
certain conditions, has been proven ineffective;and
WHEREAS a permit system for stubble burning is already
inplace in some parts of the province.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly
ofManitoba urge the provincial government to initiate interimmeasures to
regulate the practice of stubble burning, including apermit system with strict
guidelines and penalties which can beimposed on any person endangering public
health through theinappropriate use of this practice; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the
Ministerof the Environment (Mr. Cummings) to consider giving a mandate tothe
Clean Environment Commission to undertake its recommendedreview and document
the effects of stubble burning on publichealth and the environment; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly call on
theDepartment of Agriculture to consider initiating research todevelop both
viable alternatives to the practice of stubbleburning and alternative end uses
for the waste straw.
Motion presented.
Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis:
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able tointroduce this resolution for the
consideration of all members inthis Chamber and am particularly pleased that by
the luck of thedraw this resolution of significant concern on the health
fronthas been placed No. 1 on our list.
I think there is a bit ofdestiny at work in this place and in our
procedures because it issuch a significant issue, a growing issue for so many
Manitobans.
I believe that there is an interest and a concern on
allmembers in this Chamber from all political parties. I believethat we have all learned a great
deal about the hazardous impactof stubble burning on health and safety of the
citizens of thisprovince over the last six months or so.
Mr. Speaker, I also recognize that there has been less
thaneffective action in the past by all political parties in allgovernments on
this issue. However, it is clear the
evidence isgrowing that the situation is changing, that our knowledge
isincreasing about this whole area. That
is true not only formembers in this Chamber but for a wide cross‑section
ofManitobans.
I believe that the concerns being raised today are
concernsfelt not only by citizens, urban residents here in
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
So this resolution is timely, and it also comes forward
witha sense of urgency. I think we all
know from this past fall justhow urgent the situation has become. We recognize the uniqueclimatic conditions of
this fall but also realize that thoseconditions may continue. We also have learned from the
extremesituation that arose this fall how important it is for us to takeaction
to prevent risk to health and safety no matter theseverity of the stubble
burning and the smoke arising from thatstubble burning.
There are several sources of expertise for demonstrating
aclear link between stubble burning and risk to one's health andsafety. I start by pointing to the hundreds and
hundreds ofManitobans who have called, written or signed petitions about
theimpact of stubble burning. Everyone
in this House would haveheard from constituents about the severe impact on
either thatindividual's health directly or someone very close to
thatindividual.
Mr. Acting Speaker, we had many letters, just as I am
sureall members in this House have had.
I refer just to a couple asan indication of the impact of stubble
burning on the health ofmany citizens in our province. I quote from one particularletter without
giving the source: Tomorrow we will be
leavingWinnipeg, heading into the Whiteshell in an attempt to avoid theexcess
levels of stubble smoke which is now covering Winnipeg.There is nothing that
can describe the feeling of being neardeath due to suffocation and knowing
there is nothing I can doabout it.
That particular quote from that individual's letter says
agreat deal to all of us about how life‑threatening and dangerousthe
smoke from stubble burning can be. We
have heard from otherswho have young children with very serious respiratory
problems.One individual wrote us with the question: Can you or anyoneelse for that matter tell me
what the effects are ofadministering massive doses of steroids to persons,
young or old,apart from relieving acute congestion of the respiratory
system?How will the steroids affect his future health and well‑being?We
will never know because there is no alternative open to himexcept to die.
Those two examples are perhaps, one could say, extreme
interms of the impact of stubble burning on some very serious andexisting
medical conditions, but they help us understand theemotion that people bring to
this issue and, I believe, direct usto take action so that every individual, no
matter what theimpact of stubble burning, feels relief and comfort.
*
(1710)
Our job as legislators, I believe, is not just to respond
tothe most extreme cases, but to respond to any possibility ofdanger to health
and even further to apply the World HealthOrganization definition, that we too
must respond to generalannoyance. In
fact, the World Health Organization defines healthas not just being the absence
of illness, but it means generalwell‑being. It is our job to address this issue from
theperspective of health and well‑being.
I believe that theevidence calls on us to act accordingly.
We have also heard from experts in the field, not
justindividuals whose lives have been endangered or placed at risk orplaced
under great annoyance because of stubble burning, but wehave also heard, and so
have members of the government heard,from physicians and health care experts in
this field. Mostrecently, the Manitoba
Medical Association has included in itslatest publication a copy of its letter
it wrote to the Ministerof Health (Mr. Orchard) on October 13. I quote briefly from thatletter: In January 1990, the MMA brought to your
attention someserious concerns about the health and safety hazards of
stubbleburning. This was in the hope and
expectation that the Manitobagovernment would take significant action. Now, as the problem ofstubble burning
persists, we are reiterating those concerns witha plea that they be urgently
addressed in the interests of publichealth and safety.
I will skip down to two recommendations that the
ManitobaMedical Association makes. No.
1, that Manitoba Agriculture andManitoba Health be informed that the Manitoba
Medical Associationbelieves that there is a net negative impact on health and
theenvironment from the burning of stubble and peat; and No. 2, thatduring
periods of hazardous smoke conditions on provincialhighways it is the duty of
the Department of Highways tocontinuously monitor for such hazards and to
effectively warnmotorists by adequate roadside signals that they are entering
anarea where safe progress is endangered.
The MMA concludes by saying: The MMA still firmly believesthat there is a
net negative impact on health and the environmentwhile public outcry resounds
louder than ever. In addition tomedia
reports about people with aggravated respiratory problems,we are hearing
directly from patients who demand that somethingmust be done, end of quote.
Mr. Acting Speaker, not only have these concerns
beenexpressed by the Manitoba Medical Association, but warnings andconcerns
have also been forthcoming from officials within theDepartment of Health. During this past fall, when the situationwas
so severe, an official within the Department of Healthindicated quite clearly
that, although in the past there had beenquestions about the impact of stubble
burning on one's health,the opinion in the department had now changed due to
medicalevidence, though the official pointed out that there was noquestion that
stubble burning posed a health hazard and thatthere were documented health
risks. The official pointed tohazards to
sensitive populations, being asthmatics, the very old,the very young, people
with cardiac abnormalities. The
officialalso pointed out the traffic hazards that have been documented aswell.
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the documentation and the evidence
forthe link between stubble burning and the impact on one's healthhas been
clearly reflected in the work of the Clean EnvironmentCommission. I remind members in this House again of the
1987ruling by the commission that, although at that time there was noevidence
to support links between stubble burning and negativeimpact on one's health,
there was growing evidence to suggest thematter had to be reviewed from the
point of view of health andsafety and environmental concerns.
That commission in 1987 recommended that a thorough
review ofthis matter be done in a five‑year period. That direction wasexpressed clearly, and
admission of that direction was clearlystated in a letter by the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard) tomyself, after I wrote to him about this issue over a
year ago.
In that letter, the Minister of Health indicated, and I
quotefrom this letter dated January 31, 1992:
The Clean EnvironmentCommission's recommendations in 1987 called for a
review of thecrop residue burning situation be conducted in five years'
time,including a re‑examination of the necessity for
legislativeregulatory control. While Manitoba
Health is not convinced ofthe potential usefulness of regulatory control of
stubbleburning, we fully support the CEC recommendation for a review ofthe
topic. Your concern is shared by my
department. Iappreciate your comments as
well as the offer to share names ofthose interested in the process.
So, Mr. Speaker, we now have a considerable body of
expertiseand opinion and advice that this issue has become so serious tothe
point that people's health and safety are at risk and thataction must be taken. We have come forward with a suggestion
foraction. We believe that it reflects a
wide range of Manitobansand their opinions, including farmers, rural residents
as well asWinnipeggers affected directly by the smoke from the stubbleburning.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would be able to find
somesupport and unanimity in this Chamber for the kind of action thatis
recommended. Some would say it does not
go far enough; somewould say it is far too tough. I believe it is a good startingpoint. Steps need to be taken for strict regulation
for researchinto alternative methods for getting rid of waste straw and
forensuring that the directions outlined by the Clean EnvironmentCommission are
followed and that thorough investigation clearlydocumenting what we know, but
putting in writing and officiallydocumenting the links between stubble burning
and the impact onhealth and safety.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that we have been
somewhatdisappointed in the response of this government. I want to,although, acknowledge that the
steps that were taken this fall bythe Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) and
the Minister ofEnvironment (Mr. Cummings) and others around trying to get
somehandle on that very difficult situation this fall‑‑we
appreciatethose efforts and so do many Manitobans. However, we have allconcluded that those
measures do not go far enough, that in manyways they did not meet the
objectives, and clearly that is notthe solution. The solution is immediate, tough regulation
with aview to finding alternatives so that we can ban stubble
burningaltogether. It would be our hope
that we all rid ourselves ofthe old expression and attitude of, see no evil,
hear no evil andsmell no evil. As long
as that occurs and as long as we areblind to what is happening around us,
concerted action will nothappen and people's health is at risk. That can only meantremendous strain and
pressures on our health care system withunnecessary cost being added up.
So, on the basis of individual health and safety and on
thebasis of collective action for meaningful health care reform andsavings for
taxpayers down the road, I urge the government andall members of this House to
join in support of this resolution.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, thisis not an easy issue to talk
about from a health point of view orfrom an agricultural point of view. I appreciated the commentsof the member for
As I read through it, I cannot find tremendous amount
offault with it, because it sort of follows along the lines of whatwe did this
past fall when a real problem did emerge.
We tookaction, we certainly improved the circumstances in the city
ofWinnipeg, and I think a lot of people have respected us forthat. Maybe I was a little bit disappointed at the
end when themember said it did not go far enough.
Well, let me talk about the reality that we have to
dealwith, ladies and gentlemen. We have
an agriculture industry thatproduces a lot of straw in the process of growing
crops. We havehad stubble burning ever
since I can remember in this province.I can assure members here that the amount
of burning has gonedown substantively over the years to the point now where
lessthan 5 percent of actual stubble in the province is burned. Thathas happened for a number of reasons but,
mainly, because we haveeducated farmers better as to why they should not burn. Theagronomic value of working the straw into
the ground increasestilth. It increases
organic matter, increases the nutrient levelin the soil, and it is certainly
very conservation‑conscious.
*
(1720)
That principle has worked, in my mind, quite well over
themajority of
Now, any given time you drive by a field that is
producingsmoke, you will say it is not working, but if you look over
thestatistics over time, the amount of burning has been reduced. Wehave tried to educate the farm public that
the way to burn interms of reducing the impact on city people is to burn in
thedaytime.
There is one simple reason why we say that. It is becausethe issue in the city is not
really the burning of stubble, theissue is the production of smoke. There are ways and means andtimes of the day
and climatic conditions under which you can burnand produce very little smoke,
and certainly very little smokecomes into the city of
Through education we tried to get that point across, but
thisyear was a very unusual year. I tend
to describe it as thesummer that never was, because we had no heat this
summer. Cropsgrew very, very
slowly. It ended up obviously with a
lateharvest, and it was good growing conditions, cool and wet, and wehad a
tremendous volume of straw.
What the farmers are faced with‑‑and I am not
giving excusesfor them to burn, but I am telling you the reality that theyfaced‑‑they
probably believed everything we said aboutconservation, and they should work it
in, and it should notproduce smoke.
But the reality they faced was we have this large volume
ofstraw, and I am concerned that if I try to work it in this latein the fall,
the soil is cold and the nights are long and thedays are short, there will not
be much microbial decomposition ofthat straw, therefore, next spring I will
have a very poor seedbed, and maybe a seed bed that will not give very goodgermination.
Now that is something they have learned over the
years. Sothey try to get rid of the
straw, and the cheapest way they knowis burning.
I am personally very disappointed in what happened
thisyear. I did not want to see that
happen, but as September rolledalong I knew what was going to happen. But I did not think itwas appropriate to step
in with a heavy hand and say, do not doit.
We stepped up our educational process, and it did not do theeffect, the
full job.
What happened on the 7th and 8th of October was the
worstpossible thing. There was little or
no wind, lots of burning,basically a climatic inversion. I have gone to public farmmeetings, Manitoba
Pool particularly, and I said, that practiceand what happened this fall is intolerable. I said that tofarmers, and nobody came back
at me.
Now that is a dangerous thing to say to the farm
communitywhen you call it that. They
also understand that they cannotrepeat those conditions again. Now, the actions we took afterthe 7th and 8th
by saying a seven‑day ban on burning, the oddperson violated it as we all
know, and from the 15th on we used aprocess of trying to make decisions
everyday.
There was a committee formed of Agriculture, Health, EMO,
theFire Commissioner's Office, Emergency Preparedness Canada, andthe process
was to review the climatic conditions each day firstthing in the morning, make
a decision by 7:30 as to what areaswould be allowed to burn that day, and the
hours in which it waslawful to light the match.
In most cases it was, like, from 10 in the morning till 2
inthe afternoon or till 3 in the afternoon, knowing full well thatthe burn
would be completed by four or five o'clock before the socalled problems of
night, and the dew came down and thecreation of smoke started.-
If you burn at those times of the day and there is no
airinversion and there is any kind of air movement, smoke dispersionis real
fast.
My own belief is, and I think the member for
Now, some people say, you can ban it, you can use
permits,and I say, that is good but, if someone does violate it, what areyou going
to do? How are you going to prove? I have talked tothe RCMP about the
enforcement side. The enforcement side
hasgot to be there if any process of controlling or regulating orprohibiting,
whatever you want to do, is going to work.[interjection]
I know. The member
for Transcona (Mr. Reid) says he isresponsible for his land but, you see, the
RCMP say, we have tohave proof, evidence that the person actually lit it. Now, if hegoes out there at eight o'clock at
night in the dark or teno'clock or two or three o'clock in the morning in the
dark, whois going to see him? The member
says he is responsible for hisland, and we may well be able to in that general
area deemsomebody responsible for whatever happens on the land. Well,now, that is pretty authoritative, but
it mightbe‑‑[interjection] I know.
We all want to see this thingcontrolled, and I am saying, yes, the
process we used this fallimproved things.
It was not a total solution.
I think we learned a lot from it. The farm communitieslearned a lot from
it. I have seen some pretty
responsiblestatements coming out of the city too, realizing we have to insome
cases use fire to get rid of this excessive amount ofstraw. I am glad that they understand that. Now we have to finda process to do it that is
reasonable, responsible and does notproduce the smoke that infiltrates other
people's living spaces,because I agree with the member for St. Johns
(Ms.Wasylycia-Leis). She says, health
has to be‑‑I think she usedthe words effective living or safe living
or responsible livingor something of that order. I agree with that, and I think thefarm
community basically does too.
The education process has worked to a point, but it has
notgone far enough. The conditions this
fall‑‑in hindsight, onesaid, well, we should have been regulating
earlier, but now wehave the proof. Well,
I think we are very fortunate that we havethe proof that we have to do
something and that we cannot allowthat to happen again without having had
anything really happensignificant this fall in terms of major traffic accidents
or lossof life. We are very fortunate
for that, really; I believethat. I said
this all to the farm public, and they are veryunderstanding at this time, but I
can assure the member, and I amglad that the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) is
not saying,outright ban, he is saying something like responsible and allthat
sort of thing.
Now, there is no question that in the research area we
arelooking as agricultural scientists for the kinds of crops thatgrow less straw,
the mechanical conditions under which you canbreak that straw up, whether it is
a better straw chopper on thecombine or yet another unit that you pull behind
the combine thatchops it up into little bits that can be worked into the
soil.That is all agronomically good.
Some of that technology in termsof that kind of machine is available
now, very recentlyavailable. The plant
breeding to produce shorter straw varietiesis moving in that direction.
An Honourable Member: Zero
tillage.
Mr. Findlay: The member
for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans)says, zero tillage. That principle works reasonably well
oncertain soil types and certain volumes of straw, and it worksfairly well in
the southwest region of the province, where it ispractised to a fair extent but,
in the
The other thing is, if you leave that straw there and do
notwork the soil, the soil is wet in the spring, and one of thebiggest troubles
in the
Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?
Mr. Speaker: Four
minutes.
Mr. Findlay: In that
context, the EMO committee certainly isgoing to make a report on the episode of
October and theconditions from October 15th on.
The Minister of Agriculture,the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and the
Minister ofEnvironment (Mr. Cummings) have met with their staff, and we
haveformed a committee which we are announcing today to bring backrecommendations
on how we can protect vulnerable Manitobans fromthe negative effects of stubble
smoke.
We have, on this committee, people from the Concerned
Parentsof Children with Asthma, the Lung Association, KeystoneAgricultural
Producers, members of my department and producerstrying to come up with a
solution that identifies how we canhandle this episode in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the input from those
peopleusing the information from this fall and the evidence they bringto the
table as to how to approach handling of straw and stubblein the future.
*
(1730)
So in context, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move an
amendmentto the resolution. I will say
first off, it is not changing theintent of the resolution. Most of the WHEREASes, I have lookedat, I can
agree with them, but I would like to move, seconded bythe Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns),
THAT we delete from the conclusion of the seventh
"WHEREAS,"to the end of the resolution and insert the following:
WHEREAS The Emergency Measures Organization is readying
theirfinal report on the interim ban and controlled burning during thefall of
1992; and
WHEREAS the government of
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly
ofManitoba support the provincial government in its consultativeprocess with
the rural and urban citizens and stakeholdersleading to the development of
measures and enforcement proceduresto prevent infiltration of residential areas
by smoke during theharvest season; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Department of Agriculture
willwork aggressively with researchers and farmers to develop andpromote viable
alternatives to the practice of stubble burning,the development of shorter‑strawed
varieties and alternativeend‑uses for excessive straw.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: The
honourable minister's amendment is in order.
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, it gives me greatpleasure to rise
today on this resolution in the sense that thismatter is coming to the fore of
the Legislature. I just heardthe
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) propose an amendmentwhich, let me say at
the outset, I think is a real breakthrough,and I want to say that on the record
that I think it is certainlysomething that our party can support. We have been looking forit for five
years. That is the only reason that I
have anyregret about standing up today is that it has taken five years.In my
experience, since I got elected in 1988, every fall I haveraised this in the
Legislature in one form or another.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that this was a particularly
badyear for this; however, it is not a unique year. It has been aconsistent problem every
year. It was certainly worse this
year,but it is as regular as clockwork in this province that there isa stubble‑burning
problem. People are incensed; children
andseniors go to hospitals and emergency departments; and there isan
environmental and a health hazard inflicted upon manythousands of Manitobans.
It is high time that this happened; nevertheless, it is
goodthat it is happening. I want the
Minister of Agriculture (Mr.Findlay) to know that. In fact, I have a resolution on the
OrderPaper which expresses many of the same concerns that the memberfor
I note the Minister of Agriculture has specifically said
thatthere will be representatives from the farming communityobviously, from the
concerned parents of asthmatics, from theLung Association. So, if the government is bringing
togetherthose people to come up with a permanent solution, then that
isprecisely what my resolution called for.
That is precisely, Ithink, the type of leadership that has been lacking
in the past.If it is here now and going forward, and we can have thisresolved
in one way or another by next fall, I think that will bea major step forward.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, therefore, to say at the
outsetthat I am going to be pleased and our party will be pleased tosupport
this amendment. I look forward to the
results of thatcommittee, because I believe and I have believed throughout
thisdebate and discussion on this issue that there is middle ground,that there
are solutions that can work for the farming communityand for the nonfarming
community that often pay the health andenvironmental costs for this. I believe there is middle ground.
I say that, not just having spoken to urbanites who
havesuffered the consequences. I have
heard from literally dozens offarmers in the farming community and have spoken
with them in thecourse of these five years in dealing with this issue
andspeaking out on this issue. It is
interesting that oftentimes mycomments have been picked up in many rural papers
and that drawsresponse from the rural community.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
I have found, interestingly, that the position I take
doesnot find discontent or disagreement in the vast majority of
therepresentatives in the agricultural community whom I hear from.I am not a
farmer, so I have always said up‑front that I am notgoing to tell them or
pretend to know‑‑[interjection] Yes, theMinister of Agriculture
(Mr. Findlay) says, he has an investmentfor me.
Maybe that is why I am not a farmer, because theinvestment these days is
onerous and sometimes not tooprofitable, I understand that. The point is, I have always feltthere was
middle ground.
I have always deeply resented those‑‑members
of thegovernment have done this on a regular basis every year, who
haveattempted to paint this as a rural‑urban issue, as an issue whereurbanites
are pitted against rural Manitobans. It
is not arural‑urban issue; it is a people issue. All Manitobans pay theprice for smoke that
comes across their land where they live,their rural communities or their urban
communities.
I have heard from hospital administrators and doctors,
notjust in the city of
I can show you the leaflet of the Department of
Agriculturewhich sets out all the evils of stubble burning. I can quote youthe Minister of Agriculture
(Mr. Findlay) himself 15 minutes agosaying, Mr. Acting Speaker, that he thinks
there are better waysto deal with this and looks forward to finding a
permanentsolution. So I do not think we
have what many would try to paintas a rural‑urban split, and I think it
is time we put that torest and got people together from both those communities
to comeup with a permanent solution.
Mr. Acting Speaker, it has always struck me as
extremelyparadoxical that if you or I, did we have the habit, were tolight up a
cigarette in the lobby of this building, we would beprosecuted if we were not
in the right room, as I think theActing Speaker knows. We would be taken to court and
prosecutedunder the laws of this province‑‑or any public
building. Wesupported that and that is
good legislation. The same person cango
outside the
*
(1740)
Now, where is the logic in that? That has happened yearafter year after year
in this province. It does not make
sense.
The fact is there is no justification in my view for
thehealth hazard that this inflicts on people, and I have haddiscussions with
the heads of emergency at the Health SciencesCentre and Grace Hospital,
Concordia Hospital, St. BonifaceHospital, Victoria Hospital in this city and
hospitals in ruralManitoba who tell me of the hundreds of people who
startsuffering from this smoke before people like you and I who do nothave
these breathing problems ever smell it or see it. Theystart suffering. Their lungs pick it up and they start
sufferingthe asthma attack or the emphysema attack and, long after thestubble
smoke is cleared, they are still suffering.
They do paythe price.
Who pays the greatest price? Talk to the doctors, theemergency
departments, and they will tell you the majority areone of two groups: children with asthma, who are particularlyprone
to this and to be put into an asthma attack; and seniorswith emphysema
problems. Those are the two groups who
arehardest hit by this problem, Mr. Acting Speaker. So we arehitting the most vulnerable people
in our community on a regularbasis every fall.
That is not to mention the environmentalproblem this poses. Can you imagine a plant, a company
gettingaway with putting a cloud over 650,000 people that choked themfor seven
or eight hours? Can you imagine? That company wouldnot be allowed to do that
more than once.
If the enforcement branch was doing its job in the
Departmentof Environment, absolutely they would be taken to task, Mr.Acting
Speaker, and very, very quickly. If you
or I were to everlight a fire on our property, you can be darned certain we
wouldhave the Fire Department and, if we did it again, we would havethe police
and a Crown prosecutor. You cannot do
that. ThePublic Health Act disallows it
and has for years.
In 1988, the atmospheric pollution regulations were passed
bythis government. They clearly outlaw
this type of burning, andit has never been enforced. Why not?
It is clearly aninfringement of that act. That is the fallacy of those who saywe need
to legislate against this type of activity.
It is in thelaw. It has been
there since 1988. No one in this
province canput the types of smoke and fumes into the air and inflict that
onother Manitobans, and they have not been able to do it for years.
Mr. Acting Speaker, it is not a question of
legislationparticularly. It is a
question of desire to deal with theproblem, and I have never said, deal with it
with a heavy hand.I have always said, do what now this government has seen fit
todo after many, many years of being asked, and that is bring thepeople together
to get a solution that works for all.
There aresolutions. Other
provinces have found those solutions, notablySaskatchewan, where they have
found ways to deal with the problemthat have met the needs and the interests of
all communities. Ihave no doubt that
with good will and good faith and a commitmentwhich is made good upon by this
government there will be asolution, and there must be a solution, and it must
be apermanent solution. I look forward
to that.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I am only saddened that it took a
yearlike this, which was a year that produced much more smoke thannormal, which
was an abnormal year. A veritable crisis
wascreated. As is often the case, it
takes that to causegovernments to come to the table to want to do something
aboutit. I am saddened that it took
that, but that having happened,at least we are moving forward it appears, and
that is good.
Now, Mr. Acting Speaker, with respect to the
minister'scomments, the educational work has not done the full job. Thoseare his comments. I agree.
Again, I have been saying that foryears.
It has gone a long way. It was a
recommendation of theClean Environment Commission. It was a good recommendation. Ithas never ever been purported to be the
full answer. We know nowit is not the
full answer. The truth is, those who are
stilldoing this irresponsibly, and there are ways to burn responsibly,those who
are doing it irresponsibly know full well that they aredoing it against all of
the educational advice. I am convincedat
this point, with all of the educational work that is done,they are making an
intentional choice to ignore that and to doit.
So now we have got to move to plan B.
For those who arestill doing it, there has to be some muscle put into
it, someregulations put into effect which the government is willing to
gothrough on.
The question of proof, the minister raised; now that is
in myview, Mr. Acting Speaker, a cop‑out, and let me tell you why.Anybody
who knows about regulatory offences as opposed tocriminal code offences will
tell you that there is a very simpletool to deal with that question of proof,
and that is the reverseonus. There is a
reverse onus in place for most land‑useoffences. The Noxious Weeds Act is one example. Any nuisanceclaim that is brought in this province
or nuisance action inregulatory offences, the onus is shifted, and it works
likethis: A fire is occurring, stubble
is burning, and stubble smokeis being created on somebody's land. The owner has the onus toshow that he did not
intentionally set it. The charge is
laid.The owner goes to court and is asked to explain in effect,because it is
recognized that the authorities cannot be on theirland 24 hours a day. All regulatory land‑use offences
providethat reverse onus.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the interesting anomaly is that
ThePublic Health Act with atmospheric pollution regulationscurrently in place,
which, in my view, would prohibit this,already includes that reverse onus. That is a red herring. I donot accept that as any reason for not
enforcing the law which isalready there. [interjection] Well, I would be
thrilled to speakto the officials because I realize the RCMP had that concern,
butI think the government has many, many lawyers who, I think, couldgive
advice, and I do not know if they have spoken to them. Butthere are many land‑use offence
regulations. They all deal withthat same
problem.
Finally, Mr. Acting Speaker, let me just say that,
whileclearly I accept that this year's situation reached crisisproportions, the
fact is that it was a misconception to see thisas an emergency in the sense
that these fires were intentionallyset.
We knew they were going to be set.
It was not like a trainderailment that occurs, or an act of God. These wereintentionally set fires.
This is not, in the strict sense of the word, an
emergencythat was predictable. The exact
magnitude of it was notpredictable perhaps, but even the minister says he knew
it wascoming, he knew it was going to be bad.
The truth is, this is asolveable problem, and let us solve it. I look forward to that.
Thank you.
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): I just want to put a very few shortcomments on
the record on stubble burning. Being a
farmermyself, as are a number of people in this Chamber, you have torespect and
admire that these people in fact try to carve aliving and the way they carve a
living out of soil.
Our soils differ in various parts of the province, and
thesoil surrounding the city of
The cost of the incorporation of this straw, especially
whenyou have a heavy crop of straw like you did this year, can bevery, very
immense. Few people realize that the
amount ofequipment that is required‑‑the heavy equipment required‑‑to
dothis kind of incorporation is indeed a very, very heavy expenseto the farmer.
I do not agree with the honourable member for St. James
(Mr.Edwards) that this is an urban‑rural issue. It is a matter of apractice that has been
used by the farm community for decades.It has been used very effectively and,
with the new kind ofseeding equipment that is in place now, if you can get rid
ofthis straw in this heavy soil without disturbing the soil toomuch, it lends
itself to proper seeding conditions in thespring. That is important, especially in these heavy
clay areas.
I want to put on the record though that I am totally opposedto
straw burning as an individual. We have
never burned straw onour farm, because we do not think that we have the need
to, butit is, as I say, a costly operation.
It takes the investment ofsome large, heavy equipment and the expense of
that is notnominal.
So, for those members that live in the city of
Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker.
*
(1750)
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I am pleased to rise and add mycomments to
this very important resolution. I am
sure, like manyother members in this House, we have all received our phone
callsand our letters dealing with this issue of stubble burning. Iknow in my recent discussions with the
member for Kildonan (Mr.Chomiak), he has indicated to me that he has received
literallydozens upon dozens of calls and letters from his constituents, asI am
sure we all have. We are all quite
concerned about theeffect that this issue is having upon our individual
communitiesthat we represent.
I listened with interest to the comments by the Minister
ofAgriculture (Mr. Findlay) where he talks that there has been asignificant
decrease in the amount of stubble burning that takesplace within the
province. He says, it is down to less
than 5percent of the stubble that is being burned now in our province.
I do not profess for a moment to be an expert on
agriculturalissues. I have had some
experience working on farms through myyoung adult years. I have watched some of the practices thathave
taken place and there are, of course, varying conditionsaround our province, as
the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay)has pointed out.
That does not mean to say that there are still not
problemsout there with stubble burning, even though, I believe that inthe
minister's comments, a large number of the producers in ourprovince are responsible
producers and they do not support thepractices of stubble burning when they can
move away from thatparticular type of practice.
That does not mean to say thoughthat those remaining who use the
practice of stubble burning arenot creating a serious health effect upon the
communities.
I know that this fall in particular and in the two
previousfalls for which I was the representative of my community or atleast
running for election to represent my community, I was awareof concerns of the
residents of my community when the issue ofstubble burning came up because,
while this problem has gottenprogressively worse and seems to have become a
severe problemthis fall, looking at the situation, I believe we have to
takesome necessary action now to put in place the necessary controlsor at least
make an effort in that direction to encourage those,at least through the
education process and, where educationfails, to take some further steps to
ensure that those who arecontinuing this practice are made aware of the consequences
oftheir actions upon others in our society.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I look at the people who have come to
myoffice in my community and have, during the course of this fallwhen the
stubble burning practice was taking place, I would getcalls very early in the
morning from very frantic parents tryingto draw to my attention so that I could
put my comments to thegovernment and make them aware of what was happening to
theirfamilies.
It was very difficult for me as an individual to have
tolisten to these concerns, not because I did not want to listen tothose
concerns, but because there are members of my own family,my own children, who
have an asthmatic condition. I
couldemphasize very deeply with these parents who were calling me andwere
frantic.
It is very difficult for a parent to sit in their home
duringthe evening and into the early hours of the morning and listen totheir
children wheezing, trying to gasp for their breath. It isvery difficult for a parent to have to
listen to that.
So when these parents come to me and say that they have
totake their children to the hospital in the middle of the night, Iknow what
they are living through, because I have had to do thatwith my own
children. I know what those conditions
are like, andit is not a pleasant picture to have to take your child to
thehospital and have them put into an oxygen tent or on oxygenthrough the mask
and hope that they get better. It is a
verydifficult situation for a parent.
By this resolution I think we can move in the right
directionand that by the amendments that the minister has put forward forthis
resolution, I believe that this is a fair and reasonableposition to take. It is a fair compromise. I think that we,looking at the parties that
are involved in this‑‑the parentssupport group for children with
asthma; the EMO; the producerrepresentatives; and the government itself‑‑should
give them theopportunity to come forward with some concrete proposals and
someconcrete actions that we can take to resolve this issue.
I believe that by these amendments that are here to
thisresolution that we had put forward, while the amendments are notexactly
what we had hoped for, nevertheless they are a faircompromise position and we
are willing to give the government theopportunity, along with the other groups
that are involved, tobring forward some concrete actions on this matter.
I thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Acting Speaker, to
putmy comments on the record on this very important topic today.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Every day prior to Question Period getting underway,
Mr.Acting Speaker, we are hearing from petitions. We have hadthousands of urban and rural
Manitobans signing petitions, andbasically what the petition is asking for, and
I am just going toread the very last THEREFORE:
"Your petitioners humbly pray thatthe Legislative Assembly will
urge the government of
Mr. Acting Speaker, we have approached this, whether it
isthe public as a whole or the politicians, in a very responsiblemanner. It is not an urban‑rural issue. This is an issue inwhich all Manitobans have
an interest in terms of the chaff, thatthere are good potential industries,
with a proactive government,that we can see something come out of it. We have to think interms of what is in the
best health care need of all Manitobans,including the farmers themselves.
With those very few words, I wanted to pay special
tribute toa constituent of mine, Kim Lachute, who has put in a lot ofeffort in
terms of getting these petitions before us.
We aretalking about several thousand individuals that have signed
thesepetitions. Thank you.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Is the House ready for thequestion? The question before the House is that
proposedResolution No. 1 be amended.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some Honourable Members:
Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Agreed?
Agreed and soordered.
Is the House ready for the question? The question before theHouse, the private
member's Resolution No. 1 as amended.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members:
Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Agreed?
Agreed and soordered.
Six o'clock? The
hour now being six o'clock, this House willstand adjourned till tomorrow
(Thursday) at 1:30 p.m.