LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Tuesday,
May 20, 2008
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYER
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Bill 300–The Royal Lake of the Woods Yacht Club Incorporation Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on second reading private bills. Bill 300, The Royal Lake of the Woods Yacht Club Incorporation Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Selkirk. Are we dealing with this, this morning?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: Yes. Standing in the name of the honourable Member for Selkirk.
Is the honourable Member for Selkirk speaking on this? Is it the will of the House for it to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Selkirk? [Agreed]
Okay, that's agreed to. It will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Selkirk.
SECOND READINGS–PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order?
House Business
Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Official Opposition House Leader): On House business, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: On House business?
Mr. Hawranik: Yes. I'd like leave to move to Bill 221, The Liquor Control Amendment Act.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House for us to move directly to Bill 221, The Liquor Control Amendment Act (Liquor Vendor Siting)? [Agreed]
Bill 221–The Liquor Control Amendment Act (Liquor Vendor Siting)
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Emerson (Mr. Graydon), that Bill 221, The Liquor Control Amendment Act (Liquor Vendor Siting); Loi modifiant la Loi sur la réglementation des alcools (établissement des vendeurs d'alcools), be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Taillieu: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to speak to Bill 221, The Liquor Control Amendment Act.
The purpose of this bill is really twofold. First of all, it will allow some small little business in a little tiny community to flourish, Mr. Speaker, and it's all about that. It's about allowing businesses outsides the Perimeter Highway to flourish, it's about rural development and it's about the convenience for the people that live in the neighbourhood.
This began in late 2005. Two and a half years ago, the people that own the Headingley food store applied for a permit to sell alcohol at their store. The regulations state that, if you're within 30 kilometres of the city of Winnipeg, you have to be 10 kilometres from the nearest liquor vendor or outlet. Let's also recognize that all liquor in this province is controlled by the Province pretty much, so it's not like there's going to be a competition here; it's going to be alcohol sold from this store. That is the application, to sell alcohol from this store that is supplied by the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission.
When they applied for the permit, they were told, well, no, because you don't meet the distance requirements. So they did a measuring and, one way from the Headingley food store to the nearest liquor commission which is at Cavalier and Portage, if you've travelled down the Trans-Canada Highway, it's 9.3 kilometres. However, if you go the Roblin Boulevard route, it's 10.8 kilometres.
I know that I have been reading petitions in this House for quite some time, outlining the details around that and the fact is that the majority of the people in Headingley live in the little hamlet of South Headingley and use Roblin Boulevard for a couple of a reasons. First, that's their most direct route into the city and second, using the Trans-Canada Highway is dangerous.
I've also been reading petitions about the safety of that stretch of highway. That is a known fact that that stretch of highway is unsafe and prone to more accidents. I've spoken with a lot of people over the last several weeks and they would certainly agree with that point.
Mr. Speaker, the idea that, the distance thing, when you talk about 9.3 kilometres going one route or 10.8 kilometres going the other, even if you average that out, it's still 10 kilometres. It's really splitting hairs here because the situation is, where their store is located–and it has been located there for the last 25 years or more. I've lived in Headingley for 25 years, I've seen that store there for at least that long and I can tell you I've also seen that store change hands, ownership, shut down, close down, open up again because of the situation. It's hard to remain viable in small communities.
When you think about where this is located, 700 metres, which in Headingley would basically mean, if it was just one or two lots over, down the street, it would be allowable under the legislation.
There's been a number of letters written back and forth between the Municipality of Headingley and the department responsible for the Liquor Control Commission. Just looking at a letter from July 10, 2007, the minister responsible for the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission wrote and said: The primary reason Headingley Foods has been denied a liquor vendor outlet is the location. They say: as you know, it's 9.3 kilometres from the existing MLCC liquor mart. Again, they are choosing that direction, whereas I've been trying to make the argument, and I think it's a very valid argument, that the majority of people would use the distance of 10.8 kilometres; even with a distance of 700 metres, it's not all that far.
Then on September 17 of the same year, a letter was sent again and it said, the most important factor–now we've changed from the primary factor being the location, now it's the most important factor–is that this would violate the policy concerning the location of liquor vendors.
What I'm trying to propose with this bill is something that will not violate the other agreements with the other liquor control vendors in the province. This is simply to allow an amendment to the act which would put the phrase in, in another municipality, which means that if the distance requirement cannot be met, if you have to exceed and go to another municipality, then that would supersede that.
* (10:10)
I think it's all about the ability to maintain a small store in a small village; it's also for the convenience of the residents that live in Headingley. The number of people that reside in Headingley as of today–and this would not be including the jail, just to make that clear–is about 2,200 people. That's significant growth over the last–25 years ago, it would have been about half that.
I do want to say that, just looking at the regulations, it says in regard to exclusivity and trading area, a new liquor vendor will not be appointed within 10 kilometres of the established. The population of the trading area should be a minimum of 2,000 people, and it is. The trading is defined as an area within a five-kilometre driving distance from the location.
If you take the store and fan out in a radius of five kilometres, the next nearest liquor commission would be in the R.M. of St. Francis which is over 12 kilometres away. Five kilometres from that little store doesn't even get to the Perimeter Highway. All around, there's nothing within a five-kilometre trading area, Mr. Speaker.
I also want to quote from the act which says: When the commission deems that any part of an unorganized territory or any rural area is at such a distance from an existing liquor store, that it is desirable that, for the convenience of the inhabitants thereof, a place for the sale of liquor be established therein, if the commission considers that it is not economically advisable to establish therein a liquor store.
Basically, it's saying, if they're not going to establish their own liquor store, it would be reasonable to establish a sale of alcohol from an already-established store for the convenience of the inhabitants thereof.
We are simply trying to provide a means to allow this to happen because we have been told by the minister that it's up to the Manitoba Liquor Commission; in committee, the Liquor Control Commission says, oh no, our hands are tied; this is the legislation and this is what we're bound by.
We're trying very desperately here to establish something that is good for the community, is good for the small businesses outside of the Perimeter Highway. In rural Manitoba, I don't believe that, of the other 174 vendor outlets, liquor control outlets, that anybody else would fall into this situation, Mr. Speaker. It's simply an amendment to the act that which would allow this to happen.
I don't see why there's such a resistance against it. I don't see why, when you wouldn't have the benefit of the doubt, why take the 9.3 kilometres over the 10.8 kilometres? There just doesn't seem to be a will to accommodate people in rural Manitoba, and I think that's part of what this government is all about. They really don't care about what happens outside the Perimeter Highway.
That's really unfortunate because there's a heck of a lot of people that live outside the Perimeter Highway and simply just want to have the same conveniences in their communities as people in Winnipeg enjoy, just right down the block. I don't understand why this government would not look at this as a simple amendment to the bill, which would not impact on any of the other sitings and would simply allow this small business to be able to flourish in the community of Headingley.
Mr. Speaker, I'm looking forward to the comments from members opposite, looking forward to passing this bill onto committee, because I know there will be a lot of people that come in support of this. I know that there was a Winnipeg Sun poll done some time ago with–it was about 1,500 respondents and about 80 percent of those said, why can't Headingley have a liquor store? What's wrong with that?
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade): Mr. Speaker, I know my friends across the aisle spend a lot of their time contemplating liquor and in spending time in this House talking about liquor. That's not bad. Everything in moderation, I believe, is a good thing.
I noticed a couple of weeks ago there was a private member's resolution. I know the Member for Brandon West (Mr. Borotsik) felt very put upon that the previous Filmon government had ignored the city of Brandon when they were on their ideological flight of trying to chip away at the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission and, I believe, made it quite clear that this government is not going to expand private wine stores.
We are certainly sorry that he had so little influence when he was the mayor of Brandon that Mr. Filmon wasn't interested in putting a private wine store. But I was very pleased actually to be out there just two weeks ago as we announced a further liquor mart location in the city of Brandon, the third location for the city of Brandon. Instead of it simply being a wine store, we thought a full-service liquor store would be a good thing.
I hear the Member for Morris (Mrs. Taillieu) is saying it's not about Brandon. I heard very clearly her comments that she feels that rural Manitoba is somehow being put upon. But I will turn to her bill right now, and I will just do the member a little bit of a favour and sort of lay out the framework so this House can understand where everybody's at. The liquor vendor policy in Manitoba is that, if there is a liquor store within 10 kilometres of a proposed location, that proposed location will not have a private liquor vendor. It's 10 kilometres. It's not as the crow flies, it's 10 kilometres by way of provincial highway.
In this case, I know the Member for Morris has put a lot of time and effort into this. She does not deny the fact is that there is a liquor store located 9.3 kilometres away from the place where she would apparently want there to be a private liquor vendor. Now section 2.05(b) of the liquor vendor agreement–which isn't simply for the liquor commission; it's the agreement between the liquor commission and the various private liquor vendors who operate around the province–states that within 30 kilometres of the Perimeter Highway of Winnipeg, and I quote, a new liquor vendor will not be appointed within 10 kilometres of an established liquor mart or liquor vendor. We can call that to be a protection zone that enhances the value of the operation and makes sure that existing liquor vendors can be quite satisfied that their business interests are going to be protected.
As I believe the Member for Morris knows, there are 175 private liquor vendors in Manitoba. They service smaller communities where it's accepted that having a public liquor mart likely would not be cost‑effective. Oftentimes they are an adjunct to a grocery store or another commercial property. Of course, the MLCC signed legal agreements with all 175 liquor vendors in the province, that each one of those 175 agreements has the distance clearly stated.
I can let the Member for Morris know that the issues surrounding this exclusivity clause or protection clause, if you want to call it that, in the liquor vendor agreements was actually investigated by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman found that that was in accordance with MLCC policy, The Liquor Control Act and its regulations. The concern is that to satisfy one particular situation in the member's constituency, she would want to open The Manitoba Liquor Control Act, and–[interjection]
The Member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) has quite correctly interjected to say there would, indeed, be a legal problem. If this bill were passed, it could very well be seen to be in violation of our agreements with each of those 175 private liquor vendors. By doing that, it could open the commission to a lawsuit for damages from these vendors for breach of conditions of the signed agreements.
Again, we have the conspiracy theory of the Member for Morris saying that somehow this policy was set up by the government to try and make it more difficult for rural communities. Indeed, the liquor vendor policy was introduced in 1982, and at that time the distance clause stated that a new liquor vendor would not be appointed within 20 kilometres of an established liquor mart or liquor vendor but also said the trade area population should be a minimum of 300 persons, and this policy was applicable throughout the province.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, in May 1993, and I believe that was under a different provincial government, there was a new zone established which included all communities within a 20 kilometre distance from the Winnipeg Perimeter Highway. Within this new zone the distance between established liquor marts or liquor vendors changed to 10 kilometres. It was reduced from 20 kilometres to 10 kilometres to provide some more flexibility, I suppose, but certainly to protect the trading area for the store or vendor location.
*(10:20)
Each one of those 175 private liquor vendors is now playing under those rules. Each one of them has entered into a contract with the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission. They've made their decisions, whether it be staffing, whether it be capital, based on those being the rules which, again, have been there since 1993. To satisfy one store in one constituency, it simply doesn't make any sense to use that as the benefit and, at the same time, then open up and create problems for as many as 175 different, private, contractual agreements across the province.
I know that we've also introduced amendments to The Liquor Control Act and, indeed, I'm very pleased. I hope we can move those to committee relatively shortly because those are amendments which actually do improve the safety of people in the province of Manitoba when it comes to liquor establishments and, as well, contain some other items to assist, certainly, rural businesses.
As the members opposite will know, we have taken some steps to open up, if you will, opportunities for rural hotels that have beverage rooms to have events on Sundays to get some more income, some more revenue in. We think that's a possible thing. We've also introduced legislation to standardize the number of drinks that can be served to one patron which, again, we think are going to be some common-sense changes which will make the playing field a little bit better.
The Member for Morris (Mrs. Taillieu) is much like Don Quixote riding around, except she can't seem to find the windmill. We have a very clear policy in place; it's been there since 1993. If a proposed location is within 10 kilometres of another liquor establishment, there is not going to be a liquor licence granted for sale. There is no dispute that the particular operation which has given her apparently the desire to bring on this bill, that location is only 9.3 kilometres from a full-service liquor mart which can supply anything that the people in Headingley might need.
I'm also aware that there's beer available at the hotel in Headingley. Again, we have a series of private agreements with hotels across the province to sell beer. Nobody is suggesting that that be changed. We don't think that's unreasonable but, certainly in this case, when we look at liquor policy across the province, we have contractual agreements in place with 175 different private vendors. To upset that apple cart, because the Member for Morris believes that it's inconvenient for people to travel less than 10 kilometres, simply doesn't make any sense.
I will certainly be interested to hear what the other members have to say because, as I say, the Conservative caucus appears to spend an awful lot of time worrying about alcohol. Again I would suggest, everything in moderation, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, this NDP government has always been triumphing themselves as the small-business supporters; today what we're seeing is, basically they're the Robin Hoods; they want to take from the rich and give to the poor until everybody's poor.
Mr. Speaker, the MLCC has a monopoly on the alcohol in the province. I guess, if the Conservatives are speaking about alcohol, it's just because someone else has a monopoly. We just want to see that it's spread around the province, not in one spot.
Mr. Speaker, the small businesses that are outside the city of Winnipeg have been really struggling over the years, as has been pointed out in Headingley by the member, that that business has changed hands or been closed a number of times. Having a liquor store as part of an attraction and to help that business would probably satisfy the needs of the community much better than one that's 10 kilometres away.
The argument that 9.3 kilometres would violate the law that's there, I would challenge the minister that there are also liquor stores that are under the 10 kilometres in his portfolio right now, today, in the province.
The MLCC, it would appear, is afraid of competition. They have all the advantages with buying power, with offering all types of incentives to shop which the private stores and the small businesses outside can't do–the liquor vendors–can't do that. They can't offer the air miles that are being offered. They can't offer any of the other little perks, plus they don't have the same buying power which doesn't allow them then to buy and get the deals that the MLCC have that can pass on. So if it is that they're just afraid of the competition then why wouldn't they step up to the plate and say so?
When you have two jurisdictions that we have today, like we have the Municipality of Headingley and, outside of the city of Winnipeg, the population looks like it would more than sustain the small liquor vendor out there without hurting the one MLCC liquor mart in Winnipeg, then I'd suggest that the minister use a little bit of common sense and a little bit of judgment to make this happen.
If, in fact, it was a different situation where there were only 300 people and four liquor marts right there and someone asking for the fifth one I would understand what he's doing but, really, he doesn't seem to have any compassion for the small businesses that they say that they want to support. The competition would probably be beneficial to all the people. It's just simply a matter of changing the regulation for this one mart.
The whole issue of private wine stores that he has brought up, Mr. Speaker, it was this particular government that should have allowed, and had an opportunity to allow one in Brandon, and, obviously, they didn't think they could stand that type of competition there, either.
So, Mr. Speaker, with those few words I appreciate the opportunity to put those on the record. Thank you.
Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Interlake): I move, seconded by the Member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar)– [interjection]– I see other people want to speak.
Mr. Speaker: Is the honourable Member for Interlake not moving his motion? No? Okay, so he's declined.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon West): I thought the member standing was going to speak to this very, very important issue. One of competition, one of competitiveness, one of fairness, one of equity, but obviously the member would like to simply stop debate, Mr. Speaker.
I would certainly like to put some points on the record with respect to the amendments to The Manitoba Liquor Control Act. It was brought forward by the Member for Morris (Mrs. Taillieu), who I do thank for doing that because she fights for her constituents. She fights for the people who reside in Headingley.
For some of those members across the way who have not been to Headingley which I'm sure most of them have not, if they did make that little trek outside the Perimeter Highway, they would find an exceedingly vibrant community. A community that is growing in leaps and bounds. In fact, if you go down that highway– which again should be twinned, but that's another issue altogether–if you go down the highway to Headingley, you'll find a number of housing units now under construction. You'll find a substantial number of businesses being developed along the No. 1 highway at Headingley, Mr. Speaker.
What this speaks to is a community that requires services, they require all types of services, whether it be fire, whether it be police, whether it be health-care services, but, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade (Mr. Swan) said, we spend an inordinate amount of time talking about liquor and alcohol. Unfortunately in this province, the only way you can talk about that particular service being provided is to speak to the government of the day, because the government of the day holds a monopoly on Manitoba Liquor Control Commission as seen under the act, as seen by the requirement of this particular amendment.
* (10:30)
Mr. Speaker, Headingley should be given the proper services that a community of its size and a community of its vitality deserves. The Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade (Mr. Swan) took a couple of unveiled shots at myself because I stood in this very House and suggested that the city of Brandon should also have the opportunity to be treated equally, should be treated with the same services as provided in the city of Winnipeg. Yes, it was a private wine store of which there are eight of them now located in the city of Winnipeg, but we couldn't have one in the city of Brandon.
You know what, Mr. Speaker? About a week and a half after that particular resolution was debated in this House, the government and the Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade sat in my community and announced that we were going to have a third liquor store. There was, by the way, going to provide a wine boutique but, would they allow a private wine store to compete with the government-operated liquor stores? No, it wasn't going to happen.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have three liquor marts in the city of Brandon, and I can assure you that all three of them are well within 10 kilometres of each other. We speak out of both sides of our face here. We now have a third to compete with the two that are already there, and they're well within that 10 kilometres that the minister speaks to. So why is it on one hand the government, speaking out of one side of its face, suggests that the community requires the service of a liquor store? He took great pride in standing there and getting a photo op saying, isn't this absolutely outstanding? Isn't this wonderful that we're providing that service for the community of Brandon? On the other hand and on the other side of its face, he stands in this same House and says, absolutely not; Headingley doesn't deserve that kind of a service being provided to its residents.
That, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely wrong. Headingley and its residents and the growth of that community deserves that service, but no, no, you see Big Brother is what we refer to this government, this government is Big Brother, and they are not going to provide anything that they see fit not to provide.
This is a province, Mr. Speaker, that we're told where we have to go and buy our liquor. We're told that. This government says, no, we don't have enough intelligence to be able to go and purchase alcoholic beverages because Big Brother says we don't have that ability.
This is the same government that says we can't buy automobile insurance unless it's government insurance. So we don't have enough intelligence as an individual or as a society to be able to be given that right, Mr. Speaker, to go and make that choice ourselves.
This government, Mr. Speaker, tells us we can't gamble unless they tell us where we can go to gamble. So this is a government of Big Brother, and it's wrong, absolutely wrong. Now, this is very simple, and I wish the minister would listen. This is very simple. There are two options. Look at the marketplace of Headingley. Look at the marketplace and the growth of that marketplace. They have two options. They should service the marketplace. There is a potential for a privately operated through MLCC purchasing, a privately operated liquor vendor. That's pretty simple. Go out, do a request for proposals, find out who, where, when and how they can locate that liquor vendor.
The other option, Mr. Speaker, as they did in Brandon, is to look at the marketplace and say, listen, this should be a government-operated liquor store. They can do that. There's lots of land sitting in Headingley right now. They can develop a liquor mart that would service the community, but they won't do that either. I, for the life of me, don't understand why, other than the fact it gives them great pleasure to simply say, the reason we won't do it is because we can, and I've heard the minister say that before.
Why do they increase their debt on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker? The minister said, because we can. Why do they not develop a liquor store? Because they can. It's not right. It's not fair. It's not equitable, and there is no logical reason not to do it.
He talks about the 10 kilometres and the 170‑and-some-odd private liquor agreements that they have, Mr. Speaker. What may well be infringed is: one, agreement; if they wanted to sit down and negotiate, they could quite easily do that but, for some reason, they wish not to.
The Minister of Competitiveness and Trade has been told, obviously, that they don't want to support this piece of legislation because it may well open the floodgates. That's what he says. That's wrong, Mr. Speaker, because you know what? They have had opportunities before to negotiate themselves out of some serious situations, and I speak to the private wine stores. As a matter of fact, MLCC made an out‑of-court settlement to those same wine stores. Because MLCC decided that they were going to play Big Brother. They were going to bring the hammer down and they didn't want private-sector wine stores operating, but that was already put in place by another government. I do wish that that other government, at the time, had of put a private liquor vendor in Headingley as well as a private wine store in the city of Brandon.
I find it absolutely difficult to comprehend why they would dig their heels in on something as simple as this service being provided to residents in rural Manitoba. Soon enough rural Manitoba or Headingley is not going to be rural Manitoba any longer. If this government continues the way they're going right now–People have been moving into Headingley, and they will continue to move into Headingley. They will continue to reside there. They will continue to demand services. I would hope beyond hope that this government, at some point in time, would regain their senses and recognize that Big Brother is not the way to go. Open it up. If not to a private-sector operation in Headingley, open it up to a government operated liquor store in the town of Headingley, which may well be a city in the not too distant future, Mr. Speaker.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would wish the Minister for Competitiveness, Training and Trade (Mr. Swan) would actually start becoming competitive. That he would actually see that there is a need for a competitive service in Headingley and not simply do what he's told by MLCC or the Premier (Mr. Doer) of the province of Manitoba. Stand on his hind legs and actually take a stand that is positive for the province of Manitoba and for the town of Headingley. I do wish that he would change his Big Brother attitude and make sure that others in Manitoba were given the same services as others in the city of Winnipeg.
As I said, the contradiction that he has with the city of Brandon and the town of Headingley is so glaring I wish he would stand up and actually hear what he has to say, because what he is saying is so absolutely untrue. We have three stores. He took great pride in suggesting that we had the best service of anyone in the province of Manitoba per capita, but he won't give it to Headingley. Why is that? Why is that, Mr. Speaker? Because of his Big Brother attitude and his inability to take what he honestly believes is the right decision to Cabinet, but he won't do that, and that's wrong.
Thank you, very much.
Mr. Speaker: Before recognizing the honourable Member for Carman, I just want to caution all members here. We've got to watch our choice of words here. I just heard a comment of, standing on his hind legs, and I think we're starting to tread a little on thin ice when we start using those kinds of words. So, I'm throwing a caution to all members of the House.
Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Carman): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will make sure I watch my vocabulary here.
I'm very pleased, actually, to stand up and speak to this bill, Bill 221, and I thank the Member for Morris (Mrs. Taillieu) for bringing forward this bill.
The government members seem to have this fixation on liquor, but it's not a fixation on liquor, Mr. Speaker. This is a fixation on small business. I realize that this is about community, and I understand that members of the government don't understand about community. Because urban members don't know who their neighbours are and they don't know who owns the corner store, and that's what the crux of rural Manitoba is all about. We have small stores. Those people live in the community. They are part of the community and that's what this bill is all about.
* (10:40)
The very fact that this is a small store that wants to create a service for the community, whether you use that service or not, is not being mandated by government or by anybody else, but it's there and it helps these stores survive in a time when they're competing against large stores within the city, with the big box stores for their other services. Again, Mr. Speaker, you could consider the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission as one of those big box stores. This is a small store trying to compete with the big stores.
An Honourable Member: That's part of the community.
Mr. Pedersen: Well, it is part of the community, and that comes from you not living in rural Manitoba and not knowing what community is all about. This is about evening the playing field a little bit when it comes between rural and urban Manitoba.
Maybe, the next bill that the Member for Morris (Mrs. Taillieu) brings in should be to move the Liquor Control Commission on Roblin Boulevard 700 metres farther inside the city and then it wouldn't be an issue. So, maybe, they would support that because that would be moving a government store. Maybe, they would be more in favour of that. The arbitrary 10-kilometre number, and this store is, I believe, in my notes says 9.3 kilometres to the nearest. There is no reason why this couldn't be brought in right now and come into factor, and this store being given a licence to sell liquor.
What the government members don't realize is that there are also, in rural Manitoba, and this is rural Manitoba, so I'm sure they may not be aware of this, but just having a liquor store, also, is not about making tons of money for the store. I've spoken to a number of small owners in my constituency who have liquor vendors. They do it as a service to their community. By the time they factor in the extra security and bars on the window, the break-ins, the extra insurance costs, they're not even sure that they actually make any money out of this. But it's a way of bringing people into the store. When you get people coming into the store, they tend to buy products, and that's what this is all about. This is not competing with Manitoba Liquor Control Commission, because MLCC is still the wholesaler here. They still supply the product to the store. They still have controls in place in terms of security and hours of operation and when it's available, and that. So it's not promoting something that's going to be running wild.
If you want to talk about things that are running wild, come out to Carman. We have a booze can running out in Carman, right now, and that's under the watchful eye of MLCC. We have an illegal operation running out there that seems to make no difference that they don't want to talk about in this House. I had a couple of my local bar owners that were complaining about it. And, yes, they're told that there's a number you can phone, but in the meantime what happens if you shut that one down, it moves to another. But this is all regulated. This store owner is not talking about opening up a booze can and running all types of hours and illegal operations.
The Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade (Mr. Swan), the one quote I'd like to use from him, everything in moderation. That's all this is. It's everything in moderation. We're talking about letting a small store be able to be economically viable, to maintain services for their community. It's not about going in competition with the MLCC because, again, they are the wholesaler.
The community of Headingley has grown. In the last 25 years, it's doubled, gone from 1,100 people to 2,200 people. So let's take an area within Winnipeg, and let's say, keep your alcohol stores within 10 kilometres in Winnipeg, then we would see what Winnipeg has to say about that. Now, of course, when we talk about 2,200 people in Headingley, we're not including the jail there, and that. This liquor store is not intending to supply anything there, so we won't even talk about those.
There are the two routes into Winnipeg. It's just about the people having the services they wish to have close to home and not having to drive on busy highways, inside the city which, again, takes away from the rural communities.
This is a small convenience store; this is not going to upset the world here by letting them have a liquor store. Goodness knows, we've had enough petitions in from the Member for Morris (Mrs. Taillieu) on this particular subject. It just seems to be the government; their eyes glaze over and don't even want to talk about this. So this is how it had to come up. They don't seem to be interested in even considering this.
This is not going to impact on MLCC in any way, other than they will provide the service of what they're there for. If they're not in the business of providing service, then why would they be opposed to this?
Mr. Speaker, again, it seems bizarre that we even have to have these discussions about things that should just take place in a natural flow of doing business. Perhaps, if you're not interested in doing business, that's what makes this bill so ominous for the government. If there are 175 vendors throughout Manitoba, I don't think 176 is going to break the monopoly of MLCC on this.
The government really needs to take a practical look at this and realize that this is not going to upset anything; it's going to help communities and that's what I believed that government was in there to do, to help communities. It's unfortunate that they just see fit not to even entertain this thought.
Are all small communities supposed to just look at this and say, I guess the government really doesn't care about us and we'll just have to go on our own, because you could use this example for a lot of other goods and services throughout Manitoba? This is just another example.
Headingley's problem and this Headingley food store just happen to be close to the Perimeter. We all know what happens within the Perimeter. That's the whole life of everybody. It's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that this government just takes such a negative attitude towards small business and towards small communities. It certainly is a reflection of how they view those who are outside the Perimeter.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to end on–I really hope that they will take a second look at this, think about small communities and help rural Manitoba with this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise in the Chamber today and participate in the debate of Bill 221, The Liquor Control Amendment Act, as brought to the Chamber by the honourable Member for Morris.
I will say that the language of the bill is very short, but it is very direct and it cites that there needs to be a change in policy, not legislation.
I'm pleased to see that the minister rose this morning and participated in the debate. I hope that he will allow this bill to go to committee so that persons from the public have a chance to make their thoughts known. As the government has always prided itself, that they say they do allow consultation and public input at every opportunity, indeed, I'm asking the minister to allow this bill to go forward and to allow the consultation and the public input to take place through our committee hearing.
Mr. Speaker, this bill speaks specifically to the policy as it pertains to a government-run facility. It does not infringe upon any of the contracts that the MLCC has with licensees. In fact, the MLCC has contracts with 175 licensees throughout the province. The agreement does speak very specifically about a trading area and, indeed, without breaking the agreement–we would not want to see that happen because these agreements have been entered into in good faith.
* (10:50)
However, when it comes to the policy as it pertains to a Manitoba Liquor Control Commission-operated facility, I believe there should be some latitude because the government-run facility indeed does not really have to balance his bottom line as the government seems to show us today that we don't really care about whether the balancing of the bottom line–we just want to maintain control.
I'm pleased that there are members that are listening over there because I will relate to all members on the government side of House that in the last number of months, I have had opportunity to meet persons from Australia, New Zealand, persons that have come in from the U.K., travelling through Manitoba, and I have heard from them in no uncertain terms an unsolicited commentary asking why we have such archaic liquor laws here in the province of Manitoba. Honestly, I had no answer because the government of the day is bent on control.
Now, back in 1993, the honourable minister mentioned that there was a small twigging of the–under the previous Conservative government, but at that juncture in time, Manitoba did not have the opportunity to learn from experience and I'm speaking specifically about Alberta. Alberta moved ahead and modernized their liquor laws and liquor vendor operations, engaging much more private enterprise a number of years ago. In fact, I had the pleasure of taking a course at the University of Manitoba, and I actually authored a paper on the logistics of liquor. Being a free enterpriser, I felt that it should be wide open to the free enterprise and private entrepreneurs to run the services or vendors around the province. I indeed learned from the Alberta model that, in fact, it was much more efficient and much more cost-effective for private enterprise to deal collectively, as it does in Alberta, through a central purchasing and central warehousing that is operated in Alberta by the Alberta government. That way then, collectively, a better deal is made on larger volumes of spirits. Also, too, it gives the opportunity for orders to be combined and so transportation is more efficiently delivered on the wine and spirits and beer in the province of Alberta.
I believe that this government could learn, could indeed learn a lot from the Alberta experience because Alberta stated, when they moved in this direction to offer more private enterprise in the sale of spirits and wine and beer, that they were not out there to extract more money. In fact, they decided that the amount of taxes collected on beer, wine and spirits was going to remain the same. When this took place, the Alberta government was forced–and I know of two separate occasions that they had to in fact reduce their percentage of taxation as well as their licensing fees as well as all other revenue generated to the province of Alberta, because they had made a commitment that they would not indeed raise the level of taxation for those persons wanting to enjoy a beer or a glass of wine or spirits.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the honourable minister if he will look at the Alberta model and perhaps bring Manitoba and the way we do business regarding our liquor here in the province of Manitoba into the modern age. In fact, what we're speaking of this morning is indicative of what this government is not, and I repeat not realizing that there are areas in this province that are growing and Headingley is one of those regions.
Also too, what is not recognized by the MLCC and the current-day government is the migration of persons from the cities to the rural areas, recreational areas throughout the province. I know the honourable Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers) heralds the government's work in regard to promoting more cottages around the province, a thousand more cottage properties. That indicates that persons are moving into areas a little more remote, areas a little more private, and this government is not recognizing that the individuals, once they are in cottage country, as we affectionately refer to, are not afforded the opportunity to go out and purchase beer or wine or spirits at their leisure.
Instead this government, in saying how green they are, wants people to drive further distances, and that is what this policy is all about. It's making people drive a greater distance, burning fossil fuels and, as has been mentioned by our honourable colleague from Morris, driving some very dangerous roadways here in the province of Manitoba.
If the minister is listening this morning, I would ask him to consider not only the migration of persons to permanent residence but also to recreational residence as well and to adjust the policy and make it more user friendly, as this government has stated. I implore this government, as it has always stated that they want to consult with people and to hear what the public has to say, let's move this bill to committee this morning, and I look to all government members to honour their word as they have stated so often in this Chamber. Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Lakeside. The honourable Member for Lakeside, you're not speaking to this? [interjection] Okay, so that's declined.
Mr. Nevakshonoff: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), that debate on this bill now be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I believe you'll find leave for the few minutes left to call it 11 o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it 11 o'clock? [Agreed]
Okay, the hour being 11 o'clock, we'll move to resolutions, and I'll call Resolution 11, Spanish Civil War.
Res. 11–Spanish Civil War
Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (St. James): Mr. Speaker, before reading my resolution, I would request leave to change the sixth "WHEREAS" from the words May 2000 to October 2001.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to change in the sixth WHEREAS the words May 2000 to October 2001? [Agreed]
Ms. Korzeniowski: I move, seconded by the Member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), that:
WHEREAS the Spanish Civil War started in 1936 and ended with the overthrow of the democratically elected government in 1939 by fascist Francisco Franco; and
WHEREAS over 1,500 Canadians went to Spain to fight against the fascist coup and supported the elected government; and
WHEREAS the Canadians formed the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion which was the second largest contingent of international troops fighting for the elected government; and
WHEREAS these Canadians left their homes and families to stand against dictatorship and fascism in the name of liberty, democracy and freedom; and
WHEREAS all of the members of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion are to be commended and remembered for their willingness to fight for freedom and democracy and protect those who were unable to protect themselves; and
* (11:00)
WHEREAS in 1996 the Government of Canada formally recognized the service of these soldiers and, in October of 2001, the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson unveiled a memorial to their valour; and
WHEREAS a commemorative plaque at Winnipeg's City Hall indicates that 106 volunteers from Manitoba served in the Spanish Civil War and that 21 were killed and have been buried in Spain; and
WHEREAS the last surviving Winnipeg member of the battalion was Mr. Marvin Penn who passed away in April of 2001; and
WHEREAS these soldiers are veterans like any other and deserve our recognition and admiration.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba recognize the heroism of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion in their fight for democracy and the rule against dictatorship and totalitarianism; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba mark the sacrifice of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion with a moment of silence.
Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement of the House to have the resolution as printed? There were a few words misspoken here. We'll have it as printed?
An Honourable Member: As amended.
Some Honourable Members: As amended.
Mr. Speaker: As amended. Okay.
WHEREAS the Spanish Civil War started in 1936 and ended with the overthrow of the democratically elected government in 1939 by fascist Francisco Franco; and
WHEREAS over 1500 Canadians went to Spain to fight against the fascist coup and supported the elected government; and
WHEREAS the Canadians formed the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion which was the second largest contingent of international troops fighting for the elected government; and
WHEREAS these Canadians left their homes and families to stand against dictatorship and fascism in the name of liberty, democracy and freedom; and
WHEREAS all of the members of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion are to be commended and remembered for their willingness to fight for freedom and democracy and protect those who were unable to protect themselves; and
WHEREAS in 1996 the Government of Canada formally recognized the service of these soldiers and in October 2001 the Rt. Honourable Adrienne Clarkson unveiled a memorial to their valour; and
WHEREAS a commemorative plaque at Winnipeg’s City Hall indicates that 106 volunteers from Manitoba served in the Spanish Civil War and that 21 were killed and have been buried in Spain; and
WHEREAS the last surviving Winnipeg member of the battalion was Mr. Marvin Pen who passed away in April of 2001; and
WHEREAS these soldiers are veterans like any other and deserve our recognition and admiration.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba recognize the heroism of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion in their fight for democracy and the rule of law against dictatorship and totalitarianism; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba mark the sacrifice of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion with a moment of silence.
It has been moved by the honourable Member for St. James, seconded by the honourable Member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale):
WHEREAS–
Some Honourable Members: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense.
Ms. Korzeniowski: It's with great pleasure that I introduce this resolution today. This piece of history was brought to my attention on Remembrance Day of last year and I agreed that it was an injustice that the men and women who participated in the Spanish Civil War were not included in the tributes paid to the veterans of World Wars I and II and others past and present. When one reads the history I think the Chamber will agree.
A group of Canadians who were not recognized for 60 years were those who left family, friends and homes to enlist in the fight against fascism in Spain in the years 1936 to 1939. These were volunteers who responded to a call to combat the forces of fascism in a civil war half a world away, and without thought of reward or fame they came to the aid of the new democratic Spanish republic against a military coup by General Franco, who was supported by the armed might of fascist Germany and Italy.
Their struggle to contain fascism didn't work, as proven with the beginning of World War II shortly after the overthrow of the democratic government of Spain by the fascist dictator General Francisco Franco. The 40,000 volunteers from 53 countries formed the legendary international brigades of the Spanish Civil War. Fifteen hundred and forty-six men travelled to Spain from Canada alone. With the exception of France, no other country gave as great a proportion of its population as did Canada.
The battalion was named the Mackenzie-Papineau, the Mac-Paps if you will, after William Lyon Mackenzie and Louis-Joseph Papineau. The namesakes of Mackenzie and Papineau had sought liberty, social justice and democracy almost 100 years earlier in Upper and Lower Canada and this was the spirit which the Canadian volunteers carried to Spain. Their courage, Mr. Speaker, inspired Pablo Picasso's famous painting, Guernica, and Ernest Hemmingway's novel, For Whom the Bell Tolls, as well as inspiring countless other works of poetry, prose and music.
They fought bravely throughout the war against terrible odds and suffered heavy losses. Less than half returned to Canada. One hundred and six of those volunteers were from Manitoba, 21 were killed. All of those killed were buried where they died fighting in Spain. Many of those who survived volunteered for the Canadian Forces when World War II began to finish the fight against fascism they had begun in Spain.
The last surviving Winnipeg member of the battalion was Mr. Marvin Penn, who passed away in April of 2001. He lived to realize, 60 years late, the recognition of the Canadian government of the valour of its citizens who went to fight fascism in 1936.
Memorial plaques were unveiled in Winnipeg and Toronto and in 1998 B.C. honoured the Mac‑Paps with a plaque. In 1999 a bronze monument was erected stating, "No Pasaran." They will not pass. This was the slogan of the Spanish anti-fascists and their international comrades and is in large text at the bottom of the monument in B.C.
In Ottawa, 2001 a monument was unveiled and dedicated to the Mackenzie-Papineau brave soldiers with Her Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson making a commemorative speech. She said: Canadians do things for many reasons. We have a free society in which we give each other room to make decisions to express ourselves, to have different political points of view. The Mac-Paps decided that this cause was important enough for them to face the anger of their own government and face a life afterwards in which very few people would recognize the idealism which had sent them to Spain. They were fighting for an idea, fighting against fascism, which became a horrible dress rehearsal for the Second World War.
To have played such a role in the development of another country is rare. That alone is something we should commemorate because it is a part of our history as Canadians and as citizens of the world. History, as Edmund Burke said, is a pact between the dead, the living and the yet unborn. Clarkson finishes with: Today we are giving the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion a lasting memorial, here, where it should be, in their own land.
Adjacent to the monument is a memorial wall containing 52 stainless steel panels on which have been inscribed the names of the 1,546 volunteers. An excerpt from the speech given by Dolores Iburri, La Pasionaria, to the assembled Brigadistas in Barcelona in 1938 as the International Brigade was disbanded, says: You can go proudly. You are history. You are legend. You are the heroic examples of democracy, solidarity and universality. We shall not forget you, and when the olive tree of peace puts forth its leaves again, come back, and all of you will find the love and gratitude of the whole Spanish people who, now and in the future, will cry out with all their hearts, long live the heroes of the International Brigade.
In 1996 the Spanish government invited the surviving members back to Spain and honoured them with Spanish citizenship.
Working with the families and men and women of our forces who live and work in my constituency has given me a deep appreciation of the emotional stress and courage it takes to leave family and face the dangers of war. Sometimes we forget and take for granted the benefits we enjoy because of their sacrifices, a democratic political process, the right of free association and assembly, human rights and social justice.
Whenever we pin a poppy on our lapels, let us also include these brave Canadians from the Spanish Civil War, the Mac-Paps, in our thoughts as we bestow honour on those who left a better world for us, the living. We will remember. Thank you.
Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I do want to rise today in support of the resolution brought forward by the Member from St. James (Ms. Korzeniowski).
One thing that I do want to put on the record before I start, Mr. Speaker, and that's the comments made by members opposite in regard to private members' hour. We bring bills forward on a basis of which we feel that our representatives, that the constituents that ask us to. That's what this member has done and the Member for Morris (Mrs. Taillieu) did in the last bill.
* (11:10)
Unfortunately, they need to take heed of the fact that, no matter what we bring forward in this House, it's important to the member that brought it forward. That's enough on that particular issue, but I do think it's very important that all members have their voice heard.
We talk about Spain and Europe and the time period that was reflected in the Spanish war from July 17, 1936 to April 1, 1939. We indeed do, on this side of the House, support our veterans, support our troops, and think it's very important that, when we take a cause, whatever that cause might be, whether it's the Spanish Civil War, World War I, World War II, they're the wars that we get involved in from one sector or another.
I know that many times we have people that step up to the plate and those that feel very responsible for what they want to believe in and are actually prepared to put their lives on. We had 1,500 plus people take part in the Spanish war, as a member from St. James pointed out; Mr. Speaker, that was finally recognized in October 2001 by the federal government and Adrienne Clarkson making that presentation, and also a plaque at the city hall of Winnipeg.
I think that it's very important to recognize the fact that these people did put their lives on the line. In fact, half of them never made it home. There was a hundred plus from Manitoba, according to the information that we're able to retrieve on this war, of which 21 Manitobans did lose their lives.
I do also want to point out that the Nationalists that were led by General Franco actually ended up winning that conflict in 1939, establishing a dictatorship for that particular country, which stayed until 1975, of which Spain began the transition to democracy. This was heavily supported by Hitler; Mussolini from Italy was also a Nationalist that took part in that particular war and certainly had a significant impact on the outcome of it.
The battalion that was headed up by the Canadian delegation, William Lyon Mackenzie and Louis-Joseph Papineau who led the Canadian rebellions in 1837, was also significant. Mackenzie led the Upper Canada Rebellion while Papineau and Robert Nelson led a rebellion in Lower Canada. The rebellion in both French and English Canadians against the British colonial government laid the groundwork for the establishment of the responsible government. In fact, the Mac-Paps were a battalion of Canadians who were part of the 15th International Brigade on the Republican side. They fought to support the elected government of Spain.
They were the second-largest international contingent fighting for Republicans. Volunteers for the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion came from all across Canada and were from a working-class background. I know the battalion fought three major battles: Aragon offensive, which was August to October of 1937, the Battle of Teruel, which was December of 1937 to April of 1938, and the third battle was the Battle of Ebro, which was Catalunya and Valencia, which was July to September of 1938.
The soldiers, as I said, fought very bravely for what they believed in. By the end of the Spanish Civil War, almost half of the Canadians that did volunteer were disbanded or returned, but went on to serve in World War II. Some of them had difficulties, in fact, returning to Canada, either facing financial or government opposition for one reason or another. As I said, there were a number of people that took part in that particular war that were from the Hitler side and also from Italy.
Mr. Rob Altemeyer, Acting Speaker, in the Chair
I think that it's important here today to remember the fact that what we did, in fact, was support the veterans for what they believed in and what they put their lives on the line to do. I think the lives lost should be remembered and honoured. As a nation, we should never forget or ignore any part of our history.
In fact, the experiences of these soldiers are a part of Manitoba and Canadian history which has been outlined, as I had spoke earlier, by the commemoration in October of 2001 with a monument and then the plaque that was established at City Hall here in Winnipeg.
I know that members on this side of the House, we have a couple of other speakers who want to put a few things on the record in regard to the Spanish Civil War. But we do look forward to the remaining debate on this particular resolution that's been brought forward from the Member for St. James (Ms. Korzeniowski).
Certainly, anything we do to remember our veterans, as you know, I'm very passionate about supporting our veterans, as I had brought in a bill to establish the veterans' licence plate, which was followed up by the government, in doing so, to remember those veterans who fought for our country, to give them our freedom, to give them our sacrifices, and honour them for what they have done for us in this great country of Canada and this province of Manitoba.
With that, we'll look forward to debate on the rest of the resolution, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): First of all, I want to congratulate the Member for St. James for bringing forth this private member's resolution.
This resolution has a very personal dimension for me as probably the only member in this House, as far as I know, to have been born in a Nazi occupied country, the Netherlands. We know the aftermath of what happened before, after and during that war. So, for me, it is a very live issue, although for some of our younger people, perhaps, they raise their eyebrows when you mention the Spanish Civil War.
The Spanish Civil War was a dress rehearsal for Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. In fact, Hitler's Luftwaffe worked out its kinks in Spain, together with help from Mussolini in Italy. We know the results. We know the ruthless bombing that happened to the innocent civilians of Spain, particularly Guernica, the Basque city immortalized by Pablo Picasso's painting. I point out that that airstrike was a joint airstrike with Italy as well. It wasn't just Germany.
I think it's appropriate to recognize these brave young men and women who, early on, saw the dangers of fascism. We should point out that when we talk about the international brigades, we're talking about the XV International Brigade of the Spanish Republican Army, and some 52 or 53 countries took part in this. From the United States, it was the Abe Lincoln Battalion who joined the international brigade. It was commanded by a black officer, Oliver Law. The Mac-Paps, of course, we know in Canada. Ireland sent the Connolly Column battalion. So, Mr. Acting Speaker, a large number of countries participated.
Therefore, we rise today to recognize the heroism of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, the Canadian battalion that fought in the Spanish Civil War from '36 to '38. Fifteen hundred Canadians left; less than half came back. That's a staggering casualty rate. One hundred and six of those people, roughly a fifth, came from Manitoba–oh, that's not a fifth. I'm sorry–one hundred and six out of the 1,500 came from Manitoba. Twenty-one of them are buried in Spain, and that's about a fifth of our delegation. The last of those Mac-Pap veterans to die in Manitoba was Mr. Marvin Penn, as my honourable colleague from St. James has already mentioned.
Occasionally, Mr. Acting Speaker, my wife and I visit Victoria, B.C., and on the grounds of the B.C. Legislature is a bronze plaque. It's a beautiful bronze plaque. It was erected in the spring of 1999, and, again, it deals with the Mac-Pap veterans. It's in honour of the Mac-Pap veterans. It states on there the slogan of the anti-fascists and the international brigades, and the slogan was: "No Pasaran." They will not pass. An attempt to hold back the fascist. Of course, ironically, they did pass.
A year earlier, in fact, the then-premier, Glen Clark, said about the Mac-Paps, at the Legislature at a formal occasion, and I quote: "On behalf of all the people of British Columbia, 60 years too late, we honour those . . . who served in this most noble of endeavours,". It's ironic that less than a stone's throw away there is another plaque, actually, a bronze bust of the explorer Quadra, a Spanish explorer who was in those waters of Canada along that particular coastline near Victoria long, long before Captain Cook. So that's also a Spanish connection.
I guess we should ask the question who were these colourful young idealists who left home and family to fight for liberty abroad. I'll just mention a few of them, three of them, in fact. They are an extremely diverse group. Graham Spry, the father of CBC, was there. He organized medical support for the international brigades. Dr. Norman Bethune, a physician, a thoracic surgeon, a medical innovator who became a battlefield surgeon in Spain, he was there. He developed the first medical mobile unit, a model for the later MASH units, the Mobile Army Surgical Hospital, and he was involved with blood transfusions. Bethune left Spain and went to China to fight against Japanese invaders who, incidently, were, of course, connected with Germany and Italy later on. He is a hero to hundreds of millions of people in the People's Republic of China but, unfortunately, he is little-known in Canada.
* (11:20)
Another Mac-Pap veteran was William Arthur Kardash, who, together with his wife, Mary, are from Winnipeg. Bill Kardash was an MLA in this very Legislature from 1941 to '58. Bill Kardash lost his right leg in battle. He died in 1997. As I've already mentioned, the last veteran of the Manitoba Mac-Paps, Marvin Penn, passed away in 2001.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I urge all members to support this resolution. I think it brings to mind the great role that the Mac-Paps played. Often I wondered, had they been more successful, had they actually won, then we wouldn't have had to worry about Normandy and later on to try to stop Hitler and Mussolini. Unfortunately, they gave their lives in a cause that they lost. It's in Spain and the blood was shed in Spain.
I guess it's very sad that we have to wait 60, 65, 70 or more years to recognize them officially, but we're doing it now. I urge all members to support this resolution. As Governor General Adrienne Clarkson said in 2001, and I quote: It is fitting that we recognize 65 years later the historic moment for which these men and women went to fight in a foreign war. They were fighting for an ideal. They didn't have to go, but they went because they were called to duty. They were fighting for freedom and democracy. They were fighting fascism and Nazism.
The Mac-Paps fought for an ideal. True, we've waited decades for any kind of recognition, but we can continue to recognize them now. I hope that all members of this Legislature support the resolution from the Member for St. James (Ms. Korzeniowski). Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I, too, would like to put some words on the record for the passage of this Spanish Civil War resolution. We all recognize the value and contributions that members of the forces have done in the past, continue to do today and, no doubt, will also well into the future. Canada can stand proud with the many of those that have represented our country so well and nobly over the years. The Spanish Civil War is yet another example of how Canadians have contributed to the world development of democracy and ensuring that there's free will and so forth throughout the world.
I appreciate the Member for St. James brought forward the resolution. I suspect it's one of those resolutions that would receive support from all members of this Legislature because of the very nature of the resolution. In fact, Mr. Acting Speaker, it wasn't that long ago that we had what I thought was one of the more moving sessions or days of sitting. We had members of the legion, or people that have fought in wars, sitting inside the Chamber, actually right behind us, where typically we would have during Throne Speech invited guests inside the Chamber to listen to a Throne Speech.
One of the more moving days that I believe that I experienced was the day in which we had legionnaires on the floor of the Legislature, right behind the MLAs. It was somewhat interesting that I could just swivel my seat around and look in the faces of individuals that sacrificed so much in order to enable us to be able to speak inside this Chamber in the fashion in which we do. Quite often I think sometimes we take it for granted. Mr. Acting Speaker, I don't think that there's anything that we could do that could give a true appreciation of the efforts that our forces have gone to battle on our behalf, on behalf of rights and freedom of expression and democracy and so forth.
I found it was very interesting in terms of the comments from all members of the Chamber thus far on the resolution, recognizing that Manitoba played a very significant role in the Spanish Civil War. The Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) made reference to an individual that actually served inside this Legislature, that participated, that Manitoba had just over a hundred individuals that were directly involved. Sadly, as in any given war, people will die, soldiers die, and we had just over 20 that had passed away in defending the rights, freedom of speech and so forth.
We acknowledge that the Mac-Pap Battalion, in the role that it played in the Spanish Civil War, was, put simply, an amazing contribution, and we just want to stand and acknowledge the value of that contribution in support of the resolution. We, as I said at the onset, believe that all members of the Legislative Assembly do support the resolution because it is a resolution that's worthy of support by each and every one of us.
Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I, too, commend the Member for St. James (Ms. Korzeniowski) for introducing this resolution on the Spanish Civil War.
We know that the Spanish Civil War was not an official war as far as the Government of Canada was concerned, and so those Canadians who did take part in it took part in spite of the wishes of their government. The result was that when they returned home they were not considered veterans and, therefore, they were not eligible for any benefits or pensions. They were really a forgotten group of people for many decades, overshadowed by those who fought in the Second World War and the Korean conflict.
So it is appropriate that many years later, we are paying tribute to them and recognizing their role in fighting against fascism. As the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) pointed out, had they been more successful, maybe the Second World War would not have been necessary. Had France and the United Kingdom and the United States and Canada tried to stop fascism in Spain, they might have sent a message to Germany and Italy and might have prevented them from invading other countries and precipitating the Second World War.
I would like to pay tribute to one individual who's already been mentioned, namely William Kardash, who was a veteran of the Spanish Civil War. He was also a member of the Manitoba Legislature for North Winnipeg from 1941 to 1958.
Bill was born in 1912 and raised in Saskatchewan in the farming country north of Saskatoon. At an early age, he was aware of and concerned about the living and working conditions of farm families. He became involved in the farmers' movements to organize for better prices for their products. By age 14, he was already speaking at meetings and rallies. He believed that the people, workers and farmers who produced the wealth of the country, should receive their fair share of that wealth. As a young man in the Depression years, Bill became increasingly concerned about the rise of fascism. When General Franco attacked the democratically elected government of the Spanish Republic, Bill volunteered to go to Spain, convinced that a victory for Franco and his fascist supporters would lead to a wider global conflict.
As a 25-year-old lieutenant in the tank corps of the international brigades, Bill was wounded, losing a leg. When he returned to Canada, he was enlisted by the Committee for Democratic Spain to tour Canada to inform Canadians about the involvement of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion and the need for support in stopping not only Spain, but also Italy and Germany from further military aggression.
After settling in Winnipeg, Bill was elected to the Manitoba Legislature in 1941 and re-elected thereafter for 17 years. As a veteran of the Spanish Civil War, he offered his services at the outbreak of World War II to the Canadian army as a tank corps instructor. As an MLA, he was enlisted by the government to speak to workers at factories and to citizens at rallies to promote the sale of victory war bonds. The records indicate that the response to his appeals for financial support from Manitobans for the war effort was extremely high.
Bill Kardash was elected first as a member of the Labour Progressive Party, then the Communist Party. Despite ideological differences with his legislative colleagues, Bill won the respect of members throughout his several terms in office for his clear style of speaking, his political acumen, and his sincere commitment to his constituents.
I'm pleased to have known Bill and his wife Mary, who was a long-time Winnipeg School Division school trustee, and also their family, especially their daughter Nancy, who's my constituency assistant.
* (11:30)
It is appropriate that we pay tribute today to Bill Kardash and to others who fought, other Canadians and other Manitobans who fought in the Spanish Civil War because they felt it was important. Many of them gave up their lives, many of them were injured, like Bill Kardash, because it was a cause that they believed in. It was a very unpopular cause. It was not supported by their government, but a cause that moved them to go to Spain and many of whom died that were buried in Spain.
So, we thank the Member for St. James (Ms. Korzeniowski) for this opportunity to speak on this resolution and to recognize the heroism of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion and their fight for democracy and the rule of law against dictatorship and totalitarianism.
Thank you.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Altemeyer): Honourable Member for Thompson. Oh, sorry. Honourable Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs.
Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First and foremost, MLA for Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker.
I'm very pleased to speak on this resolution and I appreciate the efforts of the Member for St. James in bringing this forward. It's not the first time we've had opportunity to debate the contributions of the Mac‑Paps. In fact, I can recall actually having the opportunity to have living Mac-Pap veterans in the gallery on a resolution that was debated previously. By the way, the Conservatives voted against it and I hope in the spirit of recognizing the historic contribution of the Mac-Paps and perhaps a little bit of reconciliation that we will see unanimous passage in this House because I think history has shown that the Mac-Paps, volunteers that went to fight to defend the democratically elected government of Spain in 1936 and on towards the end of the civil war were ahead of their time. They recognized the growing fascist threat and in fact, with the loss of the democratic government in Spain, it did, I think, provide a preface to the Second World War, not just in terms of the momentum that the Fascists gained, but quite frankly, from the terrible tactics they used, both the Nazis and the Fascists used tactics that were later to be used in the Second World War, the deliberate targeting of civilians, the blitzkrieg, all of the terrible sorts of tactics that we saw applied in the Second World War.
And they were ahead of their time. It was a very difficult time, of course, for Canadians in the middle of the recession, but they went as volunteers, and as the Member for St. James pointed out, Canadians were very significant in their role both in terms of their per capita contribution, but whether it be through such distinguished individuals, Dr. Norman Bethune, Graham Spry, they really captured the spirit of idealism and of course, we have a Manitoba connection, Bill Kardash, former MLA who was part of the Mac-Paps and was here when the original resolution was debated.
I also had the opportunity, Mr. Acting Speaker, to visit Spain shortly after the fall of fascism. It's important to recall, by the way, that the fascist government in Spain did not fall, democracy did not come back to Spain until 1975. I still recall, I had a rather interesting experience of–well, let's put it this way, there was an attempted mugging and I was on the receiving end of it and I ended up going to the police station to report the crime. What struck me about it, by the way, was they showed me a number of the pictures and essentially, a lot of the pictures were of transvestites and others that, of course, would have been considered criminals under the fascist government and this is only a few years after.
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
You know what strikes me today, Mr. Speaker, if anyone doubts the sacrifice the Mac-Paps and what's happened historically, since the fall of Fascism, there's been a dramatic change in Spain. I look at the fact that it's gone from a very socially conservative country now to a leader in terms of progressive social attitudes. In terms of marriage, for example, in terms of same-sex marriage, it's something that Spain has pioneered with.
But how about today, Mr. Speaker? You know, I think every one of the Mac-Paps would have been proud to see the Zapatero government. The majority of the Cabinet ministers are women. The Prime Minister is an avowed feminist. We have one of the most progressive governments in Europe, and in the world, in Spain. So out of the ashes of Franco's fascism has arisen the phoenix of the ideals of the democratically elected government in the 1930s.
I look forward, by the way, to having the opportunity to visit Spain, perhaps on a private basis, because I'd like to see how far it's come. I think there's a bit of a kindred spirit right here in Manitoba with our record number of women MLAs, our clear women's agenda: by the way, many of us, men and women, in this Legislature who would consider ourselves feminists. So when I speak today about recognizing history, and the contribution they make, I think it's only fitting that, in fact, it was brought by the Member for St. James (Ms. Korzeniowski), our direct connection to the military and, of course, to military issues.
By the way, in Spain, the minister of defence is a woman, a very historic breakthrough. I'm sure if we had a minister of defence here, the Member for St. James would be the first one for consideration. But she certainly has provided a huge link to our military families. What I really appreciate with the Member for St. James, Mr. Speaker, is she understands the personal sacrifice that the military families go through, and not just in the context of war alone, but in terms of relocation throughout this country. She has been the first, I think, to put forward a vision that has now been sweeping the country, and that is the fact–we support the military.
It's not about a conflict where you stand on one war, or one posting of the military. You either support the military who are there, they sign up for the ideal of supporting Canada, of being true citizens of Canada. There's a bit of a theme here. I think the fact that the Member for St. James has extended that vision to talk about people who, many decades ago, enrolled for an ideal. I think that speaks to the contribution the Member for St. James is making, but also speaks to our ability, in this Legislature, to rise above partisan debate and make a clearer view.
I do want to say, in contrast to the first hour of private members' business, where we spent an hour talking about a liquor store, I think that we've raised the level of discussion somewhat. The Member for Morris (Mrs. Taillieu) can bring in resolutions and legislation on that basis. We all choose our priority issues. I'm really proud of the fact that the Member for St. James, in private members' hour, has given us the opportunity to talk not only about history, but the relevance of that history today.
I just want to conclude by saying that their vision lives on in Spain. Their vision lives on here in the province of Manitoba. I look forward to unanimous passage, Mr. Speaker, 25 years after this was first brought in because it may prove the degree to which here, in Manitoba, we understand the other key element which they learned in Spain, and that's reconciliation.
I note some of the comments from members, such as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen), indicating, perhaps, he doesn't get what reconciliation is about, and that is about learning from history, bringing people together. That's where we're headed in Manitoba. This resolution, if it passes unanimously–I look to members opposite to do the right thing–will be one more step in terms of our building a province, a model, for this country that's based on reconciliation and the fact that we accomplish a heck of a lot more when we not only recognize the history but we all work together for the future. Thank you.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution. My colleague from Inkster has already spoken. Certainly, it is time overdue that we recognize the contribution of those of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion who went to Spain and that we, in particular, recognize those from Manitoba who were part of the battalion and who contributed to those efforts.
So I support this resolution and let's bring recognition to those who fought, in this instance, on behalf of a cause which was certainly worthy and one which we should remember.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
* (11:40)
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is Resolution No. 11, Spanish Civil War. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the resolution? [Agreed]
Unanimously? [Agreed]
Is there agreement for a moment of silence? [Agreed]
A moment of silence was observed.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it 12 o'clock? [Agreed]
The hour being 12 o'clock, we will recess and we will reconvene at 1:30 p.m.