Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), Bill 50, The Remembrance Day Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le jour du souvenir, standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to add a few comments on Bill 50, The Remembrance Day Amendment Act. This bill I have read over several times and had the opportunity to consult with members that belong to the legion, the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch No. 7 in Transcona, about this piece of legislation, and my comments to follow will encompass or incorporate the comments that members of that legion have given to me.
First off, I want to start in talking about the principles of this bill and what it is intended to do and that I find myself with some mixed emotions about Bill 50 in that it will do several things, some of which I support and some of which cause me great concern.
The first portion is dealing with the preamble. The amendment that is in Bill 50 will allow for the adding of and recognition of those forces, those people that served in the armed forces, during the Korean War conflict, the Gulf War, and for those members of our Canadian Forces that served in international peacekeeping activities. They will be added to and joined to recognition for those who served in the two World Wars. Now, I support the addition of recognition of those who served in the Korean War and the Gulf War and also the continuing activities of our peacekeepers around the world. I think it is important to recognize the ongoing contribution of our peacekeeping forces and the very fine work that they do to bring about and keep the peace; and, on the odd occasion, they are put into positions where they are actually asked to start a process that will encourage factions that are in hostilities to break away from those hostilities and then our peacekeepers would then step in.
I am quite fortunate in that I have a member of my own family who is currently in the forces and has served in peacekeeping duties throughout the world. We have had numerous conversations on the role of peacekeepers, Canadian peacekeeping forces, around the world. I know, in talking first-hand with that particular member of my family, that peacekeeping is no easy task when you are in the middle of conflict where you have both sides potentially able at any time to start hostilities for which our peacekeeping forces may be caught in the middle.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
So we recognize the very good and fine services that the peacekeeping forces in our Canadian Armed Forces provide for Canada and the recognition they provide for us around the world. So the particular clause where the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) and the government have added to the preamble the recognition for Korean War veterans, the Gulf War veterans and the international peacekeeping personnel, I think, is a good move, and it is one which I can support.
I think it is only fitting that we are debating this bill, The Remembrance Day Amendment Act, here today since we are only a week away from remembrance services throughout the world. I know that I have had the opportunity as the MLA for Transcona, since being elected, to represent the community at the Remembrance Day services over the last six or seven years, and once again this year I have been asked to participate and, quite willingly, to represent the community. It has been an honour for me to represent the residents of Transcona. I have had the opportunity to lay wreaths not only on Remembrance Day in November of every year but also on Decoration Day in June of every year in recognition of our armed forces personnel and the sacrifices they have made for myself, my family and the residents of our community and, in fact, our whole country.
One of the difficulties I have, Mr. Deputy Speaker--and I remember back a couple of years ago when I had the opportunity to participate in Remembrance Day services in my community. One of the things that struck me just prior to going to participate in those services was a flyer that I had received in the mailbox, and it was a flyer that came to my home, as it did, I am sure, to every other home in my community, telling people to come out and shop on a holiday. I got the sense from the flyer that was put out--and this was put out by an American firm, I might add, inviting Canadians to come down and shop in the United States on the November holiday.
Now, that left me with the impression that there are some in the business community, at least in the United States, who think of November 11 as being a holiday for shopping purposes and not a holiday to remember and to reflect on the sacrifices that were made. Now I reference that in the opportunity to--when I spoke with the members of the Royal Canadian Branch 7 in Transcona at that time, and I found that they were just as distressed as I was to find that some in the business community, at least in the U.S., would take a position and think of Remembrance Day as being a shopping holiday not a day of remembrance.
I know, in consultation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the members of the Legion Branch 7, there is a split in the opinions of the members of that Branch 7. I find that the veterans, those that served in wars and came back to us, view this in a very, very strong and very emotional and passionate way when they relate their experiences in the service of our country. One of the things that they state very clearly is they did not go and fight a war just to have a holiday and that they are quite distressed; these veterans are quite distressed to see that our society is, in a sense, degrading the day and moving towards the opportunity for more shopping, and that there needs to be some way to address that issue, to draw to the attention of Manitobans and to Canadians the importance of November 11, Remembrance Day.
* (1610)
I know, from what I am told, in Ontario, for example, the province of Ontario has two minutes of silence, but then if you know what that would bring about if there are people that are working on that day, of course, those workplaces would stop on November 11, at the 11th hour, and have two minutes silence. Of course, that would not occur in the larger part of society that may be travelling about, that opportunity would not be there, and I think that the issue itself, the ability to remember would be lost by having only two minutes of silence. While I know and have participated in that activity in my former employment where we have had two minutes of silence prior to the coming into force of November 11 as a day of recognition for those who served, I believe that November 11 is a day to allow members of our community the opportunity to be with their loved ones, with their family members and the opportunity to go to church, for example, and to reflect on what November 11 means to each and every one of us.
I believe that November 11, Remembrance Day, should be a family day, one where the family can gather, where parents can, where there are young children involved, relate to our children and to our grandchildren why we have the recognition of November 11 as Remembrance Day. I believe the majority of legionnaire members in Branch 7 want to see that November 11 remain as a family day. From what they relate to me, there is no need to have an expansion of shopping time or shopping activity time given by what this bill is intended to do. Because this bill itself will allow for the expansion of that particular time in that retail business, now under one of the clauses in Bill 50, will prohibit certain business, retail operations from being open between the hours of 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. on November 11, but after that time, of course, retail businesses will be free to open.
Now I know there are difficulties that have been encountered in the past and that the police forces of our city and our province have had to go out and enforce this act, and it has been very, very difficult for the police officers to go and try and enforce. We find that there are certain retail operations in our city and in our province that feel that they are above the law and, of course, the police then are forced to take the necessary actions. I recognize it is difficult for the police in those circumstances, but nevertheless I think it is important that those that are continuing to break the law of the province are charged and prosecuted under the laws of this province with respect to The Remembrance Day Act.
One of the things that the legionnaires at Branch 7 reference is that they see another erosion to Remembrance Day and what it is intended to do and what the purpose of Remembrance Day is--and these are their words that I relate to the members of this House--that there appears to be greed driving this, and that only those that are interested in having retail business activities are the ones that are driving this change.
Well, I know that the business and labour community and the central command of the Royal Canadian Legion had the opportunity to sit down and to review The Remembrance Day Act, and they came up with a recommendation that was sent, I believe, to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) and for which I believe the minister has incorporated into Bill 50. I believe that there was a consensus on the part of those three parties, but I can tell the minister and members of the House that not all members of the legions of our province, including Branch 7 in my own community, support the central command in allowing for the expansion of retail business opportunities in the afternoon of Remembrance Day. So while Central Command may have agreed with this legislation, or at least the provisions in it for which the minister has tabled here, there are other legion members in the province that do not support this position.
I find myself in agreement with those legion members that on those parts do not support the further expansion of the shopping opportunities. If there is any day outside of Good Friday and Christmas, to me Remembrance Day is a day that we as a society should set aside as one of extreme importance and significance to recognize the sacrifice that has been made by those that went and served and put their lives on the line on behalf of our country, so that we might be able to sit here today and to be able to be with our families living in a safe and secure society, which I am sure we all want for our families.
I think it is important to recognize and to keep Remembrance Day the way it is. While there are some provisions in Bill 50 that allow for the expansion and recognition of those who continue to act in peacekeeping duties and the recognition of the Gulf War and the Korean War veterans, which I think is a good part to this bill, I am concerned that there is once again an erosion of the opportunities to reflect on the sacrifices that have been made by degrading the day of November 11 and turning part of it into a shopping day which it will become. Much the same way we saw when the government tabled its Sunday shopping legislation here, I believe that this is going to create just a further erosion of what November 11 is supposed to be all about.
So with those few words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am prepared to let other members of the House have the opportunity to add their comments to Bill 50, and I look forward to this bill proceeding to committee for any members of the public that may be interested in coming forward and adding their thoughts to the government's Bill 50 and to the comments that I know that I have heard from members at Branch 7 in Transcona.
So with those few words, I yield the floor to other members who may wish to add their comments.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the dominant purpose of this bill is to allow for wide-open shopping after one o'clock on Remembrance Day. There are several people in this Chamber that have been wearing poppies. I thought, after I spoke to the wife of a vet today, that those individuals should remove those poppies as they move towards passing this bill.
This bill is disrespectful. That is what that individual said to me. It is disrespectful of those who have sacrificed their lives for peace. This is not a labour-management issue; this is a community issue. We are not, as human beings, just workers; we are not just consumers; we are not just entrepreneurs; we are not just investors; we are fathers and we are mothers; we are brothers and sisters and grandparents. We are mentors, we are pals, we are artists, we are musicians. Some are social activists. We cherish recreation, entertainment. We are hobbyists, and we are creators. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are mourners, we are pursuers of peace.
How better to express what we are by time out from the marketplace? How many times do we as human beings have to get out of the way of business?
We have grave concerns about the shop-till-you-drop mindset. In our view, shop-till-you-drop and Remembrance Day do not mix.
Remembrance Day is not a religious day, but it is a spiritual day, one that crosses cultural and religious lines. It has been a day off that unites us and brings us together, even unlike many religious holidays which are not recognized to the same extent today as they once were, and for good reason. It is because of the cultural and religious diversity of our communities.
* (1620)
Why must the marketplace dominate each and every day, as someone said, even till 9:30? Personal salvation cannot be found at Garden City Shopping Centre. More likely it will be lost.
Commercialization to the extent that it dominates our lives today is, I believe, having a negative effect on families. It skews our time that is available for others, rather than things. It skews our human values. Buying things, things, many of which are not needed, things that we are told we need, though, by advertising, by peer pressure and a commercial culture does not need to be facilitated to an even greater extent. It is time that we assert community values. It is time to assert family values. This is not a time to further abandon those values for those incessant demands of the marketplace.
The president of one of the Legions in my community told me, and I cannot repeat this word for word, but he expressed what I believe is the firm understanding of many Manitobans, and he said, gol dern, greedy, bloody business. Commercialization, where will it end? he asked.
So out of respect for those lives that were sacrificed, that were lost, out of respect for the pain and the loss of families and loved ones, out of respect for peace, out of respect for our community and families, out of respect for our hopes and aspirations as beings, beings who cherish more than what the marketplace can offer.
We vote to maintain Remembrance Day, and we vote against what is the dominant purpose of this legislation.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I too wanted to put a few words on the record with respect to this particular bill.
I listened very closely to what the member for St. Johns was saying, and, to a certain degree, I think that if there is an argument to be made about having a free vote, I would suggest to you that this is in fact a piece of legislation in which there should be some sort of a free vote inside the Chamber.
I listened to the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) articulate just to as why it is that she felt it was important to oppose this particular bill. I listened to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) talk yesterday in terms of why it is that this bill should in fact be passed.
I guess ultimately what I would advocate for is that there should be some sort of a free, open discussion and allow individual MLAs the opportunity to vote in the way in which they feel somewhat fit.
Mind you, in listening to the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), he tries to give the impression that one should be shameful if, in fact, you are going to vote for this particular bill. I do not necessarily agree with that. I do not believe necessarily that an individual should feel any disgrace or should be discredited in any fashion whatsoever because they want to be able to allow for commercial shopping on a portion of November 11.
An Honourable Member: Shame.
Mr. Lamoureux: The member says, shame, from his seat. I would suggest that if anyone should be feeling shameful, possibly the member for St. Johns, because what he is doing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that you have to take a look at where this came from. Where did the recommendations come from? Is he then implying the same motives for those individuals who made this recommendation? I would anticipate that that is what he is doing, because the bill, in essence, which the member is referring to is based on a recommendation from a group of individuals.
Let me just read the exact recommendation. The committee recommends wide-open retail and recreational activities be allowed prior to 9 a.m. and after 1 p.m. on Remembrance Day to achieve a better focus, so on and so on.
Who are the people who actually said this? Well, Bill Neil past national president of The War Amputations of Canada, chairman of Joint Veterans Association; John Gillis [phonetic], president of Korea Veterans Association, Manitoba Branch; Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans Association; Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario Command; Candace Bishoff, Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce; Dave Hillis, command president, Manitoba-Northwestern Ontario Command of the Royal Canadian Legion--and I would suggest that he take a note of this one--Harry Mesman, Manitoba Federation of Labour; Jim Forestell, First Vice-President of Manitoba Chamber of Commerce; and Judge John Enns as the Chair. That is where the recommendations actually come from.
This is something which should not be based on political parties. Rather, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it should be based on what one feels morally or ethically as an MLA after consulting with their constituents in terms of how they should be voting on such an important issue. I would argue to those who would say that this is a bad bill that if you consult and talk to people who are around it, what are their biggest concerns? Well, to me the biggest concern is recognizing and never forgetting those who have put their lives on the line, and many have lost their lives, and those who return, not to ever forget what they went through and to appreciate and value that in the best way in which we can.
Well, I would argue that setting aside time is one of the ways in which we can address that issue, but that in itself does not have to be the end or be it all end it all. If the member for St. Johns, for example, wants to be able to have a special riding report within his schools and then go through it and award certain prizes for individuals who write the best stories about the war vets, there are literally hundreds of ideas that are out there if the member wanted to talk to some of the war vets.
I went through boot camp prior to going into the military, and one of the things they say is the best thing you can do for your country is put your life on the line and the type of things in which they tell you that you should be prepared for when you get into the forces. I have marched on Remembrance Day in the past and have participated on Remembrance Day. What is important is not the entire day, what is important is the symbol of having a very strong sentiment that is left for all Canadians to be able to spend some time and deal with what has happened.
What we are saying or what the bill is recommending, of course, is between nine o'clock and one o'clock, where there is no commercial shopping, that it still allows for the time to put the wreaths, which is so very, very important. But to a certain degree, sure it is sad whenever we see a full day shrunk down to a half day, and many would say, well, now is that half day going to be shrunk down to no day? I think that is a valid argument and a valid concern, but I would suggest to you that there were many commercial businesses and companies that violated the current act. Not only did they violate it in the last year--
An Honourable Member: Enforce it.
* (1630)
Mr. Lamoureux: And the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) says, enforce it. When Howard Pawley was the Premier of the province, he did not enforce it.
An Honourable Member: Start now.
Mr. Lamoureux: Start now. Well, you know something, we have to be realistic to a certain degree. We have to open our minds and find out what it is that are fair expectations.
One could ultimately argue, why not have a full week? It is a worthy cause. No one would deny the fact that remembrance of our war vets is not worth a week of celebration or memory or whatever it is that one might want to classify it. To what degree is it that you want to designate time? I would suggest to you that it is important to have time designated. I see that this bill is still respecting that time designation. If I felt that the government did not go out and consult, because that is something in which I have stood up on so many bills, and, yes, the governments do, is go out and consult, it would appear that they have consulted on this particular piece of legislation.
What is more important to me at this point in time is that we do what we can as legislators to ensure that there might be other vehicles in which we can ensure that people are not going to forget, because I take a great deal of pride and do spend time on November 11, as the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) talked about her family day and how she reflects on November 11. What is important is that we as community leaders allow for individual constituents, and whether it is through educational programs, whether it is through the laying of a wreath as an MLA or whatever it might be, the promotion of that, and not to necessarily be caught up in terms of eight hours versus three hours or four hours or 12 hours, whatever it might be.
I believe to a certain degree that the government in this area, and trust me there are very few bills that this government actually does any consulting on, but it would appear as if they have done their homework on this particular piece of legislation. So what is important from my perspective is given the moral issue of this particular bill, is that why not allow MLAs to vote with their conscience on it? If that was the case, I would tell you that I would be voting for it. The reason why I would be voting for this legislation is because I believe that this piece of legislation will be easier for the government law agencies, if you like, to ensure that the public is adhering to and the commercial businesses and so forth. I believe that it is going to be an easier piece of legislation and to me that is important. When I was first elected, I remember a speech from the Minister of Agriculture talking about scofflaws, and how far too often laws are somewhat ignored.
Well, it is important from my perspective, if we are designating some time, that that time be respected in its entirety and I believe that because you are talking about a set time frame of nine o'clock till one o'clock that we will be able to achieve the obligations of following this line no matter what sort of commercial business that you are in. That is important to me. The idea of still being able to recognize our war dead, in particular those who have lost their lives in defending our great country, is something that is important not only to me, it is important to everyone inside this Chamber. I think each and every one of us would have ideas on how we can ensure that those who have lost their lives had some meaning to it.
Much like when I visited the House of Commons, they turn the pages of the war dead, and what we do here in Room 200 in recognition of those Manitobans who have lost their life. There are many different things that we can do as legislators to ensure that future generations never forget the cost of war. I do not take great offence to the same degree obviously as the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), but I do resent to a certain degree how the member for St. Johns tries to imply that I should feel shame because I feel this is a responsible way of doing it. I believe that if you take a random group--and I would put the challenge to the member for St. Johns--of individuals and we sat them down, even constituents that he represents, a random group, not a select group, and we can talk about how a random group can be drawn and sit down and explain to them the pros and the cons and other alternatives, that this is a bill that would get their support, because it is not like the government decided, well, jeez, we are going to reduce these hours.
When you take a look at some of the names that are on here and trusting that these individuals are not speaking a personal opinion, that they are reflecting the wishes at least in most part of a majority of people which they claim to represent--the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) yesterday talked about her particular legion. I was not there, nor were other people there and we do not know in terms of what biases might have been put there, if any biases at all. Maybe it is a well-founded, reasoned, rational argument as to why it is that there should not be any change. I do not want to question the motives in that. If that is what the member for Osborne really and truly believes, then that is the way she should vote on this particular piece of legislation. But if the member for Broadway or the member for Flin Flon or the member for Wellington really and truly believe that this is a reasonable way to deal with Remembrance Day, and it could make it that much more of a sense of awareness because I know some people, unfortunately, look at it as more of a day off of sorts. That is unfortunate and quite sad.
I believe that the emphasis should be on, not on having a day off, but in remembrance, and if that remembrance can be achieved and there has been a consensus on that nine o'clock to one o'clock, then why not allow for it? I do not think that there is any shame in those individuals that want to be able to attempt to strengthen the importance of Remembrance Day between that nine o'clock and one o'clock, and we should not feel any shame whatsoever in being able to speak out.
Maybe what we should be doing is having other things occurring within the province in terms of heightening the level of education about what Remembrance Day is all about. I think that, in essence, if we did that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that November 11 can be a better thing. The Minister of --I believe it is--of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) yesterday stood up, and he talked about the issuing of hunting licences and made reference in terms of how he is going to try to adjust from within his own department so that there is no hunting until after one o'clock.
I really and truly believe this piece of legislation will be that much better in terms of being able to ensure that there is full compliance out in the public, and that is what I want. I want full compliance, and through that full compliance you are going to get better recognition of the importance of our war dead and those who have risked their lives. That is more important to me than saying that it has to be a full day in which some people treat more as just as a holiday, but it should be complemented by--let us take the next step. Let us start promoting the war vets through different sorts of educational programs, and the one that comes to mind and that I have alluded to is having essay programs sponsored through different departments or through individual MLAs so that students--and those are the people whom we want to reach out to. You know, we all give out graduation gifts. Well, why not give out some sort of special awards for those individuals who can write essays or compose a story or draw pictures or whatever it might be? If we use our imagination, we can make a bigger event of it.
As I indicate, I would personally love to see this particular bill come to a vote, and I would like to be able to see members vote without having to adhere to party discipline so that in fact what we would see as a reflection in terms of what I believe a vast majority of Manitobans would want to see. I feel very comfortable in being able to defend my position to my constituents as long as they are not giving a biased position. I believe that what has to happen is both arguments have to be presented, and that is why I say to the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) that I would assist in arranging a random group. I believe I am very comfortable in my thoughts that, if in fact that were to occur, a majority of people would agree with what the recommendations brought forward by the individuals such as Bill Neil and John Gillis [phonetic] and Harry Mesman and Dave Hillis and others--Judge Enns. I trust and hope that they did their homework.
* (1640)
Sure, there are going to be exceptions. There is no doubt about there are going to be exceptions. But you know something, if three years from now, we have better and higher recognition of Remembrance Day as a result of this piece of legislation, it would then be interesting to hear from the member for St. Johns. I think that there is a very good likelihood of that occurring. I do not believe for a moment that it is going to be any worse just because you have reduced the hours. One could take it from the vets--and I know the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) is being very patient as she waits for me to sit down, because I know she wants to be able to say a few words.
But we could talk about the commercialization of many different events. We could talk about the commercialization of Christmas, the commercialization of other celebrations throughout the year, especially if you take a look at all the different ethnic groups that are out there, and there is commercialization of so many different things. What is important is the message that we are trying to get out. In this case, it is with respect to Remembrance Day, that it is in appreciation of the efforts of those who fought in previous wars representing Canada and the sacrifices that they made and to ensure that we do not forget about that. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is a very worthy day, and it is a day that should not go by without some sort of acknowledgment, and I believe that this particular, if anything, will in fact further enhance. The question is, will there be more of a concentration within those four hours, five hours? I think that is going to be the big unknown.
I hope and trust that there will be because it is absolutely critical that we never forget the contributions or what we have today is only because of what those so bravely fought for us in earlier years. I know myself, as a former person within the military and as I have indicated someone that has marched in the parades and has talked to so many people, so many war vets, whether they were in prison camps or if they had good friends that literally died virtually in their arms, I recognize, I remember, I am not going to forget. I do not believe for a moment that this bill is going to lessen the degree in which people are going to remember these people. Hopefully what will happen through this particular debate is that we will see an enhanced time frame in which people will get more involved in the process. I commend the minister on bringing forward the bill. I personally would be voting for it.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister responsible for Native Affairs): I thank you for the opportunity to make some comment on this particular piece of legislation that is introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews).
This particular issue is one that I struggled with when I was Minister of Labour over a number of years because, quite frankly, The Remembrance Day Act, as it currently stands on our books, presented a number of difficulties that, quite frankly, we as a society had to address. I know in the period in which I relinquished that portfolio for the member for Rossmere (Mr. Toews), as the work was already at hand, I believe, in discussions with various people, there were some discussions. The new minister carried that forward and developed, I think, a very good approach to revamping our Remembrance Day legislation. Let me assure members, let me assure members of the public of Manitoba, that the intent was in no way to diminish in any way the importance of Remembrance Day. It was never intended. Nor does this bill, I think, diminish Remembrance Day.
What it was designed to do was work out some of the problems that time had brought on the old legislation. I remember the one that was brought home to me particularly year after year, and that is theatres versus video shops. Under the current legislation, one could open a motion picture theatre. You could show movies on a big screen in a theatre under our current Remembrance Day Act after a certain time in the afternoon, but you could not rent a video to watch the same movie at home.
In fairness to the drafters of the legislation as it now stands, when it was drafted, movie theatres were a form of family entertainment that were viewed to be appropriate on that day in the afternoon and evening. Videos did not exist. They were not contemplated. So a new technology and a new product, quite frankly, resulted and required some updating of this legislation. There were problems on the retail sales market too, because when the original legislation was drafted, the kind of stores that we would sometimes call convenience stores would be open to supply some basic product, bread and milk. That type of product to individuals on these particular days were much more limited than they are today, and there was a sense that this had to be updated.
Now one of the reasons it took some time, I think, to come to grips with it, and I commend my colleague because this is one of the issues that he has inherited from me--I am done, quite frankly. I am very pleased to see that he has been able to move on this--was finding a mechanism or a vehicle in which one could have consultation with veterans' organizations, with people who as we do, I think, on this of the House very much respect Remembrance Day and what it stands for. He has done that. He has managed to find a consensus on some of these relatively small changes that are needed to update our current legislation.
What troubles me in the debate--and I certainly can appreciate a debate as to the detail of how we work out a day--but when I caught the remarks of the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), you know, we come to this House, I think some with reputation, some without, but in hearing the remarks of the member for St. Johns, I have to admit that I somehow get a sense of a self-righteousness on his part that should not enter into this debate. The member seems to imply in some ways that members of this House of this side somehow want to diminish the value of Remembrance Day and the service of Canadian service personnel through a number of wars, in the service of Queen and King and country over this century and before and diminish it.
There is no way that is what we want to do, and I find it somewhat even bordering on hypocritical when I hear that from a member of his party. I remember during the Gulf War, when our country was called upon as part of the United Nations to supply men and women of our armed forces in our Navy and in our air service, one remembers the Canada Dry air station that was in Saudi Arabia as part of the assault on Iran. Our service personnel, operating under United Nations mandate to put an end to an illegal invasion of another United Nations member, doing everything properly as those of us who love peace in this world have set up through the United Nations, and I remember now colleagues of the member for St. Johns opposing that war, opposing the Canadian participation, opposing Canada's involvement in a very important struggle to ensure that the bullies of this world were not free to invade other countries.
An Honourable Member: Well, that is a lousy--
* (1650)
Mr. Praznik: Now I just say this, the member says, it is lousy, but I remember it well. I remember the debate I had with some of the members colleagues on the steps of this Legislature. So I only raised that because if we are going to get into this debate today and pretend to be holier than thou on Remembrance Day, then let us at least recognize the position that many took on that issue.
I am not disagreeing with their right to take it. They had the right to take that position. They had the right to oppose our involvement. They had the right to picket and demonstrate as many did, but the fact of the matter is do not stand up here today and try to pretend one values that contribution of service personnel when one's colleagues were taking a very different position when Canadian men and women were called upon to serve in that United Nations' effort. I think it is important to remember that today. That is a matter of public record, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I think it is important given the comments of the member for St. Johns.
One anomaly in our Remembrance Day legislation that I wish we would correct, but it is not within the jurisdiction of this Legislature to do, is the operation of Remembrance Day for people in federal jurisdiction. The largest employer in my constituency is the--well, was, I guess, Atomic Energy of Canada; now Pine Falls Paper Company would probably be the largest--but AECL is a federal institution under federal jurisdiction, and they never took Remembrance Day off. They never had a day off to allow their employees to attend a Remembrance Day service, because the Parliament of Canada in exercising that jurisdiction has provided quite frankly nothing for people in federal jurisdiction. So I think one has to put that in perspective.
If I could send one message to our colleagues in Ottawa on this issue, I would think that ensuring that people who worked in federal institutions and within federal jurisdiction were afforded some reasonable opportunity on November 11 to participate in Remembrance Day services across our province and across the nation, and that is a message I hope that is conveyed to the Parliament of Canada. So when one compares us to what our national government, our national Parliament, quite frankly, has done, I think there is the area that needs to be addressed in respecting this particular day.
One last comment that I would like to share, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with members of this House is Remembrance Day in my own constituency. If there is ever a time in which I am very proud of the people I represent--I am proud on many occasions--but this is one where every year that pride is renewed. Our largest Remembrance Day service in my constituency is in Beausejour each year, the largest community, and I would guess that we have at least 300 to 400 people attend that service every year.
(Madam Speaker in the Chair)
What is amazing about it is the age of the people who come. It is not just veterans. It is not just the spouses of veterans or the children of veterans, but it is the numbers of young people who come, young families who come to that Remembrance Day service to pay tribute, it is the number of cubs and scouts and guides who also participate. When I see that I am reminded that there are still many, many, many people in this country who respect the institutions, the history, the traditions, the sacrifice and the service of the men and women who served Canada and the British Empire on many occasions throughout this century and before in service in a variety of wars and engagements and peacekeeping activities throughout the world. To see those many people gather, of all ages, is truly a tribute to Canadians and Manitobans and my constituents in their respect for this day.
Throughout my riding the great problem as an MLA is trying to be represented or be at all of these services. We have services in Garson and Tyndall and Beausejour, in Lac du Bonnet, in Pine Falls. We have various events at our Legion facilities which attract many, many people who participate in that day.
We also have a number of churches in my constituency, the United Church in Beausejour being one that has a very family-oriented fall supper later in that evening.
If I can make one observation about Remembrance Day in my constituency, and I think it fits in with the spirit of this legislation, the morning has become very much an opportunity for people to participate in ceremonies and services.
The afternoon, because we still have legislation that has the closure, although this does provide, I think, for a modernization of that somewhat, but in a very limited way, it allows you to rent a movie instead of just going to the theatre, it has meant that the afternoon, whether people are at Legions or various activities, and the Legions have been very, very strong in having family-oriented activities during the day.
This has become very much a family day, and my little two girls who attend these with me, I always get quite a kick out of their enjoying the old war songs that they sing at the Beausejour Legion and that they are learning a sense of history and a sense of respect when they attend those events during the day.
So if you ask my personal observation, I think Remembrance Day, the latter part of it, has become very much a family day, certainly in my area, where because we do not have the wholesale kind of opening of other provinces it allows people to take in the events of the day, to reflect and remember and spend time with their family and their neighbours and with many of the veterans who served this country. That is a very, very good thing that I hope continues.
What this legislation does, quite frankly, is, I think it updates the rules somewhat to meet the changes that have taken place and focus activity to continue to support that kind of day, and it is because we have--my colleague, I give him full credit, has taken upon himself to refocus this and update this legislation. I think it takes away the pressure that is there to repeal it, and there has been pressure from time to time by those who have looked at the anomalies in our law and said, why should we have this bill? Why can you go to a movie but not rent a video? Do away with it. I heard those cries from some quarters when I was minister. I think this takes the pressure from those circles off and, quite frankly, allows this day to continue for the great benefit of all Manitobans in giving us an opportunity to reflect and show respect for those who served our country and appreciate the sacrifices that Canadian men and women have made over the history of our country in the service of others.
I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to make this comment, and I am reminded as I stand here that I make it in a free Parliament in a free country and that freedom truly was won on the battlefields of the world by the people we pay tribute to and honour on Remembrance Day on November 11. Thank you.
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this particular debate because I had felt that the representations made by members of this side of the House were appropriate, but I am disgusted by the comments of the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik). I accept that member's right to defend the bill. I accepted the member's right--the member for Inkster ( Mr. Lamoureux)--to make his comments about the bill. I do not agree with the member for Inkster, but I accepted his right to make that comment. On some points I agreed, and on some points I disagreed.
I also listened very carefully to the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) who gave a very heartfelt representation based on discussions that he had had with constituents and with participants.
But, Madam Speaker, the Minister for Northern Affairs, the member for Lac du Bonnet, went way beyond the bounds of decorum in this House by suggesting that somehow patriotism and somehow the support or the nonsupport of the Gulf War, attributing support or nonsupport to an individual somehow makes an individual either a hypocrite or not capable of having a position on this particular important issue, and that is totally inappropriate.
Madam Speaker, there are Ukrainians that spent time in internment camps because of that kind of attitude. There are Japanese that spent time in internment camps because of that attitude. That is not appropriate for a minister of the Crown nor for a member of this Legislature to question anyone's patriotism or anyone's ability to speak on a bill based on their support or nonsupport of the war or other war, and if any member should be cognizant of that, it ought to be the member for Lac du Bonnet.
I do not want to get personal, but the member ought to know better than to question the patriotism and to base a judgment based on this individual's patriotism for making a decision that is heartfelt and is a matter of conscience.
Madam Speaker, there are all kinds of bounds we can go beyond, and the member for
Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) disagreed heartedly and made arguments on a number of points for the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), and I accepted that, and that is legitimate. But to question someone's patriotism and to question someone's right to make a decision based on their patriotism is totally inappropriate, and I am offended by that. I am offended because I am someone of Ukrainian background who had friends and relatives that went through that experience in this country, and I know people of Germanic background who went through that, and I know people of Japanese background who went through that. That was based on patriotism, and that is one of the worst forces in society. That is one of those forces that can turn individual against individual. That is totally inappropriate for this Chamber.
* (1700)
Madam Speaker, I accept the fact that this bill was based on compromise and on consensus. That does not detract from my right as a member in good conscience to oppose aspects of this bill, and I agree with the member for St. Johns as to why we ought to oppose aspects of this bill, particularly the commercialization on Remembrance Day.
Madam Speaker, I remember from childhood onward how we have moved away from the recognition of Remembrance Day to what we are now, and I am very concerned about the erosion. I am very concerned that it is now business as usual. As the member for St. Johns so eloquently put it, there is probably no national holiday in this country or no other event that brings Canadians together as does Remembrance Day. If we lose that, we lose not only part of ourselves and our history, but we lose recognition of where we were at and the sacrifices that brought us to this point.
So, Madam Speaker, I join with the member for St. Johns and other members in my party in opposing this amendment. I recognize that there are good reasons for making some of the changes. I do not accept the reductionist argument that, because it is unfair to not have other activities contained within this act, we remove all the controls on those activities. I disagree with that. I believe strongly that this ought to be a day for Canadians to fully recognize and for Manitobans to fully recognize, not just the losses, not just the sacrifices, but the very important freedoms that we cherish in this country, and the very important rights of society that we have in Manitoba, and recognize the fact that we are fortunate indeed, and maybe it ought to be more a day of reflection on those points.
Nonetheless, I join with my colleagues in opposing this amendment for the reasons eloquently stated by the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), and I call upon the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) to reconsider his statements and to reconsider in the context of some of the worst aspects of Canadian history that have occurred in this century. Thank you.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I commend the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) for his, I think, very eloquent defence of the right of all of us to speak on this particular bill.
I say to the member for Lac du Bonnet that I also took some offence at his characterization of the member for St. Johns for being self-righteous. Perhaps the member for Lac du Bonnet and any other members who are considering voting for this particular legislation should talk to some of the veterans, members of Legions and Army, Navy, and Air Force Branches in Manitoba and ask them for their opinions.
That is what--[interjection] Well, to the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), if you would just listen for a second, the member for St. Johns has talked to his constituents. When he speaks today, he speaks from the heart, not only personally, but also on behalf of many of the people in his constituency.
I want to say, Madam Speaker, that I would urge the government, on this bill, to allow its members to vote without the party Whip, to have a free vote on this. I say this because I do not think there should be anything to do with Remembrance Day that should have a party Whip forcing the government member or any member of this House to vote on this particular bill.
Madam Speaker, I want to say why I oppose this bill, why I feel it is, I think, going to set a terrible precedent in terms of Remembrance Day. I oppose the commercialization of Remembrance Day. Remembrance Day is not a holiday; I do not want to see Remembrance Day sales taking place at the mall. Quite frankly, to the member for Lac du Bonnet and others who talk about, well, this store is open and that store is open, you do not throw out the entire concept of Remembrance Day, of shutting down the province for all except the most essential items; you do not say, well, because you can sell videos but you cannot have a movie theatre open, let us open the floodgate to anything after one o'clock.
Madam Speaker, one of the things I feel proud about in Manitoba is when on Remembrance Day we do recognize that sacrifice, not just at eleven o'clock, not just for a minute. You know what, I cannot think of a better tribute to the people that sacrificed their life than that. I know that this is not just an issue--I am not questioning anybody on the other side in terms of their sense of Remembrance Day, but I want to say that I have heard too that some people have suggested that other provinces do not go as far as we do. Well, quite frankly, I do not care about the other provinces.
One of the most moving experiences that I have had personally was when I went to France a couple of years ago, and I went to the D-Day beaches. You know what, Madam Speaker? If you drive up to the D-Day beach, the first thing you see is a huge monument to the Royal Winnipeg Rifles.
It struck me that in France 50 years-plus there is a monument to those Canadians who did not have any personal stake--they were not defending their homes directly--who were fighting to liberate the people of Europe. They gave their lives in France and all over Europe and in the Pacific theatre as well. When I was there, I always said that the one thing I would never, ever forget is that, and the one thing that I would always do is treat Remembrance Day as being sacred.
Probably the best thing I can say is, there is an individual who used to live in Thompson, and I think he summed up what Remembrance Day was all about. He was too young to serve in the war; he served in the military afterwards. He said if there was one day that was sacred to him, it was Remembrance Day. That was the one day when everybody stopped and paid tribute to those veterans. He said it is the one day his dad never ceased to break down in tears in memory of the people who had given their lives for what we value. He said there is one thing he hopes, that he never sees the day in his lifetime when we lose that and when Remembrance Day becomes just like any other day.
Madam Speaker, I believe in all my heart that this bill fundamentally changes the character of Remembrance Day. I believe it will commercialize Remembrance Day. I do not want to see that happen in the lifetime of the person I just referenced, nor in my lifetime, nor at any time, and I would urge all members of the House to vote against this bill and preserve Remembrance Day for what it is, a day like no other that recognizes something that has no other equivalent, the people who sacrificed their life for this country. The least we can do in their memory is not to have this kind of commercialization of Remembrance Day.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 50, The Remembrance Day Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On division
Madam Speaker: On division.
Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate, Bill 17, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), The Government Essential Services Act; (Loi sur les services gouvernementaux essentiels), standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? No, leave has been denied.
* (1710)
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and add my comments on Bill 17, The Government Essential Services Act. This bill was brought forward by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) back in the spring of this year, back in April, at a time when the provincial government was embroiled in the home care dispute that was taking place in this province. The government, sensing that they did not have the ability to take actions that they needed to take to restrict and tie the hands of the one particular union in our province, the Manitoba Government Employees' Union, the government decided that they were going to unilaterally bring in a piece of legislation, which they have tabled, Bill 17.
The government likes to tell us that they are doing this to protect the people of our province, and that it is necessary to have this particular agreement, but I find that this legislation is offensive in many ways. We have seen a demonstration by the number of pieces of legislation that we have seen from this government during this session. Out of the 76 pieces, there are quite a number that are what we would consider to be antidemocratic. I have referenced these bills in the past here, whether it be Bill 49 or Bill 54, which is now amended thankfully, to have some recognition. At least there was one minister that sensed that there was an antidemocratic portion of his bill and made the necessary corrections through amendments. Unfortunately, the other bills, Bill 49 and Bill 73, Bill 72 to a large degree, Bill 26 which we just concluded public hearings on last night, are all antidemocratic, and this Bill 17 is no different than those other antidemocratic pieces of legislation.
The government wants to have the ability to make the decisions without any consultation. They want the ability to control the very lives of the people that work in government services, and I am not referring specifically to the department but all of government services, all the public sector. This government has in the past had the opportunity to negotiate an essential services agreement for those services that are essential during work stoppages in health care facilities. Now, if the government, you would think, was really serious about ensuring that all these services were protected in the province, they would have sat down with the democratically elected representatives of the MGEU and negotiated to an agreement that would recognize that there are certain services in our province that must be maintained during strike or lockout.
Instead of that, what the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) and this government attempted to do was, four days before the home care dispute started, this government said that they wanted to commence negotiations and then used that as the ploy for bringing forward Bill 17. So they did not have the intestinal fortitude or the will or maybe even the understanding that they should commence negotiations on essential services prior to a dispute, which was obviously looming, because the government knew quite clearly what their hard-line stand was going to be since the Minister of Labour was also responsible for the Civil Service Commission that conducts the negotiations with various labour organizations in this province. So the Minister of Labour knows full well what the government's position was going to be and that he and his government were going to be in a particularly difficult situation and should have commenced negotiations for essential services with the MGEU and other organizations long before the four days prior to that particular work dispute took place.
Now, if you take a look at the agreement that has been struck between the government for the maintenance of services in health care facilities, one can see quite clearly that there is the ability, and this was signed off back in, I believe it was, 1989, this agreement was signed. What is now the MNU, Manitoba Nurses' Union, was MONA at the time, was the acronym for the organization, sat down and developed a voluntary essential services agreement. So we know it is possible for the government and the unionized workforce, the MGEU and MNU and UFCW and any other organization that is involved in providing essential services and have members providing essential services, we know it is possible to have essential service agreements worked out.
The document that I have here in my hand is dated December 3, 1987, so it is an umbrella essential services agreement. We know that it is possible to negotiate these agreements and that it would protect, as this agreement states quite clearly, where there is life and limb that are at risk, those services would be maintained. Now we support the provisions of essential services being negotiated and that they should be negotiated where life or limb are at risk, but what this government chose to do instead was to play politics with this issue, and only four days prior to the home care dispute decided that they wanted to go to the negotiating table in, I believe, a way in an attempt to try and delay the decisions that had already been made by the MGEU members.
Now, if you take a look at Bill 17, and I know that the minister tried to lash out at the union at the time back in April of this year, and he tried to deflect criticism that he was receiving for mishandling the situation knowing full well that he had been the minister for the better part of a year and that he should have at least made the necessary steps to commence negotiations prior to the disputes occurring, but he did not do that. Of course, he was trying to deflect that criticism and turn it back onto the MGEU members and saying that they did not want to negotiate. I mean, who in their right mind would want to negotiate something when the decisions have already been made by the membership and those negotiations should have commenced much sooner?
We find in Bill 17 there are several provisions that are in a sense dictate and follow very much in the pattern that this government has developed with their other pieces of legislation, which I mentioned here a few moments ago. This government likes to dictate to people what services are going to be covered under the essential services agreement, and then there is an appendix attached to this bill that lays out quite a number of departments that the government sees should be part of the essential services.
Now, I am not saying that we disagree with the number of areas that should be included under the essential services agreement because there are some in here obviously that one can state quite clearly should be part of essential services, essentially in the areas of health care facilities, child and family services for example, Emergency Measures Organization and the staff that are in those departments, which would include air ambulance, et cetera.
There are many areas that could be included, but I think should be negotiated and not imposed, because through Bill 17 the government here is attempting to dictate once again, as they have through other pieces of legislation, where they want to have full, complete control over all the decisions that are made.
Now, one of the clauses in Bill 17, and I know we are to talk to the principle of the bill itself, but one of the things that struck me immediately upon reading this bill was that the Premier himself, and/or his designate, which would in many cases be the Minister of Labour or any other minister of the cabinet, makes decisions to declare the service as an essential service, so this Premier, on any day and quite likely on cabinet day, so every Wednesday of every week of the year, has the ability to go in and say, well, what service should we declare as an essential service this week? That is the power that the Premier has; that is how broad it is. The Premier will be able to determine through regulation and to declare any service that that person as Premier feels should be under the essential service agreement. There is no requirement for the Premier or the cabinet or the Minister of Labour to go out and to negotiate this with the various organizations, with the working people of this province. The Premier himself will determine in a unilateral way.
This piece of legislation, Bill 17, will prevail over any other regulation or collective agreement or any arbiter's award, so it has complete power over any negotiated agreements. The Premier, through the powers that he will now be giving to himself through Bill 17 and through the Minister of Labour to the Civil Service Commission, will have the power to serve notice upon the union setting out the classifications for the employees who must work for essential services during a dispute, will also be able to spell out the number of employees in each classification that you want to work. Not only that, it will even go as far as naming the people, by name, that you want to work in those different operations or functions. So you are taking it down to the finest degree possible in naming. While there may be many people in a particular department have the skills necessary to perform essential services, you are saying that you want to have the power to select specific individuals to perform the essential services.
* (1720)
The only powers that you are giving the representative body, the MGEU or other labour organizations, is the power to go to the Labour Board for a variation on the numbers of employees. That is the only power that you are giving to the labour organizations. They cannot appeal the classifications themselves. They cannot appeal the specific people that you are naming out, but they can only reference the fact in an appeal to the Manitoba Labour Board, the numbers of employees in each classification who must work during a work stoppage in the maintenance of essential services, and that the board itself, the Manitoba Labour Board, within 14 days after receiving that application, is going to have to make an order confirming or varying the number of employees. So 14 days into a dispute the Labour Board would be able to respond, but that is the only area of appeal that is available to the working people, to the employee representatives.
So, if you are a government--judging by the list of departments that are listed on the appendix attached to this bill, it covers almost all of government operations. So quite likely the government will have full and complete control to determine that any member of the thousands of people that are working for government in Manitoba, any of those people could be designated by the Premier to provide the essential services and that the Premier himself will make that determination with no ability to have to justify and not subject to appeal.
One of the things I also find offensive in this bill, and it deals with the pay and benefits for employees that are required to work under the essential services provision in this bill, is that the people that are required to come into work will work in accordance with the temporary--and I put that in italics--terms and conditions until the day in which a new or amended collective agreement comes into effect.
This bill does not spell out that the employees who are required to work under essential services will come into work and provide those services under the existing agreement that had been freely negotiated and agreed to by both sides, both government and the elected union representatives and their members, but will work under temporary terms and conditions that will be no doubt spelled out once again by the Premier or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews).
I think that this is wrong, that if you are going to require people to come into work under essential services, you should at least do it under the existing terms of the existing contract that would have expired. I mean, we know that contracts in many cases remain in effect until such time, in the legal sense, from my understanding, as they are superseded by a new collective agreement that would be negotiated, but in this case, the pay-in benefits would be only paid on temporary terms and conditions. So I think that there need to be some changes there.
There are several other provisions that I find offensive. One particular section says that under the essential services bill, under Bill 17, no essential services employee shall participate in a work stoppage against the employer. So what you are essentially saying in this bill is that while an employee would be required to come into the workplace under the essential services provisions, after the work hours, that individual is not free to take whatever steps they feel are necessary in their own personal lives which would or could include participation in a picket line in the after hours.
So what you are saying is, you are having full and complete control 24 hours a day of the lives of the people that you deem to be essential services personnel. You want to have complete control of every minute of that person's life. I do not think that is fair and reasonable, and I would expect that there should be some amendment in that area to recognize that after the work day is completed, people are free to make their own decisions on which activities they participate in.
The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, as well, which is the Premier (Mr. Filmon), is giving himself through this bill the ability to make regulations, as we have seen in other areas of legislation that this government has tabled, providing any direction to the Manitoba Labour Board that that board may require in carrying out its responsibilities under this act.
So the Premier will dictate to the Labour Board which direction the Labour Board should be going in, which I think is contrary to The Labour Relations Act of this province. It is my understanding that the Manitoba Labour Board is a quasi-judicial body and that they are free and independent to make the decisions and to consider matters that they deem are important and to render those decisions and that they should not be under the thumb of the Premier as is spelled out under Section 17 of this bill.
Also, through regulation, the Premier is giving himself and/or his designate the ability to make regulations on any other matter that the Premier or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) considers necessary to carry out the purposes of this act. So what you have essentially done here is you have written yourselves a blank cheque to make whatever decisions you feel are expedient at the time and that you can overrule areas that have been freely negotiated and say that you do not have to abide by those collective agreements. I mean, we saw that in Bill 70, the steps that this government took with Bill 70.
We have seen it again on Bill 26, the unilateral and what some presenters have referenced as a dictatorial type of action, and we are seeing it again here, where we are having the Premier (Mr. Filmon) direct to the Labour Board and make directives on matters that need to be carried out. There is a fine level that is put in place under the offences and penalties provision of this bill, and every person that is in contravention, of course, will be subject to certain fines. There are also fines that allow for sanctions to be levied against other individuals that would be in breach of this act. There is also a section here that allows for cases of default of fines, where you have working people that have no ability to pay whatever fines may be levied as individuals, that gives powers to the Attorney General of this province to go and seize property of individuals, to seize any of the assets of the individual.
So this is a far-reaching bill that I think is unfair and that this government should have taken the necessary steps to negotiate an essential services agreement instead of taking the action that they have taken here. I would recommend to this government that they reconsider, that they seriously reconsider, what they have tabled here through to Bill 17 and that since we are in a period here now where there appears to be some labour-management peace in this province, the government seize that opportunity to commence the discussions and negotiations for an essential services agreement that is freely negotiated between the parties and not imposed as this government has a tendency to do.
So with those words, Madam Speaker, we are prepared to allow this bill to proceed to committee to hear any members of the public that may wish to come forward and add their comments on this bill. I do ask that the government members consider very seriously the matters that I have raised and that they go back, they withdraw this bill and go back to the negotiation tables with their employee representatives and come up with an agreement that everybody can live with. With those few words, I thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, there are a number of things I was wanting to talk about with respect to Bill 17. It is in fact a bill in principle that I believe we can actually support. We have a great deal of concern. The idea of essential services and the importance of maintaining and providing Manitobans those essential services is absolutely critical. In fact, you might recall last year, when the Liberal caucus had argued that we wanted to see, if necessary, even back-to-work legislation--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Inkster will have 29 minutes remaining.
The hour being 5:30 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Thursday).