Manitoba Hansard — 4 December 2001 (Sitting 14, 37th Legislature, 3rd Session)

37-3-14

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session- Thirty-Seventh Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LII No. 14 - 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, December 4, 2001

Member AGLUGUB, Cris ALLAN, Nancy ASHTON, Steve, Hon. ASPER, Linda BARRETT, Becky, Hon. CALDWELL, Drew, Hon. CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. CUMMINGS, Glen DACQUA Y, Louise DERKACH, Leonard DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary, Hon. DRIEDGER. Myrna DYCK,Peter ENNS, Harry FAURSCHOU, David FRIESEN, Jean, Hon. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. GILLESHAMMER, Harold HELWER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. LAURENDEAU, Marcel LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. LOEWEN, John MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. MAGUIRE, Larry MALOWA Y, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn, Hon.

MITCHELSON, Bonnie MURRAY, Stuart NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom PENNER, Jack PENNER, Jim PITURA, Frank PRAZNIK, Darren REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. ROCAN, Denis RONDEAU, Jim SALE, Tim, Hon. SANTOS, Conrad SCHELLENBERG, Harry SCHULER, Ron SELINGER, Greg, Hon. SMITH, Joy SMITH, Scott, Hon. STEFANSON, Heather STRUTHERS, Stan TWEED, Mervin WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Seventh Legislature Constituency The Maples St. Vital Thompson Riel Inkster Brandon East Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Russell Selkirk Concordia Charleswood Pembina Lakeside Portage Ia Prairie Wolseley River Heights Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon St. James The Pas St. Norben La Verendrye FonWhyte St. Johns Anhur-Virden Elmwood Burrows Lord Roberts Minto River East Kirkfield Park Interlake Emerson Steinbach Morris Lac du Bonnet Transcona Southdale Rupertsland Cannan Assiniboia FonRouge Wellington Ross mere Springfield St. Boniface FonGarry Brandon West Tuxedo Dauphin-Roblin Turtle Mountain Swan River Political Affiliation N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P.

P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P.

485 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, December 4, 2001 The House met at 1: 30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Oscar Lathlin (Minister of Conservation): Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to table the following reports, copies of which have been previously distributed: the Manitoba Product Stewardship Corporation 2000-2001 Annual Report; the Venture Manitoba Tours Limi ted financial state ments as of March 31, 2001; the Pineland Forest Nursery Annual Report 2000-200 1; the Manitoba Conservation Annual Report 2000-200 1; the Sustainable Development Innovations Fund Annual Report 2000-200 1; and the Manitoba Habita t Heritage Corporation Annual Report 2000-200 1.

I would also like to take this opportunity to table for the House the Manitoba Round Table for Sustainable Development Annual Report for the year 2000-200 1. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill10- The Environment Amendment Act Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): I move, seconded by the honoura ble Minister of Conservation (Mr. Lathlin), that leave be given to introduce Bill 10 , The Environment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'environnement, and that the same be now received and read a first time. Motion presented. Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the proposed changes to The Environment Act would help ensure an effective co-ord inated response for mosquito control measures in the event of a West Nile virus health emergency. Motion agreed to. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honoura ble members to the public gallery where we have with us fr om Lord Wolseley School 21 Grade 5 students under the direction of Ms. Jacq ueline Bayes.

This school is located in the constituency of the honoura ble Member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) . Also in the public gallery we have Kerri McKee from Miles Macdonell Collegia te . This school is located in the constituency of the honoura ble Member for Elmwood. Also I would like to draw the attention of all honourab le members to the Speaker's Gall ery where we have with us today Mr. Yalin Zhang. Mr. Yalin Zhang is in Canada to parti cipate in the China Public Sector Reform Pro ject and is spending three months with the Manitoba Department of Finance. On behalf of all honourab le members, I welcome you here today.

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD HOPE Learning Centre School Division Partnerships Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prem ier to call an audit, an independent commission of public inquiry, into the issues relating to adult learning centres in the province of Manitoba. On this side of the House, we believe the taxp ay ers deserve to know how their hard-earned dollars are being spent. * (13: 35 ) The people of Manitoba know that millions of taxpayers' dollars were overspent and overpai d to operators of adult learning centres in

486 LEGIS LATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA December 4, 200 1 Morr is-Macdonald alone. The Premier and his ministers would have us believe that Morris-Macdonal d is the only school division involved in adult learning centres. This is just not true . The Premier will know that when the Auditor was asked to look into a particular ad ult learning centre oper ated by the Orlikows, that being HOPE Incorporate d, they were operating nine other centres, only seven of them in Morris-Ma cdonald.

Would the Premier now tell this House and all Manitobans which oth(�r school division was partnered with HOPE to operate adult learning centres in the 2000-200 1 school year? Hon. Gary Doer (Premie1r): Mr. Speaker, again a number of sta tements were made dealing with the first part of the ra mbling prea mble. The budget in 19 99-2000 was $6.7 million-! believe that was correct--and the expenditure level was $17 million, arnvmg at an overexpenditure of hard-earned taxpayers' dolla rs of some $11 million. The budget this year is down from $17 million to $14 million, and we expect that it will b1! with in budget.

Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker., we acknowledge the Prem ier's ra mbling non-answer. I will ask the question very simply to the Premier. Would the Premier tell Manitobans what other school divisions were partnered with HOPE to operate adult learning centres in the 2000-200 1 school year? It is a very simple question. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, th1! HOPE and outward bound pr ojects received approximate ly $3.5 million from '96-97 to '99-2000. The amount is quite a bit less under the current government. Mr. Murray: This is a guy who says he is talking honestly to Manitobans. Mr.

Speaker, we know that there are other adult learning centres. We know that St. Norbert, Seven Oaks, Turtle Mountain-there are other adult learning centres in the province of Manitoba. Yet the Premier would have Manitobans believe there is only one division that is opera ting adult learning centres.

I will ask him again; I will ask him for the third time a very simple question that I believe Manitobans have the right to know, and the question is: Would the Premier please tell this House and Manitobans which other school divisions were partnered with HOPE to operate adult learning centres in the 2000 and 200 I school year? Mr. Doer: On the macro, Mr. Speaker, $17 million was expended in the '99-2000 fiscal year under the last administration. The accumul a ted costs were $3 .5 million. The total is 33 percent below that since we came into office. Mr.

Speaker, yesterday, members opposite were thr owing ar ound wild all egations again about Anokiiwin. I have memos from John Carlyle, in 19 99, saying: There is unfettered and very, very strong support for this privat e-public partn ership from Mr. Newman, Mr. Pitura and the Premier's staff that were present today. Unless there is a compelling reason not to permit this partners hip, it must be sanctioned. * (13: 40) The amount of money in Anokiiwin was $1. 8 million from '96 to '99-2000. It was $667,000 in 2000-200 1, and there is no money budgeted in this current fiscal year.

Adult Learning Centres Funding Criteria Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, while this Government targets one school division, there is evidence today that we have school divisions operating adult learning centres without agreements and are receiving funding today . Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Education why he allowed for the 200 1 -2002 school year $625,000 to a learning centre that was not using certified teachers and did not have adeq uate text mat erials and adequate mat erial for the classroom. Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education, . Training and Youth): Well, Mr. Speaker, of

December 4, 200 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 487 course, we dealt with this same question last week, and I believe, if I am not mistaken, the week before in this House. Obviously, today , members opposite are bringing into question the integrity of every school division in the province of Manitoba with their questions, something that I find quite shamef ul, and I know that truste es throughout the province would be disappointed with that tack as well. Mr.

Speaker, our priority all along in this issue has been to account for taxpayers' dolla rs, something that was not possible under members opposite's scheme, and to provide stab ility for learners in adult learning centres. That is the tack we will continue to take . HOPE Learning Centre Funding Repayment Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): The problem here is, Mr. Speaker, the minister is not accountable to anybody.

I want to ask the Minister of Education, who yesterday said they would not be going after the adult learning centres to recoup the money: Why the comments from his department in the Auditor's report state very clearly that the department will be seeking appropriate reimbursement of funds provided to the program, meaning the HOPE program? Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education, Training and Youth): Well, Mr. Speaker, on almost every question, members opposite invent things.

Of course this Government will hold accountab le to the people of Manitoba monies that went astray under a program that was set up with no fiscal accounta bility, no program accounta bility. We are changing that, something that should h<we been in place before this scheme was entered into by members opposite. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, my questions are specific to the program that was started in September 2000. That was the program under the watch of this minister and this Government. The Premier is the one who keeps ref erring to '98. We are talking about the year 2000 under his watch.

I want to ask this Premier or this Minister of Education whether, in fa ct, they are going to recoup monies that were overpaid to HOPE, to Anokiiwin and other ALCs. Mr. Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member ref erred to our watch and their watch because certai nly under their watch we had a program estab lished that dedicated tens of millions of dollars of taxp ayers' money to a system- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr.

Caldwell: As I said, I am pleased that the member opposite began his question with our watch and their watch, because it is quite clear now that under the watch of members opposite, when in government, a program was set up with no fiscal or program accounta bility. It is also quite clear, as the Prov incial Auditor noted, under our watch important changes and improvements have been made to this system. Morris-Macdonald School Division Legal Advice Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr.

Speaker, the very first recommendation that the Provincial Auditor made to the Minister of Educa tion was that the Morris-Macdonald school board should seek legal adv ice on the appropria teness of the administration of HOPE, providing the Morris-Macdonald School Division with enrolment figures that they knew or should have known were overstate d. * (13: 45) As the Minister of Education fired the board, will he follow the Auditor's recommendation and seek this legal advice to protect the taxp ayers of the Morris-Macdonald School Division? Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education, Training and Youth): Mr.

Speaker, it is astounding that we have been sitting in this House for the last month dealing with this issue and the member opposite asks us if we are seeking legal advice. The report went to the Justice Department in October, so I am at a loss.

488 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 4, 200 1 Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education refuses to answer this question too. He fired the school board . He is acting for the school board. I would ask this minister why he is not following the Auditor's recommendation to investigate where the inflated numbers originated from. Is he trying to get his friends, the Orlikows and Elaine Cowan, who received 90 percent of the money, off the hook? Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order.

May I remind all honoura ble members when the Speaker rises all members should be in their seats and the Speaker should be heard in silence. I would also like to remind- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to remind all honourab le members, once again, we have schoolchil dren in the audience and a lot of those schoolchild ren look upon their members of the Legislative Assembly as role models. I do not think there is a member in the House who would like to disappoint the children in the audience. I would like to ask the co-operation of all honourab le members, please. Mr.

Caldwell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly appreciate your words. I find it very disappointing that members opposite delight so in character assassination in this House. It has been a feature of this pruticular session, such smears. The first question today impugned the integrity of every school division in this province and an adult learning centre. Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House believe in the value of adult learning centres for those adults who are striving to learn to read so they can read to their children.

They are starting to improve their numeracy skills and under our watch, as the Provincilal Auditor noted, important improvements have been made to assist. That was created with no fiscal or program accountability. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Sp,eaker, my final supplementary to the Minister of Education. I want to know if the real reason he fired the Morris-Macdonald School Division was simply to ensure there would be nobody left in that school division to investigate the role the Orlikows and Elaine Cowan played in misappropriating millions of dol lars of public funds. Mr. Caldwell: Mr.

Speaker, it is disgraceful that things are said in this House that would not be repeated outside of this Chamber. The character assassination that has taken place here over the last month has been absolut ely disgra ceful. * (13 :50) We have accepted the Provincial Auditor's report. his recommendations and criticisms. The report has been referred to the RCMP. If members opposite do not have confidence in the Provincial Auditor, we certainly have confidence in him. School Divisions Amalgamation Mr. Harold Gilleshammer (Minnedosa): Mr.

Speaker, The Public Schools Act clearly states there is a prerequisite to altering school division boundaries, that being a Boundaries Review Commission, which must precede any changes. Can the minister confirm that he has met the prerequisites as stated in sections 7( 1) and 7(2) of The Public Schools Act? Has he followed due process and the results of a Boundaries Review Commission report? Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education, Training and Youth): Yes. Mr. Gilleshammer: Do you have a legal opinion that you can table in this House that states you have met the prerequisite that is stated clearly in the act?

What is the Boundaries Commission report he refers to? Point of Order Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, it is a well-founded, long-standing principle of parliamentary democracy, a rule of this House, that a question cannot ask for a legal opinion. I refer to Beauchesne's Citation 410 (13 ): "Questions should not seek a legal opinion or inquire as to what legal advice a minister has received."

December 4, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 489 Mr. Speaker: The honourab le Official Opposition House Leader, on the same point of order. Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of occasions that there have been legal opinions tabled in this House when requested, both when we were in government and when they were in government. Just as a matter of fact, the Premier (Mr. Doer) tabled a legal opinion just last fall to try and cover up for one of his ministers. Mr. Speaker: Order.

On the point of order raised by the honoura ble Government House Leader, it has been, in the past, ruled both ways. When I was faced with this ruling, what I ruled at that time was that I would leave it up to the minister if he wished or not to table the legal opinion. I will stay consistent with my ruling. *** Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, we would appreciate if the minister would table that legal opinion, but would he confirm that it is the Norrie Commission report that he is basing his new boundaries on? Mr. Caldwell: I am pleased to know that members opposite even remember the Norrie Commission report.

It is certainly something that was undertaken under their watch and never acted upon. Mr. Gilleshammer: The media have noted his mangled English, but we will assume the answer was yes. Mr. Speaker, given the Norrie report is seven or eight years old and that you have followed virtually none ofthe recommendations, do you still maintain that you have complied with the act? Mr. Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, it is always a del ight to raise the level of debate in this Chamber. The people of the province of Manitoba have long expected some action on school boundaries.

This Government is taking action on something that should have been undertaken, again, under the watch of members opposite. School Divisions Amalgamation Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, this minister has yet to understand that he has to follow the law like everyone else. We know that he did not do it in flowing money to the Agassiz School Division, and now The Public Schools Act clearly indicates that his only power to amalgamate school divisions is if he has met the prerequisite of a review commission.

Is this minister now telling us that using a seven-year-old report he is not even following is going to be sufficient to make the prerequisite of the law? * (13: 55) Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education, Training and Youth): Mr. Speaker, what I am telling members opposite, as we have told members opposite on a number of issues in this House, is that we act in accord with the advice that we get from legal counsel. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, that matter will probably be decided by the courts at some point.

I want to ask the minister: If he has relied on the Norrie report as a prerequisite, why did he exclude the Pointe du Bois special revenue district from joining Agassiz, which would have brought two hydro dams and a town as additional tax revenue to the Agassiz School Division? Why did he ignore the Norri e report and exclude it? Mr. Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that begs the question why members opposite ignored a commission that spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' money on having a report submitted to this Legisla tive Chamber. Mr.

Praznik: Will the minister confirm that the reason why he excluded the Pointe du Bois special revenue district is he did not want the City of Winnipeg to pay its fair share of tax to the people of Agassiz? Mr. Caldwell: I will advise the member from Lac du Bonnet that we are acting in the best interest of the people of Agassiz. Taxation Equity The Pas Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of

490 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 4, 200 1 Finance. During the last election, the Premier (Mr. Doer) said he would bring tax equity to The Pas to address the present inequity in sales and gasoline taxes in this region. A year ago the Minister of Northern and Aboriginal Affairs (Mr. Robinson) repeated this commitment by the Government, yet there has been no change in two years. Recently we have heard of a major investment in The Pas, the: Canadian Tire store, which has been cancelled, many believe because the provincial government has failed to carry out its promise.

I ask the Minister of Finance to admit that tax uncertainty deters investment and that his Government, by failing to deliver on its election promise to the people in The Pas region, has created the tax uncertainty which hampers investment. Ron. Greg Selinger (Mhllister of Finance): thank the member from River Heights for his question on the tax situation in The Pas area. As you know, we have a situation there where the First Nations run facilities «md charge taxes, and we offer a rebate on those taxes to those organ izations that do that so that they can have a level playing field.

That is an option we have had on the table for the last year. It simply requires the interest of the First Nation to act on it and that would solve the problem. Fortified Buildings Act The Pas Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): My supplementary question on the investment cli mate in The Pas, to the Minister of Justice.

Will the new Fortified Build ings Act apply in parts of the community or all of it, and what arrang ement or agr eement is there with the First Nation community or the ft!deral government to ensure a fortified building in The Pas does not just move across the river and cause economic, social and investment problems for the people in the Opaskwayak Cree Nation? Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear there is some interest in that legisla tion from the Opposition benches and I would urge members opposite to get the bill moving to committee.

We can have a discussion on that bill and we can address public safety. Taxation Equity The Pas Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the Minister of Conservation. I ask the minister: What is he doing to aid the situation in The Pas, where there are inequities of delivery of taxes and justice that are limiting economic and social development in the community he represents and that these problems are a direct result of the failure of his Government to carry out the election promises of two years ago? Hon. Oscar Lathlin (Minister of Conservation): I think the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Sel inger) has responded to the question adequately. What he described is exactly what is going on right now in The Pas, the OCN and so on. I meet regularly with the mayor and council of the Town of The Pas, the R.M. of Kelsey and the leadership of the Opaskwayak Cree Nation. I know that all three sides have been working together to come up with a common solution. I would suggest very strongly to the Member for River Heights that he not go into The Pas and try to- * (14: 00) Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Lathlin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was about to conclude, I would strongly suggest to the Member for River Heights that he not go into the community of The Pas and try to create division. Housing Initiatives Impact on Property Values Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, in 19 93 the federal Mulroney Conservative government cut all funding for social housing in Canada and immediately the provincial Fil mon Conservative government cut social housing in Manitoba with the result that for the next six years there was a decline in property values in

December 4, 200 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 491 the inner city, including my house which lost $1 1, 000 in assessed value, but more importantly thousands of people in the inner city lost millions of dolla rs in the assessment of their house-[interjection] Because the Filmon Conservative government did not care- Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne 410 states that the question should not have a long

preamble. They should be carefully drawn out. I do believe the honourable member has gone on quite long enough. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Burrows, on the same point of order. Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, it is actual ly 409(2), and if the member had been listening carefully he would have heard one caref ully drawn sentence. His real problem is that he was part of that government and he is embarras sed and does not like the question. Mr. Speaker: Order. On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, he does have a point of order. Beauchesne Citation 409(2): A

preamble should not exceed one carefully drawn sentence. I ask the honourable Member for Burrows to please put his question. *** Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Family Services and Housing. Can the minister tell the House what has happened to property values in the inner city as a result of our initiatives in housing since October 19 99? Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Family Services and Housing): The data from the Winnipeg Real Estate Board is really quite encouraging. In 19 99, average sale price in West Broa dway was about $23,700. This year $35,000 -almost 300.

That is an increase in two years of about 60 percent. But more importantly, houses only stayed on the market for about half the time that they were on the market in 19 99, 74 days versus 13 2 days. In the core area, the central Exchange District, which is 9A for the Real Estate Board, the increase has been from $1 6,000 to $27,000 over the same period of time. In the North End, it is a little less but its work, it is going in the right direction. It is about a 14 % or 15 % increase in the same period of time. So we are moving in the right direction. The neighbourhoods are reclaiming their neighbourhoods.

They are safer; they are better places to live. That is our policy. School Divisions Amalgamation Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): My question is for the Minister of Education. The minister says he is very concerned about the taxpayers of Agassiz.

I want to ask him: In his decision to amalgamate the Whiteshell School District into the new Agassiz School Division, was he aware that he may be triggering the end of the master agreement and that there is $1.3 million a year of funding from the federal government through AECL for education, that there is $1. 2 million of capital debt that would have to be assumed by a new school division or the Province? Was he aware of those numbers when he made that decision? Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education, Training and Youth): There are a number of assumptions there.

If the member had read the press release from November 8, when we announced the amalgamations, we made it clear that amalgamation in regard to Whiteshell, Pinawa are long-term ongoing initiatives. I do not expect, frankly, any significant change to take place in those divisions until the AECL agreements are redone. Mr. Praznik: The minister, with much fanfare, issued a press release-it is a new question-in which he said very clearly that Pine Falls and Whiteshell school divisions would be amalgamated into Agassiz. He did not follow the Norrie report.

He excluded Turtle River, he excluded Intermountain, he excluded Seven Oaks, he excluded St. James-Assiniboia, all that gave the New Democrats problems. Why then in his press release did he not clearly exclude these two school divisions,

492 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 4, 200 1 because these are extremely complicated and long-term negotiations? Mr. Caldwell: Of course, this Government took instruction from the Norrie: report. I think within a month of my appointm:!nt as minister, there were a number of press comments in that regard. The Norrie report, we felt, at least I felt, had some useful advice.

We will, in terms of Pine Falls and Whiteshell, and I have my press release in my hand, and the background is attached, and I will quote directly from it: With respect to the Pine Falls and Whiteshell school divisions, the amalgamation process will require more time to complete than other divisions. Both divisions have special funding arrange ments and must be preserved whille amalgamation is discussed. The member could perhaps read the press release and stop fear mongering. Mr. Speaker: Order. It seems after question No. 7, members are rising on new questions.

I would just like the co-operation of all honourab le members. When I recognize the honourable member from !the constituency and when they state that they are rising on a new question, please give me a chance to respond back. Mr. Praznik: On a new que:stion, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The honourab le Member for Lac du Bonnet, on a new question. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, the people of the Whiteshell School District, their school board and their town certainly do not share the same view that this is some long term.

They believe from their conversations, from the corre spondence they receive, from the minister requesting them to attend meetings with Agassiz School Division, that he is on the trend to take this to amalgamation by Octob er. * (14 :10 ) Is this minister prepared to bac kfill the $1. 3 million of lost revenue so that it is not placed on the backs of the taxpayers of Beausejour, Brokenhead and Lac du Bonnet? Is he putting that at risk? Mr. Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, it was not long ago in recent memory that the member was asking us to pull hundreds of thousands of dollars out of Agassiz School Division.

It gets a little confusing to be answering questions out of both sides of the members opposites' mouths. We are interested on this side of the House in government, in providing educational stabil ity, in providing program accountability, in providing fiscal accountability for taxpayers of the province of Manitoba, and we are acting on those bases in all of our actions. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, on a new question. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet, on a new question. Mr. Praznik: I would like to table a letter from a concerned citizen, an accountant, an individual who understands these issues.

It is a letter written to the Minister of Education, so obviously his press release has caused quite a concern in that area. It says very clearly, it refers to the $2 milli on of revenue for schools and municipalities coming from AECL. He asks this minister what he is doing and indicates: If the local taxpayers had to pick that up, it could add $3 ,000 a year for HOPE. I ask this minister again: If his intention was to have a process that did not deal with this today, why did he even include it in his press release? Mr. Caldwell: Mr.

Speaker, we do not believe in doing anything precipitous on this side of the House. We believe in ensuring stability as we move forward with tra nsitions in the public school sector. We believe in fiscal accounta bility, and we also believe in long-term planning, something that was woefully inadequate under members opposite. Long-term planning would indicate that we should encourage discussions between school boar ds. That is exactly what we are doing. Adult Learning Centres Enrolment Figures Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education, Training and Youth): Mr. Speaker, I had items

December 4, 200 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 493 taken under notice last Wednesday by my collea gue, the Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak), who was sitting in for me when I was attending to some other business. Items taken as notice: First, a question on enrolment. Current projections indicate that there will be approximately 5000 full-time equivalents in adult learning centres this year. That number may rise because the centres have the option of having ongoing intake during the school year.

A higher enrolment does not result in higher funding, as was once the case, because we have moved away from a per-pupil funding arra ngement, Mr. Speaker, to a progra m-based funding arrang ement. HOPE Learning Centre Locations Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education, Training and Youth): A second item taken as notice on Wednesday by my collea gue, the Minister of Health, was in regard to HOPE sites in 2000-200 1. The Auditor's report, on page 19 , mentions HOPE sites out of Morris-Macdonald School Division.

It was available on the public record; eight HOPE sites were under the Morris-Macdonald School Division, two were in Winnipeg 1. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. School Divisions Amalgamation Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): My question is to the Minister of Education, and I quote the Norrie report, page 76: Matching of education and municipal boundar ies, wherever possible, can contribute to simplicity and understanding by taxpayers and electors and economies in preparation of lists of eligible voters and the conduct of elections themselves. The minister called this useful advice.

Does he recognize that the carving up of the R.M. of Springfield is inconsistent with the Norrie report? Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education, Training and Youth): Well, Mr. Speaker, I am astonished that we have a new-found respect for the Norrie report from members opposite who commissioned the report at some hundreds of thousands of dollars and then promptly ignored it for the rest of their mandate. We are informed and take instruction from the Norrie report, as members of government should when they commission a report.

We are moving in a very proactive fashion, not a precipitous fashion, in amalgamating approx imately 30 percent of the school divisions in the province of Manitoba. We think that is a balanced approach and a modest approach and one that is in keeping with our belief in accountability and stability in the public school system and putting dollars into the classrooms where they belong. Mr.

Schuler: To the Minister of Education: Does the minister believe that transferring about 99 percent of the costs and only 85 percent of the revenue from the R.M. of Springfield will be something positive for the children and the taxpayers of the new Agassiz School Division? Mr. Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I believe that wherever we have acted in this regard, we have acted in the best interests of children in enhancing classroom resources and in enhancing program opportunities for children. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Mr.

Darren Praznik (Deputy Opposition House Leader): We just want to make sure that what the Member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) said was that in exchange for cutting Springfield up, removing a sizeable part of tax' revenue with those students is because that area is an industrial area, and his area is entitled to it. Is that what it is really about? Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind all honourable members that points of order are to raise to the Speaker's attention the breach of a rule or the use of unparliamentary language, not to be used for debate.

The honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet did not have a point of order. ***

494 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Decemb er4, 200 1 Mr. Speaker: The holll ourable Minister of Education, to conclude his comments. Mr. Caldwell: Over the last two years, Mr. Speaker, this Government has invested in capital infrastructure improvements in our public school system at histork levels to rectify a historic deficit that membc�rs opposite left to the people of Manitoba. We have invested in the public school system's operating side at historic levels to ensure that there is stability and quality resources in the public school system.

In each and every instmce, we have acted in the best interests of children. Mr. Schuler: I ask the Minister of Education: Why does he go against The Public Schools Act? Why is he going against the Norrie report, which he called useful advice? Why are he and the Member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) out to punish the children and the taxpayers of the new Agassiz School Division? Why is punishment politics being practised by this Government? Mr. Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Springfield heckles that he is fighting for his children in Springfield.

I would suggest that if he was fighting for, if the member cared about his children and students in his school division, he would join this side of the House, because this Government is investing in public education, something that did not occur in this province for 13 years. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. Speaker's :Ruling Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling for the House. During Oral Questions on November 26, 200 1, the Official Opposition House Leader (Mr. Laurendeau) raised a point of order concerning the honourable Premier (Mr.

Doer), indicating that he was taking the specifics of a question as notice and then going on to provide an answer. The honourable Government House Leader (Mr. Mackintosh) al:so spoke to the same point of order. * (1 4:20) I took the matter under advisement in order to review the matter. In reviewing Hansard for November 26, the honourable Premier is recorded as stating on page 35 6: I will take the specifics as notice. He then began to provide an answer to the question. Historically, according to Manitoba practice, when ministers take questions as notice, no other answer is required at that time.

Speaker Dacquay ruled on March 18, 19 97, that when ministers take questions as notice, no further comment is required. Additionally, I ruled on December 14 , 2000, that when ministers take questions as notice there should be no post-amble to taking the question as notice. My

interpretation of the practice of taking questions as notice incorporates all aspects of questions, including specifics. Therefore, it would be appreciated when ministers take questions as notice they do not go on to supply an answer to the question taken as notice. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Opening of Gurdwara Kalgidhar Darbar Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on Sunday I was delighted to have the opportunity to attend a wonderful ceremony. It was an opening of a new Gurdwara.

It was an opportunity to celeb rate with the Sikh community, their growing community, and some of the vibrant things that they are doing in Manitoba. I was quite taken aback when we went back into the Gurdwara and had a chance to see some of the families. There are some 200 families that are a part of this celebra tion. It is a growing community. I think that when you look at the young families that were present, it really shows the importance that the Sikh community plays not only in Winnipeg but clearly throughout Manitoba.

The one thing that is very clear to me, and I talked with some of the family members there, is that they know full well that children are always the main importance of family, because it is at that level, it is at that young level that they are able to talk about education. They are able to talk about all of the things that all

December 4, 200 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 495 child ren throughout whether it is Winnipeg, Manitoba or Canada, that they find important, Mr. Speaker, and it is at that very early level of education that all young families can come together. Clearly in this particular Gurdwara that is what was taking place. They are going to be celebrating sporting events; they are going to be celebrating family events; they are going to be celebrating opportunities to eat. So I would like to stand and give my blessing to the Gurdwara known as Kalgidhar Darbar.

I would also acknowledge on that day that it was the Guru Nanak Devgi who is the founder of the Sikh community. Thank you. Violence Against Women Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I rise today with the sombre task of reminding the members of the Legislature that the 12 th anniversary of the Montreal massacre is this Thursday, December 6, and has been named the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. The day, Mr. Speaker, marks the murder of 14 women at l' Ecole polytechnique in Montreal.

The women were almost all young engineering students just beginning their education, with their whole careers ahead of them. Sadly, despite increasing public awareness after the Montreal massacre, women acro ss the nation are still living with the spectre of violence. Last year, 86 percent of sexual assault victims were female. Between the spring of 19 99 and 2000, there were almost 10 0 000 admissions of women to women's shelters across Canada. The majority of those shelters are often so full that they are forced to tum others away.

On average, 10 0 women are killed and at least 1 in 10 is battered by their male partners or ex partners in this country annual ly. A Canadian woman is raped every 17 minutes. To address such sobering statistics, this Government has put in place several initiatives, not the least of which is recently announced money dedicated specifically to address domestic violence. The Manitoba government is investing over $1 million to agencies dealing with domestic violence to establish a men's resource centre for abusers and for the launch of a new public awareness campaign.

Such a multifaceted effort will help prevent domestic violence and help victims rebuild their lives. In closing, I wish to invite all members of the· Legisla tive Assembly to join the public for a sunrise breakfast here on December 6, at 7:30 a.m. The same evening, there will be a vigil here at the Legisla ture led by women. I urge all members of this Assembly to meet with their community members on the steps of the Legislature at seven that evening and join in demonstrating their commitment to ending all violence against women. Auto Theft Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): Mr.

Speaker, while in Opposition, the NDP was extremely critical of the former government on the issue of auto theft. During the 19 99 election campaign, they pledged to take measures to halt the increasing numbers of auto thefts in Manitoba, throwing around promises for programs like immediate neighbourhood notification when an auto theft occurs. Now, two years later, no such program or in fact any real effort to fight auto theft has emerged. Indeed, all that has happened is that the situation has grown even more dire.

In the year 2000, the province had the highest rate of auto theft in Canada, a statistic even more dismaying given that the national rate of thefts actually dropped 2 percent. Meanwhile, here in Manitoba, there was a more than 8% increase in the rate of auto thefts. Mr. Speaker, this is a trend that has blossomed under this Government's watch. Since the NDP came to power, the number of auto thefts in Manitoba has risen steadily. The Winnipeg Police Service has reported that in the city there is an average of one vehicle stolen per hour.

I know we all recall the last weekend in October when 13 9 cars were stolen in one four day period. Even more shocking were the events of this past weekend, when a 20-year-old man stole and crashed a car, seriously injuring his two female passengers. Taking away licences of car thieves, while a small step in the right direction, offers no meaningful consequences in this growing epidemic.

496 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 4, 200 1 Mr. Speaker, the statistics and events I have mentioned are disturbing. What makes the situation even more appalling is the Minister of Justice's (Mr. Mackintosh) lack of meaningful action to curb the number of auto thefts in Manitoba. Auto theft is a very serious problem in this province. I am sure all Manitobans are looking forward to the day when the Govern ment honours its promise to protect them from those preying on their cars and on their peace of mind. Thank you. * (1 4:30 ) Community Connections Program Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to speak with n�gard to the recently opened public Community Connections computer site at the Good Neighbours Seniors Centre at 755 Henderson Highway. As part of a federal-provincial program,. this new computer service represents one of about 200 public computer sites in Winnipeg designed to provide Manitobans with access to electronic mail and the Internet. By the end of the year it is hoped that the joint program will have opened more than 600 of these new computer sites throughout the province.

The government program known as Community Connections is providing state-of the-art computer hardware and Internet access to various community sites ac ross the province to narrow the digital divide so that all people in Manitoba have access to the Web. By providing accessible and no-cost computer and Internet service to the public, the fe:deral and provincial governments hope to deliver information services to all Canadians. The Good Neighbours Seniors Centre received the nine new computers through a $25,000 grant, and more importantly, users are not charged for the service.

As a result, Manitobans who could not previously afford a computer now have acct�ss to e-mail and information services. In addition to the public services available. the centre will also be used to provide members classroom instruction on the fundamentals of computer use and eventually more advanced skills workshops. Furthermore, Community Connections is working to establish a central Web site that will service an electronic bulletin board with information about local community centres, businesses and government services.

An editorial board will also be part of the process and will ensure the content of the site is suitable and appropriate. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to have attended the opening. I would like to express my thanks to all who work toward ensuring no person is left behind as we continue to embrace the new digital age which will most certainly improve the lives of all Manitobans. Mr. Don Penny Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): I rise today to congratulate one Mr. Don Penny, Chairman of the Meyers Norris Penny LOP of Brandon on earning the honour of Outstanding Volunteer Fundraiser of the Year in Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, Mr. Penny was nominated by a group of volunteers and fundraisers from Brandon University for his many contributions, the most recent of which is BU's Success in Mind Campaign. He has been able to pull together all of the campaign's 35 volunteers to help make it the most effic ient campaign ever at BU, raising $6 million in just I 0 months. More than half of this money came from the private sector, which in turn helped raise the remainder from Government. The money will go towards scholarships, bursaries and research. The Outstanding Volunteer Fundraiser of the Year A ward is presented by the Manitoba

Chapter of the Associa tion of Fundraising Professionals. It is given to a person who has shown exceptional leadership and commitment as a volunteer fundraiser by motivating and inspiring oth�.:r vol unteers in successful fundraising projects. Mr. Penny received his award last Thursday at a National Phila nthropy Day ceremony in Winnipeg. Mr. Penny has helped to raise funds for numerous other university and community projects, including construct ion of a new li brary wing and computer lab at BU, restoration of BU's Clark Hall and the Keystone Centre expansion. He has also served with a number of

December 4, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 497 provincial and local organizations, including the Brandon University Foundation, Brandon United Way and YMCA. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba I would like to commend Mr. Penny on his many hours of volu nteer work and offer congratulations for winning this prestigious award. I wish him continued success. ORDERS OF THE DAY House Business Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please call debate on second readings in the order they appear on the order paper.

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bili 2-The Security Management (Various Acts Amended) Act Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on second reading Bill 2, The Security Management (Various Acts Amended) Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for River Heights, who has 25 minutes remaining. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I would like to conclude my remarks on the security bill with a cautionary note.

The security bill, while important as it is to put in place measures which will enhance security and enhance the health and safety of Manitobans, it is very important that we keep a perspective and that we do not go overboard, as the NDP are sometimes liable to do. Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair The note that I would like to sound and the story that I would like to remind members of is the story of swine flu in the United States in 19 76. Here was a situation where there was panic that there was a return of the 1918 influenza epidemic.

This was based, in retro spect, on a few cases of swine flu in Fort Dix and one soldier who had died. He had influenza. He had been out on manoeuvres and exercises, and this may have contributed as well.

But the fact is that based on this one death and a few cases of swine flu, there was mounted an enormous vaccination program costing some $13 5 million or so in the United States, that that vaccination program for swine flu resulted in an excessive number of cases of Guillain-Ba rre disease, a significant complication, which probably, in retrospect, looking back, numbered in the hundreds and that the swine flu never developed into an epidemic and probably, looking back, never was a major risk and was not, so far as we know, similar to what happened in 1918 .

The net result was that in the end, because of the cases of Guillain-Ba rre and other things, the United States government ended up paying out tens of millions of dolla rs, I think, in the end, somewhere between $80 million and $10 0 million in liabil ity claims and compensation for people who were vaccinated for an epidemic which never occurred . It is occasions like this that remind us to be cautious in overreacting to a situation which has arisen.

We need, as we consider this bill which deals with enhancing security, to look very carefully at what is in the bill, measure by measure, and make sure that we have a responsible bill which addresses the changing environment but which does not overreact and result in huge, extra, unnecessary expenditures because of that overre action. Those are the points that I would like to raise on this bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thank you. Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): I do want to put some words on the record with regard to Bill 2.

It has been identified by a number of members already, certainly this bill reflects on the actions that we all witnessed, those horri fic acts of terrorism on September 11 , events that will be imprinted on our thoughts and on our brains and on our way of life well into the future. In fact, those events have changed our way of life. They have changed our way of thinking, and they have changed the way that this Legislature and other legisla tures will need to approach the safety and security of the citizens of our jurisdictions.

498 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 4, 200 1 I myself was, on that fateful day-as a family we were standing in our kitchen just finishing off breakfast and getting the kids ready for school. We had the TV on, as we usually do, to check the weather, and as we passed the CNN cha nnel, we saw a picture, an image, of one of the towers, and smoke bil lowing out. You could not really see flames, but for some reason, there was smoke bil lowing out. The first comment we heard was that a small plane had crashed into one of the towers of the Trade Center.

We were, as a family, watching with interest what was going on, and we were horrified by what we were seeing, but we at that point did not understand the reality of what had happened. * (14 :40) It was not too long, within a minute or two, that we saw the unbelieva ble. Out of the comer of the TV screen came a jet, and that jet, obviously a very, very large plane, flew directly into the second tower in New York.

It was a horrific moment that we all witnessed as a family, and certainly our thoughts at the time were just sheer horror at what we were witnessing, as well as trying to wrack our brains to try and figure out if we knew anybody that might be trapped in those buildings, who might be in those buildin gs. We have acquaintanc es and friends and business associates that have family, friends that work in New York.

I know, as a family, we were just kind of standing there stunned, trying to sort through in our brains whether, in fact, somebody that we knew personally -fortunately, there was not, but that does not make this any less of an horrific event. Our thoughts go out, and our hearts went out then. They still go reach out to our neighbours to the south of us who have had to deal with this horrific event, who have had to deal with the loss of lif e, that had to deal with the clean-up.

I think, like most Manitobans, our reaction was we have friends, we have family, we have loved ones in the U.S., and what could we do to support them. I think we have to, all in this House, as Manitobans and as Canadians, do whatever possible to support our neighbours and our loved ones in those times of tragedy. So that just puts some perspective, I guess, on some of the comments that I will make about Bill 2.

It is a response to, as I said, a horrific act that took place, a horrific act of terrorism, one that cannot be undone, but, hopefully, one that, through co operation between countries all over the world, we can finally realize the breadth and the depth that terrorists will go to to make their point.

Hopefully, by understanding that, having a better understanding of that as citizens of the world, we will be able to put a dent into terrorism all across the world and be able to find ways, both through security, through mil itary and through the way we live our lives on a daily basis, to ensure that we are able to put a stop to terrorism.

The bill itself addresses some points that need to be addressed, I think, particularly as it deals with some of the issues on the health side and what we need to do in this community should we have a situation where we have an outbreak of anthrax or something equally as sinister. I think that is important. More importantly, I think it important that we not pass legis lation in a rush. We have to take our time. We have to review the legisla tion. We have to make sure that there is lots of time for public input.

We have to make sure that the professionals that have to deal with the results of any changes of legis lation, those in the health care profession, those that are involved in emergency responses, our security personnel, the fire commiss ioners, et cetera, we have to make sure that they have had an opportunity to understand what this legis lation is contemplating changing and what the long-term effects of this legisla tion will actually be. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is why we, as a party, immediately after September 11 , agreed to work closely with the Premier (Mr.

Doer) and with the Government on an all- party security commission. At the time, we indicated that we agreed there likely would be the need for legisla tion to be brought forward in this House, and we called on the Pr emier and his Government to draft that legis lation and to show it to the all- party commission on security so that we could quickly come to an understanding of what this Government had in mind with regard to legisla tion that was going to have to be changed to deal with the realities of the world after September 11 . We did that because we

December 4, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 499 knew that when we got into this House, we would only have until December 6 to go through this legisla tion if we wanted to pass it in this sitting. I think it is unfortunate that two things happened, in par ticular: One, the all-pa rty committee on security, for the most part, dealt with other issues in the first weeks of its formati on. I know it met weekly, did not focus or did not discuss any of the issues that rela te to t}le legisla tion that we have before us today.

So as members of the Legisla ture, or as even our leader, who sat on the committee, at caucus meetings, kept having to inform us that, unfortuna tely, he was not aware of the informa tion that might come forward in this legislation. The legisla tion had not been shared with him, either in its final form, or in the draft, or in the sta tement of intent by the Premier of this province. So we were left hanging out there, knowing that there was a need to pass some legislation but not knowing what type or shape that legisla tion would take .

On a number of occasions, we called for the House to resume as quickly as possible with the Throne Speech, so we would have time to deba te this and other pieces of legisla tion that the Government indicated they were going to bring forward . In its wisdom, the Government decided that they would not recall this House until November 13. Unfortunately, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that has left very little time to deal with any issue in this House other than the issue of the Throne Speech, and that is unfortunate. [interjection] Well, the members opposite want to heckle and talk about, you know, we have a fa ll session like this is some great and wonderful event that we have had a fa ll session. There was no reason to not call this session earlier. This session could have been called- An Honourable Member: In July. Mr. Loewen: Well, it could have been called in the middle of September .

It could have been called in early October, but this Government started from the back, worked its way forward and basically worked out the shortest possible session that we could have so that they could still stand up and say, oh, we had a fa ll session. Then they come to the House, you know, they refuse to share the intent of the legisla tion. They refuse to identify in any way to the all party committee what the legisla tion is going to look like, what acts are going to have to be amended, and now they seem somewhat outraged that this bill will not just pass in the dark of the night. They seem outraged that (

a) we on this side of the House want to speak to the bill, (

b) we want to take the bill back to our constituents, and (

c) we want to get expert input into the contents of the bill through the legisla tive committee process. We want to take some time and look at where the legisla tion is good, where the legisla tion may need amendment, and after that and only after that, I believe all members of this House will be prepared to pass this bill quite likely in a unanimous way. * (14:50) So I would say to this Government that in the spirit of co-operation we, on this side of the House, are more than willing to co-oper ate with the Government in the passage of bills that work out for the betterment of Manitobans.

In fac t, there have been a number of cases in the past where we on this side of the House have worked in co-operati on with the Government. In fa ct, we have a bill before us right now which is put to this House as new legisla tion but is really just a copy of an amendment which we introduced to a bill in the last session which the Government refused to accept because, of course, they could not accept an amendment from the Opposition. They had to tum it around, vote the amendment down, and then come back in with identical legislation this fa ll and call it their own. That is not really a spirit of co-operati on.

We are will ing to work with this Government in a co-operative fa shion, colla borate with them to create a bill that will deal with the needs in this province that resulted from the horrific acts on September 11 , but we have said this, we have been consistent with this from day one, we will only do so if proper process is followed, if time is allowed, and if the public and the experts that want to provide informa tion on this bill, want to speak to this bill, want to have input on this bill, those people are given the time to prepare to provide that

500 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 4, 200 1 input to us as legislators. That is all we are asking for this bill. That is all we are saying for this bill. If this Government is in such a rush that they feel it is so important to pass this bill, they have the right to recal l this Legislature in January. As a matter of fact, they can recal l it next week if they want. That is up to them. So while in principle, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are a number of issues that I and other members on this side of the House support with regard to this bill, there are some issues that we take with it.

Most importantly, we take issue with the Government's approach to this bill. One should never act precipitously, particularly in times of extreme danger and extreme stress, and that seems to me what is put before us today: a response to the terrorist activities that have taken place. In fac t, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh) himself said that Manitoba and Manitobans are low risk. We are a low-risk jurisdiction in terms of terrorist activity. Now that does not mean we should not be prepared. We should be prepared.

We should be doing all that we can do to prevent any acts of terrorism, to prevent any ac ts that would lead to terrorism anywhere else in North America and in fact anywhere else in the world, but it does not mean that we should just ram legislation through this House, legislation that has not been given due process, that has not been well thought out, so that the Government can stand up and say: We did something. Well, the Government has had lots of time to do something. As I have said, they could have called the House back in September, and we would have had lots of time. An Honourable Member: Or July. Mr.

Loewen: Well, the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) says "July ." This is the same minister that, I believe, has contravened The Public Schools Act on three, if not four, different occasions. I would like to remind the minister that the acts of terrorism did not happen until September 1I . So if he wants to be fac etious about it and make a joke about the events of September II , well, maybe he can stand up and do that, but, you know, that is typical. It is idle chatter on behalf of the Minister of Education. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, with regard to the bill itself, there are a number of technical issues with the bill that this Government will need to address and likely need to amend. I am sure there will be people coming to committee to request that this bill be amended. Again, I would hope that the very serious nature of the events on September II would lead this Government to do the right thing, that is, to

schedule committee meetings at times when people can make rational presentations, not force people to be sitting at committee all through the night, particularly with regard to this piece of legislation. This legislation, I bel ieve, incorporates changes into, I think it is nine acts, all of which need to be reviewed in detail. As I said, and as the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Mackintosh) has indicated to this House on more than one occas ion, while we do have a heightened sense of the threats to our peace and security, we have to balance that with the fact that we are, in fac t, not a high-risk jurisdiction with regard to acts of terrorism.

So I think it behooves us to take some time with this bill and to make sure, because this bill will be with us for a long time, that we will do it right and get it right and that, hopefully, in an overzealous attempt to rush something through this House that we will not impose hardships on municipal ities, on individuals, or remove freedoms from individual Manitobans in terms of how they go about their daily lives, whether it is the way they earn their incomes or in any other way.

In particular, I think we have to take a very, very hard look at why we would want to change The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Act to refer to contaminants as opposed to hazardous waste. "Contaminants" is a very, very broad term. That is really the trouble that I have with a Jot of this legislation. It is far too broad in its scope, so broad that it could be interpreted by many individuals who might simply be believing they are operating in the best interests of the province enforcing rules that make no common sense. That certainly is one of the dangers of chang ing the wording of hazardous waste to

December 4, 2001 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 501 contaminants, because there is no real definition of contaminants that eliminates the normal acti vities that many citizens in this province undertake on a day-to-day basis. We deal with contaminants all the time, when we are spraying our gard ens, when we are fogging for mosquitoes, when we are even app lying mosquito spray on one of those hot, humid summer nights when we are trying to enjoy the great outdoors, whether in the city of Winnipeg or outs ide. Unfortuna tely, we do have to deal with those little pests called mosquitoes.

Try as we might, we do not seem to be able to eliminate them, but the wording of this bill could be interpreted as having an effect on how we deal with that. Now I understand that taking it to that extreme would be very, very radical on anyone's part, but if we do not want to take it to that extr eme, why would we introduce legislation that could take it to that extrem e?

Why do we not either broaden the definition of hazardous waste or narrow the definition of contaminants so that people have a clear understanding of what this legisla tion is at tempting to accom plish? * (15: 00) Now, I am not as fam iliar as many members in this House and many members on this side of the House in particular with all the ram ifications to the farm community with regard to the issues, particularly as it applies to The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Act, but, cert ainly, in their daily requirements, they are dealing with contaminants, have dealt with products that would be classified as contaminants for years .

They have developed systems that for the most part work well, work saf ely, and allow them to go about their daily business of producing the crops and the food. It is necessary to underpin our economy. So why, I would ask the Government, would we want to introduce legisla tion that would put an extra burden on the far mers in our prov ince? Certainly, they have got enough burdens on them alrea dy.

Do we think it is necessary for each far mer in the province of Manitoba to develop a plan to deal with fertilizers and to deal with the storage of all the products and, in fa ct, deal with some of the crops that may for one reason or another be contaminated through rot or through wet ness? It just seems very, very onerous. That is the style of this Government, which is what worries me about introducing this type of legislation. We see it in the workp lace.

We see the Government and its overze alousness to build up the Department of Labour, going around insisting that businesses, many of them small, many of them could be classified as mom-and pop operations, develop safety plans for every piece of work that is done. The Government can be heavy-handed and the Government can come down hard and the Government can hire inspectors to go out and ensure that these safety pla ns are written, but at the end of the day they get filed in a drawer and we get back to what keeps us going, what keeps workplaces safe in the first place. That is simply common sense.

That is where we must get to in all portions of this bill that deal with security management and the safety of our citizens. We must get back to common sense, to what is doable. We cannot legislate against all acts of terro rism. We do not think like terrorists. We do not know how terrorists think. We do not understand how terrorists think. Thank goodness for that.

So I do not understand why in this bill we would try to make the legisla tion so broad that we would have a negative impact on a very large segment of our society that simply wants to get back to as normal a life as possible, given the events of September 11 . With regard to The Emergency Measures Act, there are a number of questions regarding the necessity of this legisla tion. In fa ct, in this parti cular piece of it, I think the Government would do well to take the bill back and maybe rethink their approach.

What they have done is ba sically carved up responsibilities between the fire commissioners and the EMO. The danger there is that you create this two-headed monster, neither of which head takes ultima te responsibility for emergency measur es. That again is just basic common sense. You cannot have a situation where you have two people, two organizati ons, two bodies in charge of the same thing without something fal ling through the cracks .

502 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 4, 200 1 At the end of the day, the ultimate responsibility has to lie within one body, within one organization, and that organization needs to draw on the resources that are available to it throughout the whole province and needs to have the authority to bring those other organizations to heel if they are not complying with their needs in order to make sure that we are as prepared as we can be for an event that we all hope and pray we will never see.

So I would urge the Government particularly to look at the changes they are making to The Emergency Measures Act, to take that back to the Cabinet table, take that back to the resources that they have in their departments and to insist that this legisla tion come back to this House and be presented in such a fashion that it is very clear to everybody involved, to people in Government, to members of the Assembly, to people outside of Government, to make it very, very clear as to who is responsible for the management of emergencies in this provinc e. I believe, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that then and only then will we see the type of planning and the type of resources that are needed to ensure that we can be prepared as much as possible. I have said before that we cannot be prepared for everything. Unfortunately, we will not be able to think of every situation, and that was obvious by the acts of September 11 .

I mean, on September I 0, did anybody in the world outside of the terrorist organizations really believe that somebody would hijack a jumbo jet and fly it into a building, let alone hijack four jumbo jets at the same time, the purpose being to fly all of those into a building or buildin gs to create mass destruction and death? No. No, we could not think of that.

We will not be able to think of every horrific act before the terrorists in this world come up with it, but what we should be able to do is through organizing ourselves properly and through creating a body which has not only the responsibil ity but the resources necessa ry to see that we are prepared in cases of emergencies. by doing that and by giving it the authority that it needs to carry out its task at hand, then, hopefully, we will be as prepared as we can be for anything that may happen within the province of Manitoba.

Again, part of the issue of dealing with emergency measures is to make sure that that group and that body that takes total responsibil ity understands that it has the responsibil ity and that it cannot lay off that responsibility anywhere else. Again, when you look at this

section of the act, it is clear that the intent of this act is to make the local authorities responsible for their emergency plans. They should be involved in the creation of their emergency plans, but the single body, the single entity should be responsible for ensuring that there is an emergency plan that covers all of those authorities and all of this province.

The way the act is worded, the way it has been presented, I do not think there will be any hope that we will be well positioned to deal with the possible emergency that may result from terrorist ac tivities in the future. * (15:10 ) In fact, I think the way this portion of the act is worded, it will ensure that all we get is a number of departments and jurisdictions fighting over who has the authority, who has the responsibilit y and who should do what, and, as I prefac ed in my remarks, we will end up with at least a two-headed monster and possibl y more than that.

I think, with regard to the changes in The Manitoba Evidence Act, there needs to be some clarification to that as well, because there are concerns that there will be some very significant infringements on human rights if this legisl ation is passed in the manner in which it has been presented to this House. I think the last thing we want to do is in haste create legisl ation that amends

an act that will result in a challenge to that amendment in the courts . That may well be what we are headed for with regard to the changes to The Manitoba Evidence Act. It very clea rly gives some broad powers to ministers of the Crown or of ficials of the court in terms of the dealing with evidence and in terms of the ability that either the individuals may have in seeing evidence or the admissibilit y of that evidence. We could be heading down a very nightmarish road here if we simply pass the

December 4, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 503 am endments as provided here .

We need time to have the legal community, perhaps even the law association, take a look at this legisla tion and give us their input and advice in terms of the legality of some of the amendments that the minister is seeking in this legisla tion because, as I said earlier, I do not think we want to end up in a situation where we pass legisla tion dealing with security and then six months later end up in a situation where we have to go to the courts for clarification on whether in fa ct the am endments that were made were constitutional or not.

So I would encourage the Government to get some well -reasoned, well-t hought-out legal adv ice in terms of the constitutionality of all of the issues that they are at tempting to deal with under the amendments to The Manitoba Evidence Act. With regard to the amendments to The Fires Prevention Act, again, this needs to be well co ordinated with the emergency measures organiza tions. I do not think there has been time for a proper analysis of all of that . This bill deals with The Pesticides and Fertilizers Control Act. This is possibly the area that is going to present the most difficulty for this Government.

I know that there has certai nly been a lot of comments. We have had a lot of comments fr om people in the industry who have indicated that this bill is going to be simply too onerous on individuals who are involved in spraying and, in par ticular, aerial spraying. Certain ly, they will bring those concerns forward at the committee process, and they deserve to be heard .

They deserve an opportunity to present their case, and they deserve an opportunity for the Government to listen to what it is they have to say and to look very, very closely at how the Government's amendments will aff ect their ability to carry on their business. This is, I think, proba bly within this act the prime exa mple of how, however well- intentioned, the heavy hand of government can negatively impact on individuals' lives. We are all a ware of the threat of anthrax .

We are all aware of the concern after September 11 that was raised all across North America with aerial spraying and the ban that was put on aerial spra ying. We are concerned that proper steps be taken to ensure that citizens of Manitoba and citizens of all of North America are not ad versely aff ected by any act of terrorism that could use or could attempt to use aerial spraying equipment or any spraying equipment to commit

an act of terro rism anywhere in North America and particularly one that would be designed to use Manitoba as its base. So I would implore the Government to listen to what the industry has to say. They, no doubt, are · as concerned as we are about the future viability of their business. They are concerned about the sa fety and health of Manitoba ns. They are concerned about the safety and health of North Americans, of our fr iends and relatives to the south, and they will have solutions.

They themselves will provide the answers, but they deserve and they have the right to be consulted with, as opposed to simply being dealt with, which is what all this legisla tion does. This legislation has the heavy hand of government written all over it. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that my time is coming to an end. There are a number of other issues with regard to this bill that I have and which I will express either during committee or during third reading, but, again, on general principle- Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honoura ble member's time has expired. Mr. Loewen: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr.

Deputy Speaker: Before recognizing the honoura ble member to speak on Bill 2, is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing in the name of the honoura ble Member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Smith)? Some Honourable Members: Leave . Mr. Deputy Speaker: Leave has been gran ted. Mr. Harry Eons (Lakeside): Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is the kind of bill that I believe the old axiom holds true that we should remind ourselves of from time to time, and particularly you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, life, liberty and property are at risk whenever legisla tures sit.

I, along with my colleagues, on this side want to ack nowledge the need for some action on the part of the government of the day to respond to the issues that have prop elled us into

504 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 4, 200 1 making this kind of response. I do want to remind you I did not speak lightly in my opening comments, that history is full of legis lative acti ons, both provincially and nationally, that we have come to regret at a later date.

We raise them from time to time when we talk about basic, fundamental rights that we enjoy in this country and, quite frankly, is what this is all about and which we want to continue to enjoy. * (15: 20) I need not remind anybody really in this Chamber about what occurred under duress of wartime conditions of World War II, for instance, to Canadians of Japanese origin, Ukrainian origin, German origin, Italian origin, who found their rights severely and arbitrarily, I might add, swept aside. We do not have to go back that far. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I do not make a particular comment about these, but I know that it disturbed a number of Canadians, I might say, not myself, when Prime Minister Trudeau evoked the War Measures Act in 1972, when there was in his mind and in the minds of those more closely associated with the events of the disturbances in Ia belle province, Quebec, brought about by the organization then known as the FLQ, the cost of lif e of a provincial Cabinet minister, that took into custody in a kidnapping fashion of a senior dipl omat, and, obviously, something had to be done, and the War Measures Act, which, by the way, is still on our books, was imposed.

For some of my friends, it did not have to take war that brought about regrettable ac tion. This instance in the provincial legisla ture-I speak to the Member for Rossmere (Mr. Schel lenberg), who should have an interest in this. A provincial legis lature in this great country of Canada took away the vote from Mennonites in 1933 and it was not restored until 1948, if you can believe it. When you think about it now, I mean, it is unheard of. But that happened, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

So when you hear from this side of the House that there is a recognition that some action needs to be taken, but when we caut ion responsible prudence in how we address, try to reinforce our agenc ies that deal with issues surrounding security, that we do it responsibly, with responsible dispatch and not with undue haste. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, while I certainly do not profess to have any crystal ball or make any suggestion that we here in Manitoba can feel secure or safeguarded simply because we are not the financial centre of Canada, we are not a Toronto or Montreal or Vancouver with its airports, I think it is a reasonable supposition to take, however, that we are not a prime target, and that we can and we do have the opportunity to consider this kind of legisla tion, this very important kind of legisla tion, and give it all the conside ration and the opportunity for our citizens to fully appreciate and to fully understand.

And for us ourselves to educate ourselves by speaking to the various organizations that will be impacted, whether it is farm organizations, health organizations, judicial organizations. The general public at large should have an opportunity to examine the measures that are being proposed by this minister and by this Government. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I appreciate that this minister, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh), is in a haste to be counted among the first in the land with this kind of legisl ation.

I would probably even be a little bit more supportive of these efforts in his effort and this Government's efforts if he and his Government would have demonstrated some measure of politica l will to be among the first to root out the cause that brings this legisla tion to us. And I will take the time of the Chamber to remind us how isolated this Government really is in addressing that important situation, when given the opportunity to do so on the second day of this Legisla ture.

A simple resolution calling for the support of all Manitobans and the Legisla ture of Manitoba supportive in the efforts to stamping out global terrorism, which is the cause, which is the root. This is why this legisla tion is here. This is why we are debating it. But, no, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They could not bring themselves to do that for cras s poli tical reasons. They did not want to be out of step with their national party and their national leader, one Alexa McDonough . It is mind boggling when

December 4, 2001 LEGI SLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 505 you consider that in an unprecedented show of unity that this world has not seen, where countries like China, Russia, Japan, Europe, led by a soulma te of theirs, I might add, Prime Minister Tony Blair, Germany, France, Italy , all of them with a united voice supporting the efforts currently underway to stamp out international global terr orism, this Government could not support and did not support.

This Government could not stand up with civilized communities and countries of the world to Sllpport our national government and those efforts by upward to 2000 of our men and women in uniform to stamp out international terro rism. They rush in with legislation. They want to be first with the legis lati on. They want to impose more regulations on our citizens, but for the efforts on the part of our na tional government, Prime Minister Chretien and our 2000 men and women, they could not bring themselves about to support.

It really is mind-boggling when you just stop and think about it I want to come back to the country of Japan for a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and colleague s, that country, having witnessed the horrific cost of allowing itself to be run by a military dictato rship that brought on virtual destruction of that isla nd country during the Second World War, culminating in the horrific attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasa ki. When they built themselves up from the ashes of devasta tion of that war, they built right into their constitution that they could not be part of a military system of the world any longer.

They had severely, by the Japa nese constitution, limited their security forces that they call them for solely national defence purposes. That is why Japan has resisted strong pressures from the United States and other countries to join in NATO-like agre ements in the Asian sector. When the fear of communism was greater, the fear of Red China was greater, Japan has steadf astl y ref used to commit any military force or military presence anywhere in the world since it has re joined the nation of western democracies following the events of the Second World War. This issue, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, is so impor tant to the Japanese that they have amended their constitution and have sent a task force, a carrier. For the first time, Japanese military people are supporting the rest of the civilized world in sta mping out international terr orism, but our NDP government here in Manitoba could not support it Our NDP government here in Manitoba could not support the efforts to stamp out international terrorism.

That is why I look at this bill that is now before us, that is being rushed before us, and we are being asked to pass posthaste . [interjection] Well, four or five days for a ma jor piece of legislation is very hasty, is done with a great deal of haste . So, as I have said, if there would have been at least a willi ngness on the part of members opposite to support the root causes for this legisla tion and support our men and women who are trying to do something that this kind of legislation will never be needed, that surely is the aim for all of us. We do not want more big government looking over our shoulders.

We do not want more big government looking into the shops of our fa rm dealerships to see how they store fertilizer and something like that. We will accep t it if it is done right, but to make sure it is done right, we need considerable more time to look at the issues involved in this bilL An Honourable Member: It was November 16 . Mr. Enos: November 16 was what? An Honourable Member: For this bilL Mr. Eons: Is that right? An Honourable Member: You said three or four days. * (15: 30) Mr. Enos: Three or four days, so now it is November 19 . An Honourable Member: No, today is December 4. Get with it, Harry . Mr.

Enos: Mr. Deputy Speaker, what this kind of legisla tion requir es, and I am sur prised, I am getting letters to my office fr om sources that normal ly do not pay all that much at tention to what is going on in the Legisla ture, and are all of a sudden finding out to their shock and to their

506 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 4, 2001 horror that they had better start paying a lot more attention to it. My coll eague the Member for Emerson (Mr. Jack Penner) will have considerably more to say specifically about how it could impact-! say could because I do not know-but could impact on agricultural activities in the prov ince of Manitoba. I do know one thing, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want a bunch of urban armchair experts telling implement dealers, farmers and others what can fly and what cannot fly in agriculture . There is a need for this bill, and I am saying there is ample time.

There have been many occasions, and that is one of the true marvels [interjection} Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am just in the midst of such crossfire here, comments here, that I am being totall y-as you know, I have never been known to interrupt anybody else at Question Period or any other time. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Member for Lakeside has the floor. Mr. Enos: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Ms. Barrett) is baiting me. Recall how I started this speech. Life, liberty and property are at risk whenever legislatures sit.

I am afraid that we are talking here perhaps in the sense of the potential impact if used care lessl y or if powers are granted without proper insight into what and where they might lead . I do not fault this Government. I do not fault this minister for necessarily knowing precisely where they are lea ding. That is precisely why we operate the way we do. Legislation is introduced, it is debated in this Chamber, and then there is a normal period of time to take it out to the community, take it out to the interest groups, take it out to people who very often have some very constructive advice to offer us. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I want to tell you, I speak of some experience, that there have been numerous occasions, numerous occasions when governments and ministers, no matter how proud or good they felt about the legisla tion they were introducing, have not been-I do not even like to use the word "forced"-wise enough to accept the kind of advice that sometimes is received at committee, sometimes is received at public hearings, sometimes received just from individual citizens who take the time to study the bill, study the matters or even just one or two aspects of the matter, something that we with our overal l workload sometimes fail to fully appreciate or in fact fail to detect.

That is why commit tee stage of this bill is so important. This Government has done it. My government has done it. I appreciate that in many instances if they are bills of a housekeeping nature, we pass them through fairly summarily, the clerks can hardly pass the passages fast enough in committee stage when we holler pass, pass. I sometimes holler page, page, page, and there was a time when we said bill, bill, bill because we passed them that quickly. But every once in a while, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a bill of substance comes along. This is a bill of substance that requires considerably more study.

That is when sometimes even the time spent at commit tee, which I am very proud to say that this Legisla ture in Manitoba, I am told, maybe somebody could correct me, that we are one of the few legisla tures, and not the only one. that between second and third reading has the committee stage of the bill that is open to the public and public presentation, where presenta tions can be made to all aspects of the bill during that period of time. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we go one step further. This Government has done it or past NDP governments have done it, so it is not ground shattering, breaking new rules.

I know our governments of the past have done it, where we have not just taken the bill to committee, we have taken it outside. We have taken it to public hearings. We have taken it to community halls . We have taken it to wherever Manitoba citizens gathered and wanted to talk about the impact of this kind of legislation, and that is what needs to happen to this bill. That is what needs to happen to this bill. It is not reasonable to assume that this Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh), despite all the expert staff that he has in the department, or

December 4, 2001 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 507 that we as opposition members can fa thom all the potential dangers in the bill. They need not be dangers. They may be, as my colleague fr om River Heights earlier on in his comments said, just an unnecessa ry inconvenience or an unnecessary cost imposed on this system. The case that the Member for River Heights (Mr.

Gerrard) brought to our atte ntion clearly indicates that an overreaction to a potential fear or concern that, in effect, was not there, cost the ti!xpayers of that country hundreds of millions of dollars, vaccina ted hundreds of millions of people when they need not have been vaccina ted. With vaccinations there is always a danger. There is always that percentage figure of a bad reaction, as there was in the case alluded to by the Member for River Heights.

So, before I want to give, under this bill, the Health officials or other Justice officials carte blanche authority to do certain things, I want the oppor tunity for my Health critic to have a chance to fully examine the bill, to hear fr om the medical community, to hear from the health community the full ram ifications of these par ticular measure s. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is not a case of simply opposing a measure for opposition's sake. I take umbrage at the Minister of Justice who has introduced this bill in assuming that he wants to be among the first in the country to pass this kind of legisla tion.

Well, we do not get marks for being first. We get marks for passing good, sound, prudent legislation that our people and our citizens can live with. We are telling them, and we are serving notice on this Government and on this minister that the kind of legisla tion you put forward is such that requires considerably more time than you are currently indicating you are willing to provide to us.

We are indicating to you that we are going to do everything we can to ensure that the kind of scrutiny, the kind of oppor tunity for a lot of other people that this bill is going to impact on are going to have an oppor tunity to adv ise us and to adv ise the Government, to advise the Legis lature before we pass this legislation. Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are times when we have demonstrated, and that is not unique to this Legis lature. That is the case of most legisla ture s.

I know that the media reports fr om this Chamber, of course, highlight only those occasions when we oppose each other and oppose each other strenuously. The more stre nuously we oppose each other, the bigger are the headlines and the stori es sometimes. The truth of the matter is-[interjection] We will get to that, and we will get to the criminal fraud. We will get to the criminal fraud. I would be very nervous about that one. * (15: 40) While the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) speaks fr om his seat, let me assure him, I have never accused him of criminal fr aud.

I am just suggesting there is a great deal of criminal frau d in the matter that has occupied this Chamber for the last week or two, and he knows it. That is our job to ferret out, and we wilL Again, the forces opposite divert me from my focus and fr om my speech. I want to indicate, as I was indicating, that if you took a random count of the number of bills that are introduced at any given session-Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have been here for a number of years.

You will note that upwards to 70, 80, 85, perhaps even 90 percent of the legislation that is introduced by a government is supported by the Opposition and after a reasona ble amount of deba te is passed. You know that to be the case. There are, theref ore, relati vely few bills that an opposition that sees its responsibilities clearly in acting on behalf of the people of Manitoba will dig in and ask for time in some instances and then maybe come to agreement with fundamental parts of the legisla tion. We seek this time to make this a better bill. As I said earlier on, I would hate to be wrong on this one.

I do believe we have that time. In the first instance, some of the national umbrella legislation that has already passed the House has already been enacted in Ottawa, with respect to our borders, with respect to airline security, with respect to those broader things that impact on the country at lar ge. So the ra tionale for us to be rushing this legisla tion really is not there. We can and ought to and should take the time to ensure that the legislation that we pass,

508 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 4, 200 1 particul arly this kind of legis lation that deals directly with and has the impact of dealing directly on fundamental human rights and the way we do business and the way we conduct ourselves in this province, be done prudently and that it be done with a great deal of thought. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to put those comments on the record .

I would advise the Government and the minister, there is absolutely nothing lost in this instance for looking at this bill and bringing it to a conclusion when this opportunity of looking at it has in fact been fully exercised.

The practice that we had, and in fact it was a bit of an agreement that we had with the then opposition, the New Democr ats, when we were in government, the last Filmon government that I represented, is that we had kind of an understanding that we would introduce, in fact, we made a commitment that we would introduce as much legis la tion as possible in the pre Christmas session and then leave it and not proceed with it until we came back in spring, in March or April. That did two things.

That gave the opposition members and the individual critics an opportunity to not in haste but to have two or three months to look at that legisla tion, get familia r with that legislation. It gave the opposition a time to drum up support if there was opposition to the legisla tion among the general public. More importantly it gave the various organizations, the people and individual citizens time to understand what is being proposed in this Chamber. That in itself is not a bad format. I would recommend and suggest it to this Government.

We have agreed to more or less in terms of our sitting times in this Chamber that we will try. I do not think it is an iron-cast agreement, but I think the tradition established some time ago and one that this Government has carried out and appears to be willing to carry on, is to have rela tively short pre-Christmas sessions, just as we are having now, and then to resume the full business of the House, including the Budget and the departmental Estimates, when we come back in the springtime. This seems to me a golden opportunity to put that into practice. You have introduced the bill.

We are debating it at second reading. Let us continue to debate it at second reading, and then let us come back in early March, if you want to. If you feel there is an urgency to passing this bill before then, call us back on January 3; call us back on January 5; call us back on February 1, February 3 or something like that. The option, the hammer, is in the Government's hand, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may not, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I know for sure the Speaker will summon us together when the Government says so. I am pretty sure of that.

So, if you want this done on January 15 or February 15, then we do it that way. I am going to listen and I am going to read your rationale in your speeches for why this has to be done now. Why can we not take this particular bill and take it to our communities? I want to talk very seriously. I know my coll eague, as I say, the Agriculture critic, the Member for Emerson (Mr. Jack Penner) will deal with some of the agricultural aspects of this thing.

But I know that my implement dealers who are writing me, who store fertilizer and other hazardous waste, they do not want to all of a sudden wake up tomorrow and find out that they have to build a $1 00,000 storage fac il ity with 24-hour security around it to store $3,000 worth of fertilizer. Foolish things have happened; foolish things have happened. Are we giving ourselves time to have the Farm Implement Dealers Associa tion come and speak to us and tell us what they can live with and what they cannot live with? I know that crop spraying is an issue of concern, and I am concerned about it.

It is one that we readily identify as a potential vehicle for some very serious acti on if handled by the wrong hands. But I want to hear from them. I want to hear what is being proposed, and I want to see some of the potential regulations surrounding any actions that are taken before that is done. We can only do that if we give ourselves a bit of time. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not a lawyer, but I take seriously those concerns that are being expressed in some circles with respect to some

December 4, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 509 very important fundamental, judicial and legal rights that may be compromised to some extent. I do not know if that is a fact or not, but I would like to hear from them. I would like to hear from them in brief; I would like to hear from them in person; I would like to hear from them in committee. That time needs to be provided to us. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have tried in my most sincere manner to give this Government every opportunity to re-examine the cause for undue haste in this legislati on. I hope that they will consider it.

I see nothing threatening to them in terms of their continuance as Government if this bill gets to be considered for a few more months or until we come back in the springtime. As I said, if they honestly feel they need to have it in place by January 15 , well so be it; call us back. I might remind them of their national members. Where do they stand on the national government's bill, the same kind of bill as has been passed in Ottawa, screaming haste, haste, we are rushing it, we are rushing it. Am I not right, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Was that not what Mr. Bill Blaikie was on the radio for a little while ago? Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I will indicate there was a reason for haste by the national government. That reason had to be with our very important ongoing rela tionship with our biggest trading partner, the United States. We had to demonstrate without fooling around that we were prepared to take this issue seriously, that we were going to look at what some call a porous border, et cetera, et cetera.

Right or wrong, I am not saying, but politically, I could understand the necessity for the federal government to move with some dispatch and some hastiness in this matter. * (15: 50) But having done that, quite frankly, that has taken the need for haste of f of this bill because, nationally, those measures, already in place, have been taken. We can now with a calm deliberation fashion a good piece of legislation out of what is before us, Mr. Deputy Speaker. 1 want you, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, knowing the kind of influence that you have in your caucus, I want you to go back into your caucus room, and I want you to advise your colleagu es: Heed the words from the dean of the Legisla ture on this particular matter. Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): I am somewhat surprised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to see that there are not more members of the government caucus willing to stand up and speak in support of their bill. Certainly, I am pleased to have the opportunity of putting forward comments on Bill 2, and, specifically, I will be speaking to amendments to The Public Health Act which is

Part 8 ofBill 2. The amendments have been put forward as a response to the events of September 11 . I do not think any of us could have ever imagined having to stand in this House and deal with such a bill addressing the issue of really what is biological warfare, and there really is nothing logical about bioterrorism. Mr. Deputy Speaker, members of our caucus had an opportunity recently to tour the federal virology lab , and it certainly was a very impressive building with impressive work going on, incredibly stringent security measures in place there.

It made us much more acutely aware of what this bill is all about. I am the daughter of an air force veteran, and as a child I was much more aware of war. Certainly in school we participated in training exerc ises where we had to pretend to put on gas masks, or we hid under our desks, or we had to evacuate a building. I went to attend events at the legion hall with my father who had recently come out of World War II, and I can remember as a little girl spending a lot of time looking at pictures of my dad in his uniform and the comrades that he was in the war with.

I was very captivated by this as a little girl, and this was a few years after World War II. It seemed that war was closer to us at that point in time, and for decades after that I felt safe. I did not feel my world threatened by war in any way. September 11 totally changed all of that, where we learned in a very horrifying way that democracy and freedom can no longer be taken for granted by any of us. As we watched TV that morning, it was surreal and incomprehensible

510 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 4, 2001 what we were seeing, and an outcome, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of September II is Bill 2. A large component of Bill 2 gives extraordinary powers to a government, so if we were going to support that, one would hope that those powers would be given to a government that one could trust. I find it very difficult, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to trust a government that for over two years has broken just about every health care promise they made in an election. They appear to have a hidden agenda in a number of different areas.

They have twisted information to suit their purposes and have no shame in doing so. When faced with questions about their broken promises, they do a number of different things. Some of them are famous for blam ing the previous government, not realizing that they are into their third year, and it is time they behaved as a government. Some of them say the public misunderstood what they promised in the election. Some of them try to personally discredit the person asking the question. Some of them realign their spin to meet their own purposes.

Some of them change the method of how statistics are gathered and reported to make things look better than they really are. The Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) has accepted no responsibility for his many broken promises and takes great glee in personally attacking those who ask legitimate questions of him. He often does so with a sly smile on his face. So this bill is one about trust. Trust is something that one earns. Thus far, we do not see that necessarily comes easy with this Government.

How can we trust giving the ministers of the Doer government such extraordinary power when we have seen during this particular session where ministers have changed their stories day after day, ministers appear to be circumventing legislation, ministers do not appear to be sanctioned for abusing their authority? Then we have a government that is trying to, within a few days, ask us to accept a bill that certainly requires a lot of public scru tiny, a lot of discussion. We see the federal government, certainly, has spent a number of months dealing with this issue.

It spent a lot of time in comm ittee. under scru tiny. It had a lot of input and a lot of opportunity for that input. What we have seen here is a government that has tried to get this through in a few days, asking us to trust them and what they have put into this bill. I would feel much more comf ortable with this type of bill because it is something that many of us have never experienced having to put a bill like this forward, one that comes very close to perhaps trampling on civil rights. We have to find an appropriate balance between good legislation and civil rights.

I do not feel that is something that we should take lightly or something that we should try to push through within a few days. If anything, it certainly requires a lot of scrutiny and good time to make good legisla tion. However, having said that too, there are important measures that do need to be taken to address biological terrorism. We have seen that other provinces in the country and various states in the United States are also looking at legislation to address this very real issue in this new world of ours.

As the minister acknowledged in speaking to the bill, he did indicate that health authorities across the province, with health authorities and officials across the country moving quickly into action to prepare for any ramifications as a result of September II , the Minister of Health did acknowledge that bed counts were made here in Manitoba, inventories were taken, conting encies were put in place in the event that patients had to be transferred.

There was some concern, I guess, that patients had to be moved maybe from New York into Toronto or Montreal, which might necess itate the movement of patients from those cities to Manitoba. He indicated that a crisis centre was set up that afternoon, that very afternoon, and initiatives were put in place from the regional health authorities and the Department of Health to assist individuals who were forced to land in Manitoba. * (1 6:00)

December 4, 200 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 51 1 The Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) indicated there was an excellent response from our Health officials, who went right into action. He indicated that pharmacists were made available, home care workers were made available, medical personnel, doctors and nurses were put in place to provide assistance and to provide service to those individuals. It cert ainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is worth acknowledging the work of people involved in health care in Manitoba and how quickly they can respond to situations. They are to be commended.

Manitobans, too, deserve to be commended for their unwavering generosity and support. Particularly we saw it in the area of blood donations that were requested and the numbers of people that showed up to offer blood to those that might need it in the United States. I think that is a very typical response that we see from people in this province to any kind of crisis. I, too, would like to commend their unwavering generosity and their unwavering support from the people of Manitoba.

Public health officials in Manitoba were at the forefront of national efforts, accor ding to the minister, to put together co-ordinated strategies relating to responses and relating to matters concerning bioterrorism. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we do have health professionals in this province who regularly rise above our expectations, who do put their best efforts forward at all times. I too would like to acknowledge the efforts that they have put forward. I am honoured to have that opportunity to say that and to also say that I am very honoured to have once been a part of all of that as a nurse. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, these actions are indeed commendable, but in the National Post on November 3 there was some information about the situation in Manitoba. I would just like to put on the record some of the information that was indicated in that particular article. It indicated that Manitoba did not have a bioterrorism disaster plan, but nor do a lot of provinces in Canada because that is certainly not something that we have been forced to have to address. It indicated also that there was no stockp ile of medication, but again that is not unusual across this country.

It indicated that there were eight mobile hospitals, which include 16 000 beds and 24 operating theatres. The

article went on to say that Manitoba has extensive emergency protoc ols as a result of several natural disasters, among them the 19 97 Red River flood. According to Paul Anderson, the acting executive co-ordinator for Manitoba Emergency Management, he said: I think one of the differences here is that in Manitoba we have gone through several fairly substantial emergenc ies. Dr. Joel Kettner, the Chief Medical Officer of Health, said that the Province must add bioterrorism to the formal emergency plan and indicated that it was a move that is underway.

I would like to quote him, and he said: If there was a terrorist act that resulted in a small number of casualties in a time frame that was not overwhelming, we could respond to it, no problem. However, he added that the province, and I quote, cannot handle mass casualties or large numbers of major trauma injuries. Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the minister indicated when he did his second reading of the bill, he indicated that the likelihood of a bioterrorism event in Manitoba is very, very small.

I support him in saying that I, too, hope and pray that we never have occasion to have to utilize the powers put forward in this particular bill. However, nobody ever dreamed of September 11 happening either. So, indeed, we must be very ready for the extraordinary to happen. There is nothing wrong with being well prepared. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like, at this time, to address my concerns with Bill 2, specifically The Public Health Act component of it. One of the first concerns I would like to raise is the area where the minister may designate dangerous disease.

It indicates in the bill that if the minister considers that, due to its highly communicable and virulent nature, the disease presents a serious threat to public health, then a minister can address the issue. After consulting with the Chief Medical Officer of Health, the minister may designate a dangerous disease. Mr. Harry Schellenberg, Acting Speaker, in the Chair

512 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 4, 2001 My concern with this particular area is that a minister of Health is in no way qualified to make that decision. That gives a minister extreme powers as a government minister, and I am not totally sure why this Minister of Health might want to be in that kind of a position, to be the one that designates a dangerous disease.

It would seem to me that perhaps the Chief Medical Officer of Health under the authority of the minister might do that, or at least the minister might want to do that upon the advice of a chief medical officer of Health and not just in consulta tion with. Any minister of Health would be in no way qualified to make that decision. Therefore, certainly, it is a bit questionable to me as to whether this is something that should be worded as it is in the legislation, or if the legislation should be made more clear to indicate the process that was undertaken to reach that particular conclusion.

I am not totally comf ortable with the definition, because it does not specifically exclude diseases that could actually be considered, such as HIV and AIDS. And really, all that is left to the discretion of a minister of Health who has no background in health to add a disease to that list. I do not know if there would be some merit to saying what some of the exclusions might be, but if one were to read this as a stand-alone clause, one might wonder whether HIV and AIDS could fit into that.

Another concern I have is the clause that indicates: "When reasonably required to administer or determine complia nce with this Act ... a medical officer of health may enter and inspect any place or premises other than a dwelling at any reasonable time." Mr. Acting Speaker, with the definition of "reasonably required,"-and there is not one in this legislation, and I have not seen any regulations for this. I have some concern about the openness, I guess, of that particular aspect of the sentence where somebody could enter or inspect some place if they thought it was reasonable to do so.

I realize this is a judgment call, but I think there should be clear rules to determine what constitutes the doctor having the right to do this. I would think, even to protect the medical officer of health himself , that guidelines which would support that decision to enter would be a reasonable thing to add either to the legislation or certainly to the regulations. It also indicates in the bill that a doctor can also enter a dwelling without a warrant under certain circumstan ces. Again, does the public not have a right to know examples of what these circumstances might include?

It certainly is not stated in the legislation, and again, without having seen the regulation, I do not know whether that will be included there, but it certainly, to me, again would be reasonable, that something like that should be better spelled out, because a medical officer of health makes those decisions based on his judgment call. It can be one person making that decision, and that is an incredible amount of power to put into somebody's hands.

What happens if that chief medical officer of health or their delegate, in some instance s, is wrong? * (16:10 ) Another part of the bill that I have some concern with is the aspect of force being applied where a medical officer of health, a public health inspector or a public health nurse may use such force as deemed necess ary. Mr.

Acting Speaker, this particular part of the legislation is certainly somewhat alarming to me, because it does not address the degrees of force or any aspect of that force and whether that force is against a person, against a building, for instance, breaking down a door, breaking a window, doing damage within a building, what kind of damage can be levelled against a person and what degree of force can be applied against that person. Can a person be knocked unconscious? What if the person was innocent of what a medical officer of health reasonably believed and therefore used force on this person?

Is the medical officer of health held liable, or are they totally untouchable if they are wrong? In no place in the legislation is that addressed. I think there might be a number of people in the province that might take some off ence to this aspect of the legislation without it having some tighter parameters around it. I would even think that the medical people or the health people might appreciate some guidance in the area, too, in terms of what they are protected in doing and protected against. I guess, as generally a peaceful society, this aspect of giving people

December 4, 200 I LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 513 permission to use all the force that they feel is necessary without putting tighter parameters around it does raise some alarm to me. Mr. Conrad Santos, De puty Speaker, in the Chair Another concern, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about the bill is the aspect of forcing people to provide information. The Chief Medical Officer of Health or a person designated by the minister-and again, unless that is defined in regulation, we cert ainly do not know who that could be. It could be anybody.

I am not sure that when we are talking about the extraordinary powers given in this bill, that should not be bettered defined, but it indicates that the Chief Medical Office of Health or a person designated by the minister may force other people, organizations, government departments, govern ment agencies to provide information. This information could include personal information, personal health information, proprietary infor mation or confidential business information.

Again, here is a particular aspect to this legis lation where we fought so hard for privacy for people, and within one small clause of legis lation, we seem to be certainly working against the privacy that everybody has come to expect in this country. The legisla tion cert ainly does not make clea r-and again, we have not seen regulations where it might put some parameters around that.

That is why I think, certainly having more time to look at that, having more public consultation in this, the involvement of people in addressing these issues, involving more people in looking at that, hopefully we can end up with legisla tion that has a comf ort level for people as we are coming very, very close to crossing a line when we are looking at civil rights. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would certainly like strong assurances from somebody other than this Minister of Health (Mr.

Chomiak) to assure us that this is not going beyond what is absolutely necessary, because it certainly does appear to viola te the basic principles of privacy. Again, I appreciate the unique circumstances we are discussing. We certainly have never had to deal with biological warfare, chemical warfare, any of these issues that we are now forced to look at. That is what makes it very difficult in addressing this bill, where we have to look at things that normally we might be very uncomf ortable with.

Therefore, that is why I feel it is so important in a lot of these issues where we are coming close to invading personal privacy, where we are allowing force to be used upon people with no parameters around that, why I feel it is extremely important that this be looked at in a much broader way and over a good amount of time. Can th

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	37-3-14
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	37th 3rd hansardpdf 14.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	00d482686bbb4e79da44bd73d8b28cc01cc8c493

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