Manitoba Hansard — 15 April 2004 (Sitting 21B, 38th Legislature, 2nd Session)

38-2-21b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Eighth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LV No. 21B – 1:30 p.m., Thursday, April 15, 2004

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Eighth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation AGLUGUB, Cris The Maples N.D.P. ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital N.D.P. ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley N.D.P. ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thom pson N.D.P. BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli N.D.P. BRICK, Marilyn St. Norbert N.D.P. CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen Ste. Rose P.C. DERKACH, Leonard Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary, Hon. Concordia N.D.P. DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside P.C.

FAURSCHOU, David Portage la Prairie P.C. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach P.C. HAWRANIK, Gerald Lac du Bonnet P.C. HICKES, George, Hon. Point Douglas N.D.P. IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri Fort Garry N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. JHA, Bidhu Radisson N.D.P. KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie St. James N.D.P. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. The Pas N.D.P. LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. LOEWEN, John Fort Whyte P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St. Johns N.D.P. MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon.

Lord Roberts N.D.P. MELNICK, Christine, Hon. Riel N.D.P. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn, Hon. Minto N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. MURRAY, Stuart Kirkfield Park P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. OSWALD, Theresa Seine River N.D.P. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack Southdale P.C. ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Carman P.C. RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia N.D.P. ROWAT, Leanne Minnedosa P.C. SALE, Tim, Hon. Fort Rouge N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Wellington N.D.P. SCHELLENBERG, Harry Rossmere N.D.P. SCHULER, Ron Springfield P.C. SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St.

Boniface N.D.P. SMITH, Scott, Hon. Brandon West N.D.P. STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. TWEED, Mervin Turtle Mountain P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

901 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, April 15, 2004 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PETITIONS Proposed PLA–Floodway Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: The Province of Manitoba has tabled legislation in the Legislature that may result in the $660-million expansion of the Red River Floodway by the summer of 2005. The Premier of Manitoba plans to subject all work related to the project to a Project Labour Agreement (PLA).

The proposed PLA would force all employees on the project to belong to a union. Approximately 95 percent of heavy construction companies in Manitoba are currently non-unionized. The Manitoba Heavy Co nstruction Association has indicated that the forced unionization of all employees may increase the costs of the project by $65 million.

The chair of B.C.'s 2010 Construction Leaders Taskforce has stated, "Major industrial projects built under project labour agreements from the energy sector in Alberta to o ff-shore development on the East Coast have repeatedly incurred cost overruns, labour disruptions and delays." Organizations including the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba, the Winnipeg Construction Association, the Con- struction Association of Rural Manitoba and the Canadian Construction Association have publicly opposed the Premier's plan to turn the floodway expansion project into a union-only worksite.

Manitobans deserve an open and fair compe- tition that protects taxpayers from unnecessary costs and respects workers' democratic choice. Manitobans support the right of any company, both union and non-union, to participate in the expansion of the Red River Floodway. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider ending his Government's forced unionization plan of companies involved with the Red River Floodway expansion.

To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider entering into discussions with business, construction and labour groups to ensure any qualified company and worker, regardless of their union status, is afforded the opportunity to bid and work on the floodway expansion project. The undersigned names: Doug Browning, Reg Coutts, T. Coutts and others. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House. Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition.

These are the reasons for this petition: The Province of Manitoba has tabled legislation in the Legislature that may result in the $660-million expansion of the Red River Floodway by the summer of 2005. The Premier of Manitoba plans to subject all work related to the project to a Project Labour Agreement (PLA).

902 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 15, 2004 The proposed PLA would force all employees on the project to belong to a union. Approximately 95 percent of heavy construction companies in Manitoba are currently non-unionized. The Manitoba Heavy Co nstruction Association has indicated that the forced unionization of all employees may increase the costs of the project by $65 million.

The Chair of B.C.'s 2010 Construction Leaders Taskforce stated that major industrial projects built under project labour agreements from the energy sector in Alberta to o ff-shore development on the East Coast have repeatedly incurred cost overruns, labour disruptions and delays.

Organizations including the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba, the Winnipeg Construction Association, the Con- struction Association of Rural Manitoba and the Canadian Construction Association have publicly opposed the Premier's plan to turn the floodway expansion project into a union-only worksite. Manitobans deserve an open and fair compe- tition that protects taxpayers from unnecessary costs and respects the workers' democratic choice.

Manitobans support the right of any company, both union and non-union, to participate in the expansion of the Red River Floodway. * (13:35) We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider ending his Government's forced unionization plan of companies involved with the Red River Floodway expansion.

To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider entering into discussions with business, construction and labour groups to ensure any qualified company and worker, regardless of their union status, is afforded the opportunity to bid and work on the floodway expansion project. Signed by Ted Falk, Mike Smith, Chad Penner and others. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with the Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House. Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Mr.

Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ma nitoba, and these are the reasons for the petition: The Province of Manitoba has tabled legislation in the Legislature that may result in a $660-million expansion of the Red River Floodway by the summer of 2005. The Premier of Manitoba plans to subject all work related to the project to a Project Labour Agreement (PLA). The proposed PLA would force all employees on the project to belong to a union. Approximately 95 percent of heavy construction companies in Manitoba are currently non-union.

The Manitoba Heavy Co nstruction Association has indicated that the forced unionization of all employees may increase the costs of the project by $65 million.

The chair of B.C.'s 2010 Construction Leaders Taskforce has stated, "Major industrial projects built under project labour agreements from the energy sector in Alberta to o ff-shore development on the East Coast have repeatedly incurred cost overruns, labour disputes and delays." Organizations including the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba, the Winnipeg Construction Association, the Con- struction Association of Rural Manitoba and the Canadian Construction Association have publicly opposed the Premier's plan to turn the floodway expansion project into a union-only worksite.

Manitobans deserve an open and fair compe- tition that protects taxpayers from the unnecessary costs and respects workers' democratic choice.

April 15, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 903 Manitobans support the right of any company, both union and non-union, to participate in the expansion of the Red River Floodway. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider ending his Government's forced unionization plan of companies involved with the Red River Floodway expansion.

To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider entering into discussions with the business, con- struction and labour groups to ensure any qualified company and worker, rega rdless of their union status, is afforded the opportunity to bid and work on the floodway expansion project. On behalf of V. Zvonik, P. Shawn Love, E. Carmichael and others. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House. Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition.

These are the reasons for this petition: The Province of Manitoba has tabled legislation in the Legislature that may result in the $660-million expansion of the Red River Floodway by the summer of 2005. The Premier of Manitoba plans to subject all work related to the project to a Project Labour Agreement (PLA). The proposed PLA would force all employees on the project to belong to a union. Approximately 95 percent of heavy construction companies in Manitoba are currently non-unionized.

The Manitoba Heavy Co nstruction Association has indicated that the forced unionization of all employees may increase the costs of the project by $65 million.

The chair of B.C.'s 2010 Construction Leaders Taskforce has stated, "Major industrial projects built under project labour agreements from the energy sector in Alberta to o ff-shore development on the East Coast have repeatedly incurred cost overruns, labour disruptions and delays." Organizations including the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba, the Winnipeg Construction Association, the Con- struction Association of Rural Manitoba and the Canadian Construction Association have publicly opposed the Premier's plan to turn the floodway expansion project into a union-only worksite.

Manitobans deserve an open and fair compe- tition that protects taxpayers from unnecessary costs and respects workers' democratic choice. * (13:40) Manitobans support the right of any company, both union and non-union, to participate in the expansion of the Red River Floodway. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider ending his Government's forced unionization plan of companies involved with the Red River Floodway expansion.

To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider entering into discussions with business, construction and labour groups to ensure any qualified company and worker, regardless of their union status, is afforded the opportunity to bid and work on the floodway expansion project. Signed by S. Mark Francis, C. Laberge, B.Verry and others. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): I wish to present the following petition. These are the reasons for this petition: The Province of Manitoba has tabled legislation in the

904 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 15, 2004 Legislature that may result in the $660-million expansion of the Red River Floodway by the summer of 2005. The Premier of Manitoba plans to subject all work related to the project to a Project Labour Agreement (PLA). The proposed PLA would force all employees on the project to belong to a union. Approximately 95 percent of heavy construction companies in Manitoba are currently non-unionized. The Manitoba Heavy Co nstruction Association has indicated that the forced unionization of all employees may increase the costs of the project by $65 million.

The chair of B.C.'s 2010 Construction Leaders Taskforce has stated, "Major industrial projects built under project labour agreements from the energy sector in Alberta to o ff-shore development on the East Coast have repeatedly incurred cost overruns, labour disruptions and delays." Organizations including the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba, the Winnipeg Construction Association, the Con- struction Association of Rural Manitoba and the Canadian Construction Association have publicly opposed the Premier's plan to turn the floodway expansion project into a union-only worksite.

Manitobans deserve an open and fair compe- tition that protects taxpayers from unnecessary costs and respects workers' democratic choice. Manitobans support the right of any company, both union and non-union, to participate in the expansion of the Red River Floodway. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider ending his Government's forced unionization plan of companies involved with the Red River Floodway expansion.

To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider entering into discussions with business, construction and labour groups to ensure any qualified company and worker, regardless of their union status, is afforded the opportunity to bid and work on the floodway expansion project. This is presented on behalf of Merna Niblock, Debbie Dangerfield, Jim Dangerfield and others. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House. Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to present the petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

These are the reasons for this petition: The Province of Manitoba has tabled legislation in the Legislature that may result in the $660-million expansion of the Red River Floodway by the summer of 2005. The Premier of Manitoba plans to subject all work related to the project to a Project Labour Agreement (PLA). The proposed PLA would force all employees on the project to belong to a union. Approximately 95 percent of heavy construction companies in Manitoba are currently non-unionized.

The Manitoba Heavy Co nstruction Association has indicated that the forced unionization of all employees may increase the costs of the project by $65 million.

The chair of B.C.'s 2010 Construction Leaders Taskforce has stated, "Major industrial projects built under project labour agreements from the energy sector in Alberta to o ff-shore development on the East Coast have repeatedly incurred cost overruns, labour disruptions and delays." Organizations including the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba, the Winnipeg Construction Association, the Con- struction Association of Rural Manitoba and the Canadian Construction Association have publicly

April 15, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 905 opposed the Premier's plan to turn the floodway expansion project into a union-only worksite. * (13:45) Manitobans deserve an open and fair compe- tition that protects taxpayers from unnecessary costs and respects workers' democratic choice. Manitobans support the right of any company, both union and non-union, to participate in the expansion of the Red River Floodway.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider ending his Government's forced unionization plan of companies involved with the Red River Floodway expansion. To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider entering into discussions with business, construction and labour groups to ensure any qualified company and worker, regardless of their union status, is afforded the opportunity to bid and work on the floodway expansion project. Submitted by Beverly Lacroix, Chrissy Martens, Annette Wilson and others. Mr.

Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House. Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, we petition the Legislature of Assembly as follows for the following petition: The Province of Manitoba has tabled legislation in the Legislature that may result in the 660-million expansion of the Red River Floodway by the summer of 2005. The Premier of Manitoba plans to subject all work related to the project to a Project Labour Agreement (PLA). The proposed PLA would force employees on the project to belong to a union.

Approximately 95 percent of heavy construction companies in Manitoba are currently non-unionized. The Manitoba Heavy Co nstruction Association has indicated that the forced unionization of all employees may increase the cost of the project by $65 million.

The chair of the B.C.'s 2010 Construction Leaders Taskforce has stated, "Major industrial projects built under project labour agreements from the energy sector in Albe rta to off-shore develo- pment on the East Coast have repeatedly incurred cost overturns, labour disruptions and delays." Organizations including the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses, the Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba, the Winnipeg Construction Association, the Con- struction Association of Rural Manitoba and Canadian Construction Association have publicly opposed the Premier's plan to turn the floodway expansion project into a union-only worksite.

Manitobans deserve an open and fair compe- tition that protects taxpayers from unnecessary cost and respects workers' democratic choice. Manitobans support the right of any company, both union and non-union, to participate in the expansion of the Red River Floodway. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider ending this Government's forced unionization plan of companies involved with the Red River Floodway expansion.

To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider entering into discussions with business, construction and labour groups to ensure any qualified company and worker, regardless of their own union status, is afforded the opportunity to bid and work on the floodway expansion project. Signed: Connie Benoit, Frank Benoit, Kerry Miller, Audrey Miller and others. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House.

906 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 15, 2004 Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for the petition: The Province of Manitoba has tabled legislation in the Legislature that may result in the $660-million expansion of the Red River Floodway by the summer of 2005. The Premier of Manitoba plans to subject all work related to the project to a Project Labour Agreement (PLA). The proposed PLA would force all employees on the project to belong to a union.

Approximately 95 percent of heavy construction companies in Manitoba are currently non-unionized. The Manitoba Heavy Co nstruction Association has indicated that the forced unionization of all employees may increase the costs of the project by $65 million.

The chair of B.C.'s 2010 Construction Leaders Taskforce has stated, "Major industrial projects built under project labour agreements from the energy sector in Alberta to o ff-shore development on the East Coast have repeatedly incurred cost overruns, labour disruptions and delays." Organizations including the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba, the Winnipeg Construction Association, the Con- struction Association of Rural Manitoba and the Canadian Construction Association have publicly opposed the Premier's plan to turn the floodway expansion project into a union-only worksite. * (13:50) Manitobans deserve an open and fair compe- tition that protects taxpayers from unnecessary costs and respects workers' democratic choice.

Manitobans support the right of any company, both union and non-union, to participate in the expansion of the Red River Floodway. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider ending his Government's forced unionization plan of companies involved with the Red River Floodway expansion.

To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider entering into discussions with business, construction and labour groups to ensure any qualified company and worker, regardless of their union status, is afforded the opportunity to bid and work on the floodway expansion project. Signed by: Romel Dhalla, G. Peters, H. Peters, and others. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House. Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition.

These are the reasons for this petition: The Province of Manitoba has tabled legislation in the Legislature that may result in the $660-million expansion of the Red River Floodway by the summer of 2005. The Premier of Manitoba plans to subject all work related to the project to a Project Labour Agreement (PLA). The proposed PLA would force all employees on the project to belong to a union. Approximately 95 percent of heavy construction companies in Manitoba are currently non-unionized.

The Manitoba Heavy Co nstruction Association has indicated that the forced unionization of all employees may increase the costs of the project by $65 million. The chair of B.C.'s 2010 Construction Leaders Taskforce has stated, and I quote, "Major industrial projects built under project labour agreements from the energy sector in Alberta to off-shore developments on the East Coast have repeatedly

April 15, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 907 incurred cost overruns, labour disruptions and delays." Organizations including the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Merit Contractors Associ ation, the Winnipeg Construction Association, the Construction Assoc- iation of Rural Manitoba and the Canadian Construction Association have publicly opposed the Premier's plan to turn the floodway expansion project into a union-only worksite.

Manitobans deserve an open and fair compe- tition that protects taxpayers from unnecessary costs and respects workers' democratic choice. Manitobans support the right of any company, both union and non-union, to participate in the expansion of the Red River Floodway. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider ending his Government's forced unionization plan of companies involved with the Red River Floodway expansion.

To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider entering into discussions with business, construction and labour groups to ensure any qualified company and worker, regardless of their union status, is afforded the opportunity to bid and work on the floodway expansion project. Signed by Mark Friesen, Frank Hemming, Bruce Cromb and others. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House. Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): I wish to present the following petition.

These are the reasons for this petition: The Province of Manitoba has tabled legislation in the Legislature that may result in the $660-million expansion of the Red River Floodway by the summer of 2005. The Premier of Manitoba plans to subject all work related to the project to a Project Labour Agreement (PLA). The proposed PLA would force all employees on the project to belong to a union. Approximately 95 percent of heavy construction companies in Manitoba are currently non-unionized.

The Manitoba Heavy Co nstruction Association has indicated that the forced unionization of all employees may increase the costs of the project by $65 million.

The chair of B.C.'s 2010 Construction Leaders Taskforce has stated, "Major industrial projects built under project labour agreements from the energy sector in Alberta to o ff-shore development on the East Coast have repeatedly incurred cost overruns, labour disruptions and delays." Organizations including the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba, the Winnipeg Construction Association, the Con- struction Association of Rural Manitoba and the Canadian Construction Association have publicly opposed the Premier's plan to turn the floodway expansion project into a union-only worksite. * (13:55) Manitobans deserve an open and fair compe- tition that protects taxpayers from unnecessary costs and respects workers' democratic choice.

Manitobans support the right of any company, both union and non-union, to participate in the expansion of the Red River Floodway. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider ending his Government's forced unionization plan of companies involved with the Red River Floodway expansion. To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider entering into discussions with business, construction

908 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 15, 2004 and labour groups to ensure any qualified company and worker, regardless of their union status, is afforded the opportunity to bid and work on the floodway expansion project. Signed by Don Poulin, Judy Chester, William Vis and others. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House. Mrs. Bonnie Mitche lson (River East): I wish to present the following petition to the House.

These are the reasons for this petition: The Province of Manitoba has tabled legislation in the Legislature that may result in the $660-million expansion of the Red River Floodway by the summer of 2005. The Premier of Manitoba plans to subject all work related to the project to a Project Labour Agreement (PLA). The proposed PLA would force all employees on the project to belong to a union. Approximately 95 percent of heavy construction companies in Manitoba are currently non-unionized.

The Manitoba Heavy Co nstruction Association has indicated that the forced unionization of all employees may increase the costs of the project by $65 million.

The chair of B.C.'s 2010 Construction Leaders Taskforce has stated, "Major industrial projects built under project labour agreements from the energy sector in Alberta to o ff-shore development on the East Coast have repeatedly incurred cost overruns, labour disruptions and delays." Organizations including the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba, the Winnipeg Construction Association, the Con- struction Association of Rural Manitoba and the Canadian Construction Association have publicly opposed the Premier's plan to turn the floodway expansion project into a union-only worksite.

Manitobans deserve an open and fair compe- tition that protects taxpayers from unnecessary costs and respects workers' democratic choice. Manitobans support the right of any company, both union and non-union, to participate in the expansion of the Red River Floodway. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider ending his Government's forced unionization plan of companies involved with the Red River Floodway expansion.

To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider entering into discussions with business, construction and labour groups to ensure any qualified company and worker, regardless of their union status, is afforded the opportunity to bid and work on the floodway expansion project. This petition is signed by Mike Saper, Ruth Smith, Eugene Clune and others. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House. * (14:00) Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

These are the reasons for this petition: The Province of Manitoba has tabled legislation in the Legislature that may result in the $660-million expansion of the Red River Floodway by the summer of 2005. The Premier of Manitoba plans to subject all work related to the project to a Project Labour Management Agreement (PLA). The proposed PLA would force all employees on the project to belong to a union.

April 15, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 909 Approximately 95 percent of heavy construction companies in Manitoba are currently non-unionized. The Manitoba Heavy Co nstruction Association has indicated that the forced unionization of all employees may increase costs of the project by $65 million.

The chair of B.C.'s 2010 Construction Leaders Taskforce has stated, "Major industrial projects built under project labour-management agreements from the energy sector in Al berta to off-shore develop- ment on the East Coast have repeatedly incurred cost overruns, labour disruptions and delays." Organizations including the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba, the Winnipeg Construction Association, the Con- struction Association of Rural Manitoba and the Canadian Construction Association have publicly opposed the Premier's plan to turn the floodway expansion project into a union-only worksite.

Manitobans deserve an open and fair compe- tition that protects taxpayers from unnecessary costs and respects workers' democratic choice. Manitobans support the right of any company, both union and non-union, to participate in the expansion of the Red River Floodway. We therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider ending the Government's forced unionization plan of companies involved with the Red River Floodway expansion.

To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider entering into discussions with business, construction and labour groups to ensure any qualified company and worker, regardless of their union status, is afforded the opportunity to bid and work on the floodway expansion project. This petition is signed by Tod Niblock, Bruce Birchard, M. S. Vodrey and others. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House. Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition.

These are the reasons for this petition: The Province of Manitoba has tabled legislation in the Legislature that may result in the $660-million expansion of the Red River Floodway by the summer of 2005. The Premier of Manitoba plans to subject all work related to the project to a Project Labour Agreement (PLA). The proposed PLA would force all employees on the project to belong to a union. Approximately 95 percent of heavy construction companies in Manitoba are currently non-unionized.

The Manitoba Heavy Co nstruction Association has indicated that the forced unionization of all employees may increase the costs of the project by $65 million.

The chair of B.C.'s 2010 Construction Leaders Taskforce has stated, "Major industrial projects built under project labour agreements from the energy sector in Alberta to o ff-shore development on the East Coast have repeatedly incurred cost overruns, labour disruptions and delays." Organizations including the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba, the Winnipeg Construction Association, the Con- struction Association of Rural Manitoba and the Canadian Construction Association have publicly opposed the Premier's plan to turn the floodway expansion project into a union-only worksite.

Manitobans deserve an open and fair compe- tition that protects taxpayers from unnecessary costs and respects workers' democratic choice. Manitobans support the right of any company, both union and non-union, to participate in the expansion of the Red River Floodway.

910 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 15, 2004 We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider ending his Government's forced unionization plan of companies involved with the Red River Floodway expansion. To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider entering into discussions with business, construction and labour groups to ensure any qualified company and worker, regardless of their union status, is afforded the opportunity to bid and work on the floodway expansion project. Signed: Brian Drader, Jim Cordingley, Wilf Sawatzky, et al. Mr.

Speaker: In accordance with Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House. Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: The Province of Manitoba has tabled legislation in the province that may result in the $660-million expansion of the Red River Floodway by the summer of 2005. The Premier of Manitoba plans to subject all work related to the project to a Project Labour Agreement (PLA).

The proposed PLA would force all employees on the project to belong to a union. Approximately 95 percent of heavy construction companies in Manitoba are currently non-unionized. The Manitoba Heavy Co nstruction Association has indicated that the forced unionization of all employees may increase the costs of the project by $65 million.

The chair of B.C.'s 2010 Construction Leaders Taskforce has stated, "Major industrial projects built under project labour agreements from the energy sector in Alberta to o ff-shore development on the East Coast have repeatedly incurred cost overruns, labour disruptions and delays." Organizations including the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba, the Winnipeg Construction Association, the Con- struction Association of Rural Manitoba and the Canadian Construction Association have publicly opposed the Premier's plan to turn the floodway expansion project into a union-only worksite.

Manitobans deserve an open and fair compe- tition that protects taxpayers from unnecessary costs and respects workers' democratic choice. Manitobans support the right of any company, both union and non-union, to participate in the expansion of the Red River Floodway. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider ending his Government's forced unionization plan of companies involved with the Red River Floodway expansion.

To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider entering into disc ussions with businesses, construc- tion and labour groups to ensure any qualified company and worker, rega rdless of their union status, is afforded the opportunity to bid and work on the floodway expansion project. Signed by: Linda Langtry, Dwayne Klassen, Barbara Kelcey. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House. Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition.

These are the reasons for this petition: The Province of Manitoba has tabled legislation in the Legislature that may result in the $660-million expansion of the Red River Floodway by the summer of 2005.

April 15, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 911 The Premier of Manitoba plans to subject all work related to this project to a Project Labour Agreement (PLA). The proposed PLA would force all employees on the project to belong to a union. Approximately 95 percent of heavy construction companies in Manitoba are currently non-unionized. The Manitoba Heavy Co nstruction Association has indicated that the forced unionization of all employees may increase the costs of the project by $65 million.

The chair of B.C.'s 2010 Construction Leaders Taskforce has stated, "Major industrial projects built under project labour agreements from the energy sector in Alberta to o ff-shore development on the East Coast have repeatedly incurred cost overruns, labour disruptions and delays." Organizations including the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba, the Winnipeg Construction Association, the Con- struction Association of Rural Manitoba and the Canadian Construction Association have publicly opposed the Premier's plan to turn the floodway expansion project into a union-like worksite.

Manitobans deserve an open and fair compe- tition that protects taxpayers from unnecessary costs and respects workers' democratic choice. Manitobans support the right of any company, both union and non-union, to participate in the expansion of the Red River Floodway. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider ending his Government's forced unionization plan of companies involved with the Red River Floodway expansion.

To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider entering into discussions with business, construction and labour groups to ensure any qualified company and worker, regardless of their union status, is afforded the opportunity to bid and work on the floodway expansion project. And the petition is signed by Gary Coopland, Ron Bachinsky, Christine Watson and others. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House. * (14:10) Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition.

These are the reasons for this petition: The Province of Manitoba has tabled legislation in the Legislature that may result in the $660-million expansion of the Red River Floodway by the summer of 2005. The Premier of Manitoba plans to subject all work related to the project to a Project Labour Agreement (PLA). The proposed PLA would force all employees on the project to belong to a union. Approximately 95 percent of heavy construction companies in Manitoba are currently non-unionized.

The Manitoba Heavy Co nstruction Association has indicated that the forced unionization of all employees may increase the costs of the project by $65 million.

The chair of B.C.'s 2010 Construction Leaders Taskforce has stated, "Major industrial projects built under project labour agreements from the energy sector in Alberta to o ff-shore development on the East Coast have repeatedly incurred cost overruns, labour disruptions and delays." Organizations including the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba, the Winnipeg Construction Association, the Con- struction Association of Rural Manitoba and the Canadian Construction Association have publicly

912 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 15, 2004 opposed the Premier's plan to turn the floodway expansion project into a union-only worksite. Manitobans deserve an open and fair competition that protects taxpayers from unnecessary costs and respects workers' democratic choice. Manitobans support the right of any company, both union and non-union, to participate in the expansion of the Red River Floodway.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider ending his Government's forced unionization plan of companies involved with the Red River Floodway expansion. To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider entering into discussions with business, construction and labour groups to ensure any qualified company and worker, regardless of their union status, is afforded the opportunity to bid and work on the floodway expansion project. Signed by Doug Brown, Bruce Wishnowski, Patrick Gagnon and others. Mr.

Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House. Minimum Sitting Days for Legislative Assembly Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The background to this petition is as follows: The Manitoba Legislature sat for only 37 days in 2003. Manitobans expect their government to be accountable, and the number of sitting days has a direct impact on the issue of public accountability.

Manitobans expect their elected officials to be provided the opportunity to be able to hold the Government accountable. The Legislative Assembly provides the best forum for all MLAs to debate and ask questions of the Government and it is critical that all MLAs be provided the time needed in order for them to cover constituent and party duties. Establishing a minimum number of sitting days could prevent the government of the day from limiting the rights of opposition members from being able to ask questions.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to consider recognizing the need to sit for a minimum of 80 days in any given calendar year. Signed by: Norine Magnaye, Darshan Singh and G. Brar. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House. TABLING OF REPORTS Mr. Speaker: I am pleased to table, in accordance with

section 28 of The Auditor General Act, the report of the Auditor General on Attributes of Managing and Reporting Results: A Survey of Senior Management. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 43–The Personal Health Information Amendment Act (Spiritual Health) Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Selinger), that Bill 43, The Personal Health Information Act (S piritual Health); Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les renseignements médicaux personnels (santé spirituelle), be now read a first time. Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Health, seco nded by the honourable Minister of Finance, that Bill 43, The Personal Health Information Amendment Act, be now read a first time.

April 15, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 913 Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, this bill is expected to clarify and reinforce a belief that is already present in the administration, that spiritual health care is central to the overall health and well-being of an individual and spiritual care is an integral part of the delivery of health care. Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Bill 44–The Colleges Amendment Act Hon. Diane McGifford (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs (Mr. Lathlin), that Bill 44, The Colleges Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les collèges, be now read a first time. Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Advanced Education and Training, seconded by the honourable Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs, th at Bill 44, The Colleges Amendment Act, be now read a first time. Ms. McGifford: Mr. Speaker, I wish to introduce an amendment to The Colleges Act. This amendment, requested by Red River College, will provide all colleges with similar powers.

The amendments marry changes made to The University of Manitoba Act in the late 1990s, which were designed to allow colleges to develop by-laws that regulate parking. I recommend the bill to all members of this Legislature. Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us from Killarney School and École Kenogami from Jonquière, Québec, 43 Grades 9-12 students under the direction of Madame Giselle Beaupré, Mr.

Rob MacTavish, Monsieur Martin Larose and Madame Reine Murray. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. ORAL QUESTIONS Balanced Budget Spending Priorities Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier went to great lengths to try to justify his deficits. He complained that the federal transfer payments were reduced by some $100 million, but he fails to mention that he is receiving an additional $140 million due to a population adjustment.

He com- plains about how Ottawa reimbursed the previous government $168 million for the 1997 flood costs, but he fails to mention that he is receiving almost $400 million more annually in federal transfer payments than the Filmon government was receiving in 1989. No matter how you slice it, this Premier does not have a revenue problem; he has a spending habit. Will the Premier do the right thing and scrap his expanse of VLTs, Mr. Speaker? Will he scrap the hospital laundromat? Will he scrap building a hospital sandwich?

Will he scrap the Project Labour Agreement and instead redirect that money so that he can balance his Budget? * (14:20) Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I have always wondered how the members opposite, how many thousands of nurses they had to lay off to deal with the 1% funding for the 2005 year, 2004, 2005 in their platform. I did not–[interjection] Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I did not know that they were also going to cancel sandwiches for senior citizens and other patients in hallways as part of their alternative platform. Mr. Speaker, let me explain to the member opposite.

He has four or five different statements and they contradict one another. He has previous budgets; he has this year's Budget; he has next year's budget. The point he is making, which is valid, is the population is going up in Manitoba. It is going up in

914 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 15, 2004 Manitoba because of a growing economy. It is going up in Manitoba because of positive economic results. The dead days of the Tories where we had stagnant growth are over. We have the growing days under the NDP. On that point he is correct. Mr. Murray: You know, once again, Mr. Speaker, only that side of the House could say it is positive when their expenditures exceed their revenues. If that is what they think is good, I cannot believe it. I know that the Premier is having trouble finding where he might have some savings. Well, let me help him.

Why does he not scrap plans to spend $100 million to upgrade VLTs, Mr. Speaker? Why is he spending more than $20 million to build a hospital Laundromat? Why is he spending millions more of taxpayers' dollars on a hospital sandwich factory? Why is he spending tens of thousands of dollars to pay for a consultant to tell the casinos how to rearrange the furniture? Or why is he spending more tens of thousands of dollars to bring in an expert from Toronto to tell us in Manitoba about how we should love our province?

Why is he spending more than tens of millions of dollars on unnecessary advertising and higher administrative costs, and why is he insisting on putting a master labour agreement on the Red River Floodway that would add some $65 million to the cost of that, Mr. Speaker? Will the Premier scrap this wasteful spending and redirect it to true priorities? Why does he not redirect it towards health care? Why does he not redirect it to making Manitoba more competitive? Why does he not provide a cash advance to our producers? Those are priorities for Manitobans. Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker, the people of Manitoba have voted for the priorities of this Government. They have voted for more nurses. They have voted for capital expansion of hospitals. They have voted for more MRI machines. They have voted for more CAT scans. They have voted for more diagnostic equipment out of Winnipeg. The have voted for a reduction in education tax announced by our Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson). Why did the taxes go up 68 percent under the Conservatives and go down under the NDP? Because we do have the right priorities for Manitobans. Mr.

Murray: Once again, as we know, we understand why this First Minister thought that balanced budget legislation was silly and a pre- election ploy, Mr. Speaker. He should do the right thing and believe that hardworking Manitobans believe in balanced budgets the way that they run their households, the way that they have to run their businesses. This Premier complains and he blames everybody for his problems, Mr. Speaker, and says, well, they have to make some tough decisions. I have given him some answers on how we can do some tough decisions.

It is about being responsible and making the right decisions and not using, for some unknown reason, a part of balanced budget legislation, a never-before-used clause of balanced budget legislation, because he cannot manage the economy. Why does he not do what Manitobans want? Balance the Budget, show that he is responsible, show that he can do the right thing for Manitobans instead of wasting the money that he is wasting. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite campaigned on funding education at 1 percent and campaigned on funding health care at 1 percent.

He did not have the fortitude to tell the people that would mean 1500 people would be laid off. How many rural hospitals would be closed? That is the kind of lack of honesty that has put these members– and the public knows that. We had the third lowest– [interjection] The member opposite wanted to cancel physical education and music in schools. I still hear about it. I still hear about it across Manitoba when one of his members popped up and said "Oh, we will have to cancel phys ed and music." the Leader of the Opposition said "Oh no, we will not.

We will not tell you what we are going to do." That is the kind of honesty we see from members opposite. The cost of government is the third lowest on a per capita basis in Canada. That includes the investments in health, pos t-secondary education, education and early childhood development. The credit rating in Manitoba now has been upgraded by two independent sources. Mr. Speaker, we have still maintained the $96-million debt payment. In fact, we paid down $75 million in pension liability. In 11 years, members opposite did not pay down one cent, not one red cent in pension liability. It is regrettable

April 15, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 915 they did not do it, but we are cleaning up their mess today. Balanced Budget Spending Priorities Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, in reality, this Government is creating the mess. The First Minister talks about a $96-million debt payment, but he forgets to tell Manitobans that, in order to make that payment, he is not only taking $142 million out of the rainy day fund, but is ignoring $75 million in expenses.

Yesterday, the Premier said and I quote: "In terms of the operations of Government, we are spending less than we are taking in." I would ask the Finance Minister to explai n to the Premier and to Manitobans how the Government can claim to be taking in more than they are spending when their third-quarter report clearly predicts that expenditure is $7.4 billion and revenue is $7.2 billion, leaving a shortfall of $165 million. That is spending more than you are taking in, plain and simple. Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr.

Speaker, the member opposite is saying that when you take a transfer from the Fiscal Stabilization Fund that should not count on whether or not you balance your budget. That is their law. That is the law they put in place, and it is important to note, in the last two budgets that the member opposite put forward, they drew $370 million from the Fiscal Stabilization Fund. That amount is equivalent to what we have drawn over four years. They did twice as much draw from the Fiscal Stabilization Fund in their last two years as we have done over four years. Mr. Loewen : Mr.

Speaker, I do wish the Finance Minister would come clean with Manitobans. He talks about $370 million; he forgets $185 million of it was taken in the year 1999-2000 when they held the reins of government. This Premier's language gets a little testy when he gets outside the House. I am going to have to delete part of his quote here. When he said behind closed doors to his friends: Can we not have the debate with real–expletives, the Premier's words I cannot use in this House–numbers instead of all these phoney numbers?

I would ask the Minister of Finance: Would he please open this debate to real numbers, explain to Manitobans why this Government is spending more than it is taking in? Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, just to put the record straight, not only did they take $185 million in each of the last two years of their mandate, $185 million which the member now is in denial about, but the year prior to that, the third-last year's budget, they took $100 million. That was $470 million over three years. Over four years, we have taken $369 million to balance the Budget. The Fiscal Stabilization Fund was put there for a purpose.

The legislation with respect to disasters was put there for a purpose. The members opposite do not want to even support their own legislation anymore. How shameful is that? * (14:30) Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that in '02, they took $150 million out of the rainy day fund which, by the way, he promised to repay and never did. In '03, they took $22 million plus $203 million out of Hydro, for a total of $225 million. This year they are taking $142 million out, plus not counting $75 million in expenses, in total well over $550 million in three years.

I would ask the minister the simple question. Explain to the people of Manitoba why, when you have had revenue growth of $450 million, or, sorry, $278 million, your expenses had to go up $450 million. Why can you not balance your Budget and how are we going to believe anything you say on Monday? Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, under their legislation we are balancing the Budget. I know they have trouble with that. They said it was the strictest legislation in North America. We have complied with their legislation that we balance the Budget.

Just to put the record straight, we added money to the Fiscal Stabilization Fund in the years 2001-2002, $63 million, and we did not sell off the telephone system to do it. Red River Floodway Expansion Master Labour Agreement Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Water Stewardship minister, after fumbling his way through a media scrum, finally admitted that, yes, because there will be a master labour agreement for the floodway expansion, all workers will have to pay union dues. Essentially, the only way that non- unionized workers will not be forced to be paying

916 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 15, 2004 union dues is if this Premier scraps the master labour agreement. Can the Premier tell this House, can he tell all Manitobans, can he tell all businesses that are interested in getting on with the work of the floodway, will he in fact have a master labour agreement? Yes or no? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Unlike the member opposite who is a one-dimensional individual, a surrogate representative with one issue, we have a number of objectives to achieve in the performance of construction at the floodway.

One, we want to have, obviously, tenders that allow us to come in under budget, just like we did with Limestone, with an agreement that came in $500 million under budget. Two, we want to have a situation where there are no disruptions, no strikes and lockouts. Three, we want to have training, including training for all Manitobans and training for Aboriginal people in the agreement. Members opposite can pursue a Pavlovian, one- dimensional approach. I am shocked that they would take the idea of a no-strike or lockout as part of the discussions off the table. They are the only ones taking items off the table.

We have kept all items on the table. Shame on them. Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I do have one object, as has everybody on this side of the House. That object is simple. Build the floodway and do not force companies that are non-unionized to be union and non-unionized workers to pay union dues. That is my objective. I know that the Premier would like to have nothing more than these difficult questions somehow be directed to the experts, because it is difficult for him to make these decisions. But he is the Premier. He is the one who should be making these decisions. He is the one who is accountable to Manitobans.

The fact is that his minister has already confirmed that a master labour agreement will automatically require all workers to pay union dues. That is what he said. His union boss spokesperson, Mr. Rob Hilliard, also said yesterday that provincial labour laws are clear, and floodway expansion workers under a master labour agreement will automatically be required to pay union dues. I ask the Premier again: Will there be such an agreement, yes or no? Mr. Doer: I am glad the Leader of the Opposition has admitted that he is one-dimensional. That is the point we were trying to make.

We, on the other hand, have multi-objectives in achieving the floodway. For example, we want recreation. We put in a recreation component in the floodway. We want training. We want the long-term employment of people on the floodway to be applicable to building dams. I know members opposite are part of the mothball party that cancelled all hydro-electric development in Manitoba. The building crane has returned to Manitoba. The endangered species has returned to this province under this Government. We do not need one-dimensional thinking. They can keep it on that side.

We are going to go ahead and achieve multi-objectives with the floodway expansion. Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to once again remind all honourable members, when a Speaker stands all members should be seated and the Speaker should be heard in silence. The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition has the floor. Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard the Premier make the comment that he wants to build the floodway expansion project, that it will be done on time and on budget. On time?

I say on time with a question mark because–the members opposite applaud–this is a member who said he was going to end hallway medicine in six months. He says on budget, this coming from someone who has run a deficit for the last three years and now is invoking a never-before-used clause in balanced budget legislation so he can legally run a deficit. So much for on time and on budget, Mr. Speaker. The fact of life is that the experts are saying that a master labour agreement would add some $65- million cost to the project. That in itself, Mr.

Speaker, is almost enough to eliminate the $75 million that the Premier is adding to the debt for last year. If the Premier wants to say that he wants to get it right with all stakeholders, and that was the quote he used, get it right with all stakeholders, then he needs to tell Manitobans today that his Government will not force any companies to be unionized and he will not force any non-unionized workers to pay union dues. Say it today, Premier.

April 15, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 917 Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, some of the premises are so–well, it is beneath contempt in terms of how ill- informed the member is. Having said that, in the late sixties– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I think some members seem to have a real problem hearing when I say order. "Order" is trying to get decorum in the House.

So I ask all honourable members to, please, we only have so much time for Question Period and we have the viewing public on television, we have guests in the gallery, and I am sure you would like to maintain decorum in this House. So I ask the co-operation of all honourable members, please. Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have a number of objectives that we want to achieve, just as– An Honourable Member: Unionized companies. Mr. Doer: Well, if the member opposite does not want to hear the answer to the question, he should not be that rude to interrupt, Mr. Speaker.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. * (14:40) Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, Cam McLean was hired after there were strikes and lockouts in the early sixties by a former administration to arrive at an agreement that prohibited strikes and lockouts. The member opposite has no desire to have a co- operative agreement that prevents strikes and lockouts. We are multi-dimensional in our approach. We have great faith that Wally Fox-Decent will approach this in a way that can achieve a number of objectives, Mr. Speaker. Members opposite are surrogates for just one narrow interest– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr.

Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we will represent the broader interests of the whole community– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: –and we will be proud to do it, Mr. Speaker. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear a thing. Was the honourable member up on a point of order? Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for St. Norbert, on a point of order. Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry. I cannot hear a thing. [interjection] I cannot.

I am finding it very, very frustrating. [interjection] I wore them yester day. I wore them yesterday, and I could not hear a thing yesterday either. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you have some control and that the members on the other side provide some courtesy and respect to the members in this House as well as to the members in the gallery. Thank you. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on the same point of order. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): I am glad the member has raised this point of order because, Mr.

Spea ker, there is equally as much noise coming from the government side of the House when their Premier is answering a question. There is as much noise coming from that side of the House as there is from this side of the House. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that they address the issue in their own caucus. For the members' ease, we do have these little devices that, in fact, you can plug into your ears, and you will hear the answer from your own Premier. Mr. Speaker: Order. On the point of order raised by the honourable Member for St.

Norbert, it is not a point of order, but I would like to take this opportunity to ask all honourable members for their co-operation. It is very difficult to hear. I am not sitting very far from the members that have the floor on both sides and I am having a hard time hearing.

918 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 15, 2004 If someone breaches a rule, rightfully you expect me to rule on it, but I have been on my feet, I have been sitting on my desk asking for order to try to get some decorum. It just seems like I am listened to for about a second and then it is right back. We have guests in the gallery, we have the viewing public, and also, if someone breaches a rule, I have to rule on it. If I cannot hear it, I cannot rule on it. Also, the member that asked the question has the right to hear the answer. I am not blaming one side or the other.

I am asking all honourable members for the co-operation of all honourable members. Mr. Doer: As I said, Mr. Speaker, we will expect Mr. Fox-Decent to have a multi-dimensional approach to this. The members opposite are shallow, one-dimensional. We are not. Red River Floodway Expansion Master Labour Agreement Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week, the Minister of Water Stewardship said that all workers on the project would be forced to pay union dues. Yesterday, after Question Period, the Premier said that the issue of forced union dues was still on the negotiation table. So, Mr.

Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Water Stewardship: Which statement does he stand by, the one that he made on Tuesday, saying that all floodway workers would pay union dues, or the one that his boss made yesterday saying it was still being negotiated? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Steward- ship): You know, Mr.

Speaker, I think if there is any indication of just how little the Conservatives get what is happening with the floodway, it was this petition, which I assume they subscribe to in terms of opinion, which states that the Province of Manitoba may be constructing the Red River Floodway, that the act that we are bringing in may result in the floodway being built. It is going to be built. We have brought in Wally Fox-Decent to deal with all of the issues in terms of the workforce, in terms of the training and in terms of tendering.

I talked to people who are part of the process on Monday and they have faith in the process. I wish they would have faith in Wally Fox- Decent and the stakeholders as well. Mr. Goertzen: Mr. Speaker, since the minister did not answer the question, I guess Manitobans are left to presume that the conflict still exists between the Premier and the minister. It appears that the Minister of Water Stewardship has lost control of this file.

It is little wonder that Manitobans are upset and alarmed that the Government has lost control of a project that is vital to Manitoba or that there still has not been a spade of dirt turned over yet. Will the Minister of Water Stewardship please tell Manitobans why he and his Premier do not seem to communicate on this issue, why they are not talking to each other, why they are not on the same page on a very important issue? Mr.

Ashton: Once again, on Monday we brought together, under the direction of Wally Fox-Decent, an avid Manitoban, something the Premier has referred to, something I have referred to, we brought together stakeholders. I want to stress there were contractors at that table. There were representa tives of unions at that table. There were Aboriginal representatives at that table. There were women at that table. There were a broad range of stakeholders. They have faith in the process, and we are prepared to give that process a chance. That is our message. Mr.

Goertzen: It is obvious that the minister and the Premier are going off in di fferent directions day to day, but the fact is that they do share one thing in common and that is that they are both on the wrong side of this issue. There is not any worker who has chosen to work in a non-unionized environment who should be forced to unionize or pay labour dues because of the confusion and wrong ideology of people on that side of the House. Will the Minister of Water Stewardship please commit to meeting with this Premier? If he needs the phone number, I will get it.

If he needs his office number, I will get it for him, so that they can get on the same page and take forced unionization and take forced union dues off the bargaining table. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. There are different sides on this issue. The one side that brings in a petition that states the Province of Manitoba has tabled legislation, legislation that may result in the $660-million expansion of the Red River Floodway, is where they are at.

April 15, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 919 We are in the do. This is the Doer government. We are going to do the floodway. Red River Floodway Expansion Master Labour Agreement Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, this Government is like a MasterCard ad: A new logo for Manitoba, $56,000; a rapid transit corridor for Winnipeg, $52 million; forcing workers to pay union dues, priceless. I asked the Minister of Water Stewardship who said all workers on the floodway project must be unionized. However, the Pr emier (Mr. Doer) says maybe not.

Can anyone on the government side of the House explain this contradiction? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Steward- ship): Mr. Speaker, we are working on building the floodway. We have brought together the stakeholders and Wally Fox-Decent. The member knows the first meeting that took place was on Monday and that process is going to look at all the workforce issues in terms of agreements on that, agreements in terms of tendering and agreements in terms of training. We believe that Manitobans have faith in Wally Fox-Decent and we know that the stakeholders do. I am surprised that members opposite do not. Mr.

Schuler: Mr. Speaker, as pathetic as that answer is, at least it is not the Premier's fruit fly answer from yesterday. The Minister of Water Stewardship says all workers pay union dues. The Premier says maybe not. Can anyone on the Government side of the House explain this contradiction? Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, this Government has said we want a no-strike, no-lockout clause because we want certainty in terms of this project. We are prepared to work with the stakeholders, Wally Fox- Decent. Where do they stand on a no-strike, no- lockout clause that will ensure that this project is built on time?

I stress again, Mr. Speaker, we are getting on with the job of building the floodway. That is what we put in place with the stakeholders' process on Monday. Members opposite may want to get into various different ideological issues that they want to raise from time to time when it comes to issues in this province. We are going to build the floodway. That is the most important priority for Manitobans. Mr. Schuler: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Water Stewardship says that the forced unionization is a done deal. The Premier says maybe not. Can Manitobans believe anything this Government says? Maybe not. * (14:50) Mr.

Ashton: Mr. Speaker, once again, we are getting on with the job of building the floodway. It is a major project, one of the most significant projects of this decade. We understood that probably the best way in which we can bring together many of the concerns that have been rais ed by stakeholders is by having Wally Fox-Decent who, by the way, brought all three parties together on Meech Lake. Quite an achievement. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, because members opposite perhaps have not talked to some of the stakeholders who were at the meeting on Monday. I talked to a number of stakeholders who were.

They were there to participate. I heard positive things about the process, and we are committed to allowing that process to work. I wish members opposite would be part of the solution, in this case, of getting the project built. That is the most important part. Red River Floodway Expansion Master Labour Agreement Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, it has just become very clear to us in this House and to Manitobans when the Premier stands up and says "we are multi- dimensional." Well, they are, because in one dimension this minister says "Yes, you are going to have to be forced to pay union dues." Then a government spinner from another dimension says "Oh, he was only speculating." Then the Premier stands up and says "Well, I am not sure, but we are going to ask the expert." What kind of multi-dimensional signal is that sending to hardworking Manitobans, other than this Government does not ha ve a clue what they are doing on the floodway expansion project?

All of us in this House want the floodway expansion project to go ahead. Mr. Speaker, I hope

920 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 15, 2004 the members on the other side applaud when they agree to take forced unio nization and force workers who do not pay union dues, take it off the table by doing the right thing. Do that and then applaud. Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the sky- is-falling party over there has a lot of mays to justify the sky is falling. We, on the other hand, have a process in place with Wally Fox-Decent. There are a number of issues on the table.

This may happen, that may happen, something else may happen, but we have an expert in place skilled in coming up with consensus agreements. It is the kind of expertise that governments use, and we will use. We have certain principles in mind. We have cost principles in mind. We have training principles in mind. We have disruption principles in mind and lack of disruptions through strikes and lockouts. We have recreation principles in mind, and we also have a desire, Mr.

Speaker, to have people trained in skills that will allow them to continue to work in the construction industry from the floodway to the next number of projects, to hydro-electric dams, to projects into the future. We have an economic vision along with the goal of building the floodway. That is why the population has in creased, and that is why those members are flat line in terms of public support. Mr. Murray: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we have heard it all today. This Premier's economic vision for Manitoba is to force non-unionized workers to sign a union card. What kind of a vision is that?

I also find it fascinating that the First Minister stands and says we need a project labour agreement because we want to make sure there is labour peace and no lockouts. I cannot recall the last time a non-unionized company went on strike. If that is, in fact, what he is interested in, then simply put it into a project agreement. Put it in a project agreement and let us get on with building the floodway. That is what this is about. It is about taking forced unionization and forcing non-unionized workers to pay union dues. Take it off the table. Let us build the floodway. Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker, the only person that is taking anything off the table is the Leader of the Opposition who is taking off the table the whole issue of no strike or lockout. We have a process in place. The only one-dimensional individual on this issue is the member opposite. We will get the job done and we will get it done on time, on budget, with people trained, and they can act like Chicken Little from now till the sky turns red. The bottom line is we will get it done. That is what we have been elected to do and that is what we are going to do. Mr. Murray: Mr.

Speaker, we have heard that the First Minister says that he wants to do the right thing. Well, if he wants to do the right thing, then why does he not assure those companies that were non- unionized and built the original floodway and those non-unionized companies that built the Z-dike on time and on budget, why does he not assure that he will not force companies to be unionized? Why does he not assure Manitoba workers he will not force them to pay union dues? If he says he wants to do the right thing, stand in the House today and prove it. Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Steward- ship): Once again, Mr.

Speaker, the member opposite is avoiding, I think, one fact that they should be aware of, that this kind of approach that we are putting in place has been in place since the 1960s with Manitoba Hydro. It is not new to Manitoba. The kind of stakeholder process we put in place on Monday with Wally Fox-Decent I think has been well received by stakeholders and a broad range of stakeholders. I tell you, Mr.

Speaker, the members opposite, who, to be charitable, are one-dimensional on this, should recognize that what has worked for Manitoba Hydro for 40 years has worked in many other jurisdictions, is now being considered by Wally Fox- Decent and the stakeholders . That is where those discussions should be, and I wish members opposite would understand that that is the key element we are working on here, which is building the floodway. Red River Floodway Expansion Master Labour Agreement Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.

The Minister of Labour is supposed to represent the interests of all workers in the province.

April 15, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 921 My question for the minister is: Does the Minister of Labour feel that she can represent non- union workers in the province in the same fashion in which she represents unionized workers in the province, given her Government is demanding that only union workers be allowed to work on this massive floodway project? Hon. Nancy Allan (Min ister of Labour and Immigration): I just want to remind the member opposite that project labour agreements have been used by different governments across this country for different infrastructure projects.

It has also been used in Manitoba for different infrastructure projects. Every one of those agreements looked different. The reason that they looked different, Mr. Speaker, is because they are negotiated by the affected parties at the table. There was an excellent meeting on Monday. The stakeholders were at the table. They had an excellent meeting. There were three committees set up, three committees to determine what is going to occur with that agreement. I would pr efer it if the members opposite would wait until there is something in writing. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr.

Speaker, I would trust and hope that the Minister of Labour is in fact in contact with the union workers. I have talked to many union workers. They, too, are frustrated in terms of the image that the Government is portraying. They, too, see the inequity that is being mandated by this Government by saying that you have to have a union card in order to work on the floodway project. The Government did not say that when we had the flood of the century and non-union people went just as much as union people. It is a sense of fairness.

The Minister of Labour has a responsibility to represent all workers in this province. She appears to be taking the side of union workers and union workers alone. My question specifically to the minister is: Does she feel that she can adequately represent non-union workers, given her Government's stand on the floodway? Will she stand up for all workers in the province? Ms. Allan: The MLA for Inkster consistently puts misinformation on the public record. Consistently, Mr. Speaker. The project, a labour agreement, is in negotiation. The affected parties are at the table. There is nothing in writing.

We will wait until we have an agreement from the affected parties. * (15:00) Mr. Lamoureux: Given that we know that there is not going to be a strike because the Government tells us there is not going to be a strike, there are going to be large, significant amounts of mandatory union dues that this Government wants to collect. Even if you are not a union member, they want the union dues, Mr. Speaker. Can this Minister of Labour guarantee all Manitobans that not a dollar of those union dues that this Government is going to mandatorily collect are going to go outside this province or end up in a political party?

Ms. Allan: I just want to remind the member opposite that we did bring elections finances legislation into place. I know the member is a rookie member and is not aware of the legislation. Maybe we could get him a copy of it. I can guarantee the member opposite that we will not behave like the federal Liberals in Ottawa. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Member for Interlake was standing. Was that on a point of order, or what was the issue? The time for Oral Questions had expired. Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, for two days– Mr.

Speaker: Just wait, just wait. Order. Mr. Nevakshonoff: Asking for leave on a point of order to put a question to the House. Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member had asked that on a point of order. I have another gentleman that wished to speak to the point of order, so I have to recognize the honourable Member for Inkster on the same point of order. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you recognize a certain element of

922 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 15, 2004 irony here. When the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gerrard) asked for leave, it was the Government House Leader (Mr. Mackintosh) yesterday that said no. Mr. Speaker: Order. Can I have order, please. Points of order and privileges are very, very serious matters, and we need to be able to hear them. When a member rises, and every member has that right, any member has a right to rise and ask for leave of something, but it is entirely up to the House whether they will give that person leave or not. To use one issue for another, that is really stretching it.

I can only deal with the leave that is requested that particular day or that particular instance. I dealt with the leave. Now the honourable Member for Interlake has asked the House, he is seeking leave in order for him to ask his question. So I put to the House: Does the honourable Member for Interlake have leave to put his question? Yes or no? Does he have leave? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: Leave has been denied. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The Official Opposition House Leader is getting up. The Official Opposition House Leader, on– Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order. Mr. Speaker: On a point of order. Mr. Derkach: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I tried to listen as attentively as I could this afternoon to the questions that were asked and the responses that were given by the various ministers in this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, it is against the rules of this Legislature to mislead the House. When I listen to the answers from the Minister responsible for Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton) and the answers given by the Minister of Labour (Ms. Allan) and the answers given by the Premier (Mr.

Doer), one could not help but get the impression and the understanding that indeed we have a case of ministers of the Crown, including the Premier, not only answering the questions straightforwardly, but indeed if you listened to the different answers, they do mislead this House. They are misleading Manitobans. Mr. Speaker, I think that is a serious breach of the rules of this House. It is also a serious breach of the protocol and the process that this Legislature conducts itself under. So, Mr.

Speaker, I ask under this point of order, that these ministers who have laid this information before this House, who have misled this House, I ask that you, as Speaker of this House, review the answers that have been proposed to this Legislature this afternoon to determine whether or not these ministers are indeed delib erately misleading this House, which is a breach of the rules of this House. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, of course the Opposition House Leader did not cite a rule or quotation in Beauchesne because there is no basis, I would suggest, to the point of order. A dispute on the facts does not constitute a point of order, I suggest. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, I will take it under advisement and I will peruse Hansard and come back with a ruling. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Mr. Speaker: Now we are going to move on to members' statements and we have three. The honourable Member for Fo rt Garry. We have three and two today. Racism Stop It! Video Competition Ms. Kerri Irvin-Ross (Fort Garry): Mr.

Speaker, I rise before the House today to congratulate Stephen Kernaghan, Colin Ward, Brian Pharsi, Christopher Nelson and Christopher Kwan from Arthur A. Leach School in the Fort Garry constituency. They represented one of eight teams across Canada which were recently honoured with national awards for the Racism Stop It! Video competition. The Racism Stop It! national video competition is part of Canada's campaign against racial

April 15, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 923 discrimination. Every year students aged 12 to 18 are encouraged to develop videos with a strong anti- racism message. Every year thousands of young Canadians in every province and territory participate in the competition. Ten winners are selected and they are invited to an awar ds ceremony in com- memoration of March 21, which is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. These videos are also edited to a televised public service announcement format of 30 seconds and broadcast nationally on television.

These students from my constituency rose to the challenge and produced a short video called "Diversity of Strength." The video shows a young student daydreaming in school of what life would be like if we were all the same. His thoughts bring him to a school but in another time and place. In this place, all the students look alike and perform all actions and tasks in similar ways like eating lunch in the same manner and playing music the same way. The video finishes with a group of youth declaring that diversity is strength.

This video demonstrates their commitment to the fostering of respect, equality and diversity. The development of their personal film-making style is also admirable. They are a symbol of commitment and leadership. Their film also speaks loudly and eloquently. I am positive that their efforts will not go unnoticed in the stand against racism. Thank you. * (15:10) Jeffrey Collins Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, I would like today to recognize and to celebrate the life of Jeffrey Collins, who passed away at far too young an age, March 31, 2004.

I first came in contact with Jeff at university when he was in phys ed. He was an avid and strong supporter of all the Bison athletic programs. Since then, Jeff went on to become a teacher, spending most of his career at Grant Park High School. He worked above and beyond duty ceaselessly and endlessly on behalf of the students that he was involved with. He spent a great deal of his own personal time coaching and being involved in athletics, mentoring young people as well as working with disabled athletes. Jeff was one of those many individuals who make this province a much richer place.

He dedicated his life to helping others. He leaves behind his wife of 36 years, Cheryl, and his children, Patrick and Jody. Unfortunately, soon after Jeff announced his retirement at age 55, he was diagnosed with a brain tumour. He outlived most of the estimates of how long he would live with regard to the brain tumour. During his final days, I was always touched by the good spirits that he showed and how much energy and effort he had to dedicate to the care of others when he in such pain himself. Mr.

Speaker, Jeff Collins is one of those people who has made all of our lives better off because Jeff's life was able to touch ours. He will be deeply missed. I wish to offer my condolences and, I am sure, the condolences of all members to Jeff's family today. Thank you. University of Manitoba–Capital Campaign Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise before the House today to speak on the University of Manitoba's recent capital campaign. This year, the campaign broke its fund- raising goal and raised $237 million.

This number surpassed the goal by $37 million, making it the most successful campaign in the history of the university. This great achievement is due to the commit- ment and passion of the university president, Emoke Szathmary, and the campaign director, Elaine Goldie. It was also with the generous donations from private business which made it possible for the campaign to flourish into such a success. Some of the donors included the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which donated 17 million U.S. dollars for the university's HIV-AIDS preven- tion project in India.

The Asper family donated about $13 million and the Richardson family and companies gave $7 million. Most of this money has already been set aside for many of the university's projects. The university is hoping to begin the new $52- million engineering and information technology complex. Mr. Speaker, $25 million has already been allocated for the Richardson Centre for Functional Foods and Nutraceuticals. It has also set aside

924 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 15, 2004 $40 million for scholarships and bursaries. However, there are still a lot of other projects that are short of their goals, and the university is still striving to raise money from the private sector for new facilities. Finally, I would like to thank all the donors and organizers for investing their time and money in the future of this province. It is a great sign that the University of Manitoba and the province have a healthy future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Odeon Drive-In Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr.

Speaker, on March 23, Pat Marshall of the Cineplex Galaxy Theatres announced that the Odeon Drive-In in Headingley would close because of dwindling attendance. That was a very sad day. That is the last drive-in in the vicinity. It is in Headingley, in my constitu ency of Morris, and the only one in the area surrounding Winnipeg or in Winnipeg itself. It has been there for over 40 years. Who has not been to a drive-in, either as a child with parents or as a teenager or even as a young parent taking your own children there?

Call it nostalgia, or call it preserving history, but I did not want to see this last drive-in close or be torn down. So, on Saturday, April 3, an

article appeared in a local newspaper after I issued a press release. Frank Landry of The Winnipeg Sun was kind enough to do an

article requesting people to put forward ideas to save the drive-in. Subsequent to that, a Mr. Allan Anderson responded and put up a Web site in which he collected 11 000 signatures in just nine days. It was announced yesterday, April 14, that the Odeon Drive-In in Headingley would not close and, in fact, will reopen for the season on May 21. I encourage all people in Manitoba to please support this drive-in so that we will see it continue for many years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Captain Marvin Nordman Mr. Drew Caldwell (Brandon East): Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a Manitoban whose dedication to public service and commitment to his province earned him the admiration and respect of everyone who knew him. I speak of retired Air Force Captain Marvin Nordman who passed away this past weekend. Mr. Nordman passed away at the age of 79 at the Gimli Community Health Centre on Sunday, April 11, 2004. He was born in Cypress River on August 8, 1924, and was predeceased by his parents, his sister Iris, and his brothers Edwin, Ruric and Ivan.

Captain Nordman married his beloved wife, Ellen, in July 1944, and they were married 53 years prior to her death in 1997. He leaves behind his three children and eight grandchildren, son Curtis, daugh- ters, Cara Tax and Andrea Chow, as well as grandchildren, Trevor, Meghan, Hannah, David, Jaimie, Dana, Adam and Tyler. Marvin is also survived by his companion Jean French. Captain Nordman spent a lifetime in public service through his employment and his volunteer work.

He was very proud to be a career military pilot serving in the Royal Canadian Air Force for 23 years and was one of the early "Mach Busters" having broken the sound barrier in his Cold War-era Canadair Sabre. Mr. Nordman went on to have a successful career with the Manitoba government in several capacities, including Deputy Minister of Public Works during the Ed Schreyer NDP government. He was an active member of the Gimli Legion and served in various volunteer positions over the years, and over the last few years enjoyed organizing the Gimli Canada Day Parade. Mr.

Speaker, it is my privilege to pay tribute to Captain Marvin Nordman and, if I may, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Legislative Assembly convey our deepest sympathies to his family. GRIEVANCES Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I want to just put a few comments on the record in regard to wh at has been the recent controversy brought upon the people of Manitoba by this Government and, that is, the forced unionization of workers that are going to work on the floodway.

I come from an area of the province of Manitoba that when the last floodway was built, construction companies from that area ha d a new opportunity to develop and grow their companies within this province. Many of the corporations and the companies that currently provide construction

April 15, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 925 services to this Government, today, got their start from the floodway. They came in, many of them with newly purchased equipment in which they provided the services required of them, to build the floodway that has time after time after time saved the citizens of Winnipeg and prevented huge losses for all Manitobans and I would suggest, all Canadians, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, this Government is trying to turn the tables on people like that, the small construction companies who have established themselves over a period of time, a reputation of strong work and strong commitment to the job. I think it is a slap in the face that this Government would try and force unionization or the payment of unionized dues for the sake of what they are saying is to try and get an agreement.

If we on this side of the House were to stand up and say to Manitobans that the people who work on the construction of the floodway in the province of Manitoba all had to be non-unionized, we would have screams and hollers from the government and from all the unions in the province of Manitoba. You know what, Mr. Speaker? That would be just as ridiculous a comment for us to make as it is for this Government. For them to suggest to all Manitobans that the only way that they are going to get a deal done on this floodway is to unionize, it is a slap in the face of the construction workers in this province.

These people have committed a lifetime to building their companies, to building their families, to building their reputations, growing Manitoba, presenting opportunities. We only have to look back a few short years to when the construction industry in this province unionized, non-unionized, friends, neighbours, com- petitors all got together and pushed forward to save the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba from the tremendous flood. It was not something that they had to be told to or mandated by government. It was not something that anybody needed to have written on paper.

It was not an agreement that was forced by a government upon the people who work in this province of Manitoba. It was done by honest, hardworking people that had a commitment to get a job done, get it done under extreme pressure and get it done in a fashion that was satisfactory so all Manitobans could benefit. * (15:20) Mr. Speaker, when a government takes the challenge, I would say they have the audacity to suggest to the construction industry in the province of Manitoba that they cannot complete a project as simple as the floodway.

I use that cautiously but in my estimation and what I am hearing from the contractors in the construction industry, this is about moving earth. This is something that they do on a continuous basis day after day after day. They have done it before.

They have proved to the Province that they can do it and for this Province to suggest that nothing can be completed without this type of an agreement I think is a shame on Manitobans and certainly it reflects poorly on this Government, that they would think that they would have to impose that type of an agreement upon the people of Manitoba, particularly the construction workers. I want to point out that in the past 30 years there has not been a strike, lockout or any kind of work stoppage from the non-unionized sector of the heavy construction industry.

When this Government talks about labour agreements and striking ag reements to force people into one category or anothe r, they are throwing away 30 years of history from an in dustry that has said to Manitobans: When you need us, we are there. When you need us, we are on time. When you need us, we are on budget. This Government is slapping the faces of the construction workers and the owners of these companies in Manitoba, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

These types of agreements are only designed by government, and it was stated earlier today, and I will choose my words very cautiously, but it creates a smell in the rest of Manitoba when they see a government imposing these types of restrictions on construction companies. It creates that aroma of insider information, of paybacks, of scandal, of a way of creating fees that eventually get siphoned back into government or into election campaigns. I think that is disgraceful.

The very fact that people in Manitoba, the people of Manitoba are talking about this should be a lesson for this Government that they had better pay attention and hear what people in Manitoba are saying. We are starting to present petitions on behalf of the province of Manitoba, on behalf of the people of Manitoba. They are saying that the construction

926 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 15, 2004 industry in this province has provided good service for the people of this community and good service for the people of Manitoba, and this Government is challenging that reputation that they have by forcing this unionization. I am not saying it. It is the people that are out there in the public that are saying it. It smells. They are saying that, as much as we have the distrust that is going on at the federal level, this type of deal and this type of representation by the Government creates that same odour of scandal.

The people of Manitoba, through their petitions, through their signing of these petitions–these are not construction people, these are our friends, our neighbours that just do not understand why they as taxpayers should be on the hook for another $50 million to $60 million of their hard-earned money when the Government can go out and negotiate agreement with all the cont ractors, not just the non- union contractors, but the union contractors. We need them all to do a project like this. We cannot afford as a government, as a province to pay the extra $50 million or $60 million.

Furthermore, we cannot afford to offend the people that work in our province by suggesting that they cannot get the job done unless they belong to a union, because they have proved over the last 30 years that they can. They are willing and able. We also have to look at this agreement as taking jobs outside of the province of Manitoba. By forcing unionization you are going to have contractors in this province that are going to say we will not participate. We will not be blackmailed.

We will not be railroaded into unionizing our workers to take this contract, and therefore all of our tax dollars, or a good portion of it, are going to be taken from the taxpayers of Manitoba and Canada, are going to be forced to pay for work th at comes from outside of Manitoba when we have a capable, competent, ready-to-go workforce in this province of Manitoba. I ask the Government to reconsider their position.

We are asking on this side that they take that type of legislation off the table, that they sit down and negotiate with the construction workers of this province, strike an agreement that worked when we built Duff's Ditch and strike an agreement that will benefit all Manitobans, not just the NDP government, not the union people that they represent and not the coffers of the next NDP election campaign. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Emerson, on a grievance? Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): On a grievance, Mr. Speaker. I rise today– Mr. Speaker: Order.

I am sorry, but the records show that the honourable Member for Emerson has already used his grievance. ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would y ou please call debate on second readings in the order they appear on the Order Paper with one exception, Bill 41 to follow 14. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 5–The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act (Claimant Advisers) Mr.

Speaker: Resumed debate on second readings, Bill 5, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act (Claimant Advisers), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed). Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Turtle Mountain? [Agreed] The bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. The honourable Member for St. Norbert wishes to speak to the bill. Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert): Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to put a few remarks on the record regarding Bill 5, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act (Claimant Advisers). The intent of this amendment is to allow claimants to access the assistance of a cl aimant adviser prior to proceeding with an automobile injury compensation appeal. I have been involved in four no-fault car accidents over the last 10 years that have left me with permanent disabilities that I must live with for

April 15, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 927 the rest of my life. I am intimately acquainted with the Personal Injury Protection Program. Prior to the introduction of this program, I attended the public consultations that were under- taken to allow citizens to have input into the proposed changes prior to the introduction of the Personal Injury Protection Program. I have a ton of sympathy for people who are injured on the job or in a car accident.

I can speak with some passion about how difficult it is to think straight and to formulate concrete plans that you would like to implement while you are in pain or on medication to treat an injury or in physiotherapy to ensure that your injury heals and allows you to return to being a productive member of the workforce. I felt so passionate about this issue that I made a presentation at the Manitoba Public Insurance public consultations.

I put forward the major recommen- dation that the corporation provide assistance to claimants to ensure that they could understand the personal injury protection process and that they were well informed of their rights. I am extremely proud of our Government for having the compassion and foresight to introduce this amendment. Many claimants do not understand the Personal Injury Protection plan. In addition to having to struggle to understand the plan, these injured Manitobans also do not understand the scope and purpose of the appeal process.

Unlike the MLAs in this Legislature, many Manitobans find the process of presenting a public address an intimidating and nerve-wracking exper- ience. These injured Manitobans are currently required to struggle through a difficult process during a time when they are in pain. * (15:30) Many appellants are in timidated by the appeal process and are uncomfortable presenting their case to the appeal commission. This bill ensures that appellants receive assistance and advocacy, and, most important, it de-stresses the appeal process.

The role of the claimant adviser office will be to assist appellants so that they understand the meaning and the effect of the provisions of this act, the regulations and decisions made under this act, that they understand that carrying out an investigation or inspection includes obtaining an expert opinion and respecting his or her claim and communicating with or appearing before the commission on his or her behalf. The advisers that this act will provide for are going to have their salaries paid for as well as the costs associated with the research they undertake paid by a consolidated fund.

This means that the claimants will not be out of pocket for the expenses related to ensuring that they are well represented and well advised prior to having their case put before the Automobile Injury Compensation Appeal Commis- sion. I am very proud of our Government for putting this act forward. I want to commend them for this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): I would like to move that debate be adjourned. Mr.

Speaker: The debate is already standing in the name of the honourable Member for Turtle Mountain, so it does not have to be adjourned, but I think we have another member that wishes to speak. Is there another member that wishes to speak? Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise to make a few comments regarding this particular bill, Bill 5, and I must say at the outset that this is a very good improvement to the system that is in place with MPIC. Mr. Harry Schellenberg, Acting Speaker, in the Chair Just to look back a little bit in the history of what has happened with MPIC.

You recall a number of years ago the no-fault suggestion was made and, actually, by our side at the time, and was discussed somewhat since about 1988. After the election we continued to advocate a no-fault program and the government of the day resisted it. Much to our surprise, I think it was just after a CJOB interview on the subject, in which I was advocating the program, the minister did an about-face; the government did an about-face, and brought in, based on the Québec model, a no-fault system.

With that, the rules changed and, of course, it solved a few problems, in that it took the lawyers out of the process and allowed for more speedy resolution, and allowed

928 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 15, 2004 better coverages than were previously the case. There was a learning curve there, and there had to be some improvements to the system. You recall that it was, in fact, reviewed about three years later. One of the suggestions we made at the time, and there were several, was that we have a worker- adviser- or worker-advocat e-type position put for- ward so that people could get through the maze, get through the paperwork, and present a proper case at the appeal process.

In the first couple of years, we put the appeal under the Consumer and Corporate Affairs department to make sure it was at arm's length from MPIC. In th e beginning, we were surprised to find that only, I think the first year, three appeals were filed. We ex pected a flood of appeals and, in fact, it was only, I think, three appeals the first time, under the previous government. But, nevertheless, even though there were only three, and they said, "Well that is all there were." We said,"Well, no, no, people do not know about this as well as they should. We should be publicizing it more.

We should be making it easier for people to file their appeals, short of having to hire a lawyer." So what we have done here is we advocated this. I remember the Member for Thompson advocating this at several junctures. The government changed. It has been a couple of years now but, finally, we have this in a bill form before the House, and this is just one more improvement in the system. I think it shows that this Government is willing and open to new ideas, and willing to discuss changes that are necessary in the MPIC program.

I think, because there is another MPIC bill coming up later on this afternoon, I will leave the rest of my comments for that particular bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Schellenberg): Are there any other speakers? As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed). Bill 9–The Manitoba Immigration Council Act The Acting Speaker (Mr. Schellenberg): Our next debate is on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister for Labour and Immigration (Ms. Allan), Bill 9, The Manitoba Immigration Council Act.

This matter stands in the name of the Member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler). Is it the will of the House to have the matter remain standing in the name of the Member for Springfield? [Agreed] Mr. Bidhu Jha (Radisson): Mr. Acting Speaker, I rise to speak to support Bill 9, The Manitoba Immigration Council Act. This very important bill needs support from all members who believe in Manitoba's actions and strategy for economic growth. This is a plan to double immigration to 10 000 annually.

I believe the creation of the Manitoba Immigration Council will strengthen the ability of the Government to meet Manitoba's immigration goals. The action strategy is soundly based in the commendations of the Premier's Economic Advisory Council after input of Manitobans from the diverse sectors. It states that it is clear that Manitoba needs an increase in immigration to keep its population and workforce in balance. Guiding us to strengthen our commitment to partnerships with business, labour and community, this strategy directs that we build on existing advantages to reach Manitoba's economic goals. Mr.

Acting Speaker, as an immigrant who landed in Manitoba some 33 years back, I understand the complexities of new immigrant families in choosing their new home in a new country. The difficulties faced by new immigrants in adjusting to Manitoba's minus 40 degrees Celsius temperatures, new cultural environment and the other social economic challenges are not very ordinary factors. The challenges are many , and to establish this council is the best possible solution to be applied in solving these complex problems.

The establishment of the council was strongly endorsed by the Business Council of Manitoba, several ethnocultural commu- nities and ethnocultural advisory councils. We must applaud our minister for her leadership in this area to bring innovation in the area of immigration and settlement. Through the proposed appointment of a 12- member council from business, labour and multi- cultural organizations, we will strengthen the existing community relationships and develop new partnerships to ensure that our programs support new

April 15, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 929 commercial participation in Manitoba's dynamic future. As evidence in the history, Mr. Acting Speaker, once good references are given and received, more people will follow suit and come and settle in Manitoba.

We need a lot of people to choose Manitoba as their new home. * (15:40) The council will provide the advice and information to the minister in three key areas: attracting immigrants, which is a very big challenge in the dynamics of population movement in the world today; provision and development of settlement services; and providing aid to the development of crucial supports to retrain immi- grants in Manitoba. As provinces and countries compete globally for the attention of potential immigrants, these tasks grow more challenging. Mr.

Acting Speaker, let us face the facts that when Manitoba competes with other provinces in Canada like Ontario and British Columbia, we need some innovative approach to effectively attract, settle and retain immigrants who will fully contribute to Manitoba communities. We know that it requires a tremendous amount of courage and is a challenge.

Recently the Government of Manitoba has negotiated and signed a new Canada-Manitoba immigration agreement which provides for the development of new initiatives to meet regional needs; addresses barriers and recognition of qualifications; and supports settlement and inte- gration; as well as it also encourages the movement of temporary workers and international students and builds on collaboration with minority language communities as part of the Provincial Nominee Program.

I must say to the members in this House that the Provincial Nominee Program, which is very unique in this country, is well recognized throughout Canada. They look at Manitoba as a leader on this particular challenging front. In support of our mutual goals the federal government has stated its commitment to allow greater numbers of immigrants to come to Manitoba through the Provincial Nominee Program as well as through others such as the humanitarian and Family Unification Program. I know from my personal experience that the Provincial Nominee Program is working.

It is working to be one of the best in this country that we had last year 6500 new arrivals into our province. This has been the highest number over a decade. I think that with the challenges and the program and the formation of this council, we hope that the numbers will increase to 10 000 per year and beyond. Among these are the first ever community sponsorship agreement with the governments of Winnipeg and Canada one year ago and the recent International Student Off-Campus Work Pilot program.

Without these innovations Manitoba will fall short of efforts to address skill shortages, retain our best and brightest and meet the challenges of a highly competitive global economy to be the destination of choice of immigrants. I believe that this kind of program to develop a council that will be from the different groups, from multicultural groups, from business groups, from the social groups that will form the membership of the council and will advise the minister, is one of the best solutions to this tremendously challenged program.

I would like to conclude that those who believe that immigrants who leave their old countries, their relatives, their friends and their old environment need a lot of work for them to settle in the new environment, would need a warm reception and a new and caring body that will help them to settle in the new society with exc itement, compassion, hope and full integration into the new society. This council will be mandated to do all that. I think we should be very proud that the Government of Manitoba has initiated this tremendously desirable act to have the Manitoba immigration act passed. Mr.

Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to commend the vision and the work of the minister in the introduction of Bill 9, The Manitoba Immigration Council Act. I want to point out to the members that when it comes to attracting immigrants to the province we have set some very good goals here, and we are well on our way to achieving the 10 000 a year. Approximately we are at about 6500 arrivals at the moment. But you have to remember that we are in competition with B.C., we are in competition with Toronto. Certainly the weather in B.C., by all accounts, is generally better than it is in Winnipeg.

930 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 15, 2004 So it means that we have to put extra efforts in our settlement services and in other initiatives to attract the immigrants to our province. So it bodes well for the future of Manitoba if we are able to overcome these natural barriers with the weather and the fact that there are in some cases better opportunities elsewhere. We are doing quite well. I also wanted to mention, Mr. Acting Speaker, that I recall as early as, I guess, the early eighties, the whole issue of foreign-trained professionals was an issue in the NDP caucus then.

Sterling Lyon was the premier, and we were trying to knock him off and, as it turned out, we succeeded. But that was a hot issue in the caucus, at the time, as to how we were going to solve this issue of having foreign-trained profes- sionals, for example, foreign-trained doctors who were washing dishes and cleaning floors here in Manitoba, when they could have been put to work serving patients. Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair You know, in opposition, it is so simple to look at these issues, right?

We look at it and say, well, you know, when we get in there, we are simply going to mandate that the government is going to order that so many doctors be trained. But, of course, once you get in government you realize that it is not so simple. The previous Filmon government knows that only too well, as well, that when they tried, and when we tried, as a government, to help the foreign-trained doctors get established, there were barriers.

The society of medical practit ioners, the college in Manitoba, had very definite ideas and very definite rules and some would say they were very unfair rules, because they gave preferential treatment to people that came from Commonwealth countries. Of course, that whole issue ha s been challenged, or is being challenged, by people in the courts at the moment, and I do wish them well in that.

It is a big challenge to expect people who come from a different country w ith their professional qualifications, settle in a country where they may not know the language, and then to have to fight an uphill battle, because what they have to do is pass. They are not asking for any special treatment here; they are willing to pass th e standards courses, the courses they have to take, and the testing.

In order to do that, these are people who do not have a lot of means, they have to put out a lot of money to buy books, and put the time out for studying to be able to pass these tests, and then, even if they pass them, there is no guarantee that they are going to be allowed into the medical school. So this is a very long-standing, serious problem that has passed over several governments in different prov- inces, and I, certainly, would like to see us put our efforts into trying to resolve this in favour of the foreign trained professionals, as soon as we can possibly do that. Mr.

Deputy Speaker: No other speakers? As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler). Agreed? [Agreed] Bill 10–The Gaming Control Amendment Act Mr. Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on Bill 10, The Gaming Control Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Commission de régie du jeu, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed). Stand? Some Honourable Members: Stand. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-2-21b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 2nd hansardpdf 21b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0100437ab0e64bbe9c28f8555b16c94d6db923c1

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