Manitoba Hansard — 8 June 2004 (Sitting 51, 38th Legislature, 2nd Session)

38-2-51

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. 51 - 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, June 8, 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. VACANT Minto 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. VACANT Turtle Mountain WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

3015 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, June 8, 2004 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PETITIONS Highway 227 Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition. It is unacceptable for the residents of Manitoba to travel the unsafe gravel roads of Highway 227 in the constituencies of Lakeside and Portage la Prairie. Inclement weather can make Highway 227 treacherous to all drivers. Allowing better access to Highway 227 would ease the flow of traffic on the Trans-Canada Highway.

Residences along Highway 227 are not as accessible to emergency services due to the nature of the current condition of the roadway. The condition of these gravel roads can cause serious damage to all vehicles, which is unaccept- able. Residents of Manitoba deserve a better rural highway infrastructure. We petition the Manitoba Legislative Assembly as follows: To request that the Minister of Transportation and Government Services consider having Highway 227 paved from the junction of highways 248 and 227 all the way to Highway 16, the Yellowhead route.

To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider supporting said initiatives to ensure the safety of all Manitobans and all Canadians who travel along Manitoba highways. Submitted on behalf of Joe Windsor, Will Foth, F. J. Richard and others. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House. Alzheimer's Disease Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: Alzheimer's is a debilitating disease.

Cholinesterase inhibitors are known to slow or even prevent the progression of Alzheimer's. The provincial government asked for the development of an Alzheimer's strategy in 2000 and was presented with nine recommendations in 2002, none of which has yet been implemented. In the absence of a provincial Alzheimer's strategy, the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority put in place a policy in November 2003 whereby Alzheimer's patients entering personal care homes are being weaned from certain Alzheimer medications in a move that the WRHA's vice- president of long-term care has referred to as a financial necessity.

The administrative costs of the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority have more than tripled since 1999, to a total of more than $16 million a year. In a move that amounts to two-tier medicine, the families of Alzheimer's sufferers in personal care homes may request that the drugs continue to be delivered at the family's expense. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

3016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2004 To request the Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) to ensure that his attempts to balance his department's finances are not at the expense of the health and well-being of seniors and other vulnerable Manitobans suffering from this debilitating disease. To urge the Minister of Health to consider reversing his decision to deny Alzheimer's patients in personal care homes access to certain medications. To request the Minister of Health to consider implementing a provincial Alzheimer's strategy. Signed by Alison Edgar, Kim Burnett, Melodie Mazurek and others.

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. * (13:35) 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 Bruce Shale, Jessie Carnecer, and Tessie Egonia. Pharmacare Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for the petition. Pharmacare is a drug benefit program for any Manitoban, regardless of age, whose income is seriously affected by high prescription drug costs.

Under the Doer government, Pharmacare deductibles have been in creased by 5 percent each year for the past three year s. As a result of the 15% hike in Pharmacare deductibles, individuals are facing increased costs ranging from $36 to $660 a year. Seniors, fixed- and low-income-earning Manitobans are the most negatively impacted by these increases.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the Premier of Manitoba to consider reversing his decision to increase Pharmacare deductibles by 5 percent in Budget 2004, To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider reducing health care bureaucracy, as previously promised, and direct those savings into sustaining Pharmacare. To urge the Premier of Manitoba to consider re- evaluating his government's priorities and to consider suspending his governmen t's plans to spend $100 million on new VLTs at a time when seniors and fixed-income Manitobans cannot afford medication.

It is signed by Lloyd Jensen, Alice Jensen, Drew Ostash and others. Proposed PLA–Floodway Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition:

June 8, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3017 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 Construc- tion 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 competi- tion 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 Ken Wilson, Jeff Reimer, Jeff Unrau and others. Pharmacare Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba and these are the reasons for the petition.

Pharmacare is a drug benefit program for any Manitoban, regardless of age, whose income is seriously affected by high prescription drug costs. Under the Doer government, Pharmacare deduct- ibles have been increased by 5 percent each year for the past three years. As a result of the 15% hike in Pharmacare deductibles, individuals are facing increased costs ranging from $36 to $660 a year.

Seniors, fixed-and low-income-earning Manitobans are the most negatively impacted by these increases. * (13:40) We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the Premier of Manitoba to consider reversing his decision to increase Pharmacare deductibles by 5 percent in Budget 2004. To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider reducing health care bureaucracy, as previously promised, and direct those savings into sustaining Pharmacare.

To urge the Premier of Manitoba to consider re- evaluating his government's priorities and to consider suspending his governmen t's plans to spend $100 million on new VLTs at a time when seniors and fixed-income Manitobans cannot afford medication. This is signed by Reverend Howson, Tammy Wood and others. * * *

3018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2004 Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave to present a petition for the member from Portage la Prairie. Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave to present the petition for the honourable Member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou)? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Speaker: Leave has been granted. Highway 227 Mr. Schuler: These are the reasons for this petition. It is unacceptable for the residents of Manitoba to travel the unsafe gravel roads of Highway 227 in the constituencies of Lakeside and Portage la Prairie.

Inclement weather can make Highway 227 treacherous to all drivers. Allowing better access to Highway 227 would ease the flow of traffic on the Trans-Canada Highway. Residences along Highway 227 are not as accessible to emergency services due to the nature of the current condition of the roadway. The condition of these gravel roads can cause serious damage to all vehicles, which is unacceptable. Residents of Manitoba deserve a better rural highway infrastructure.

We petition the Manitoba Legislative Assembly as follows: To request that the Minister of Transportation and Government Services consider having Highway 227 paved from the junction of highways 248 and 227 all the way to Highway 16, the Yellowhead route. To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider supporting said initiatives to ensure for the safety of all Manitobans and all Canadians who travel along Manitoba highways. Signed by G. Johnson, Allison Thurston, Ken Wistoski, and hundreds and hundreds of others. COMMITTEE REPORTS Standing Committee on Private Bills First Report Mr.

Doug Martindale (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the First Report of the Standing Committee on Private Bills. Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Private Bills pr esents the following as its First Report. Mr. Speaker: Dispense? Some Honourable Members: Dispense. Mr. Speaker: Dispense. Your Standing Committee on Private Bills presents the following as its First Report. Meetings: Your committee met on Monday, June 7, 2004, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building.

Matters under Consideration: Bill 300 – The Winnipeg Foundation Act/Loi sur la Fondation dénommée « The Winnipeg Foundation » Bill 301– The Jewish Foundation of Manitoba Act/Loi sur la Fondation dénommée « The Jewish Foundation » Committee Membership: Your committee elected Mr. Martindale as the Chairperson. Your committee elected Ms. Oswald as the Vice- Chairperson. Substitutions received prior to commencement of meeting: Ms. Irvin-Ross for Hon. Ms. Allan Mr. Dewar for Hon. Mr. Struthers Ms. Oswald for Hon. Mr. Rondeau Mrs. Stefanson for Mr. Maguire Mr. Loewen for Mr. Penner

June 8, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3019 Motions: Your committee agreed to the following motion: THAT THIS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT THE FEES PAID WITH RESPECT TO BILL (No. 301)–The Jewish Foundation of Manitoba Act/Loi sur la Fondation dénommée « The Jewish Foundation of Manito ba », BE REFUNDED, LESS THE COST OF PRINTING.

Public Presentations: Your committee heard one presentation on Bill 300 – The Winnipeg Foundation Act/Loi sur la Fondation dénommée « The Winnipeg Foundation », from the following organization: Rick Frost, The Winnipeg Foundation Your committee heard two presentations on Bill 301– The Jewish Foundation of Manitoba Act/Loi sur la Fondation dénommée « The Jewish Foundation », from the following organizations: David Cohen, Jewish Foundation of Manitoba Bryan Klein, Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson Bills Considered and Reported: Bill 300–The Winnipeg Foundation Act/Loi sur la Fondation dénommée « The Winnipeg Foundation »

Your committee agreed to report this bill without amendment. Bill 301–The Jewish Foundation of Manitoba Act/Loi sur la Fondation dénommée « The Jewish Foundation » Your committee agreed to report this bill without amendment. Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Seine River (Ms. Oswald), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today Mr.

Giordano Alneida who is an exchange student from Brazil. He is also the guest of the honourable Member for Brandon East (Mr. Caldwell). Also in the Speaker's Gallery we have Mr. Thomas Maracle who is from Ottawa, and Mr. John Hickes of Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, who is also my brother. I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us from J. R. Walkof Elementary School 64 Grade 8 students under the direction of Mr. Gerald Letkeman, Mrs. Allison Hesom, Mrs. Linda Wall and Mrs. Winnie Fehr.

This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck). Also in the public gallery we have students from Collége Louis-Riel. These students are under the direction of Mr. Luc David and are the guests of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger). Also in the public gallery we have from Glenboro School 16 Grade 6 students under the direction of Mrs. Marilyn Cullen. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. * (13:45) On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you all here today.

ORAL QUESTIONS Red River Floodway Expansion Master Labour Agreement Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it is the Doer government and the Premier (Mr. Doer) that have had the Wally Fox-Decent report for more than two weeks, and for two weeks they refuse to state their government's position.

Today we have learned the Premier is in fact going to force non-unionized workers to pay union dues, and while his news release states they have requested the Manitoba Floodway Expansion Authority establish mechanisms for the industry to participate in a meaningful and constructive manner, it is unclear if this means the employers will be at the bargaining and negotiating table.

3020 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2004 Mr. Speaker, will the minister explain why he is going to force non-unionized workers to pay union dues and can he tell us if heavy construction employers will be a fully participating partner at the negotiating table? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): After due consideration we have indeed recommended to the Floodway Authority the implementation of the Wally Fox-Decent report.

I would remind the Leader of the Opposition he, on both April 29 and May 4, certainly agreed with our assessment that Wally Fox-Decent was imminently qualified and had the integrity and credibility to work with all the stakeholders. We felt a report was a balanced approach and, this may be a word that is alien to members opposite, involved compromise. We think that kind of compromise is the Manitoba way, unlike the confrontation we see day in and day out on this issue from members opposite. Mr. Murray: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Water Stewardship is right. We understand that Mr.

Wally Fox-Decent is qualified, but we think it is just unfortunate because the minister and the Premier could not agree that they had to bring Wally Fox- Decent in, in the first place. It is unforgivable that the Doer government is going to force non-unionized workers to pay union dues, and the very simple question is that the employer group, 95 percent of which are non-unionized, it is important they be a fully participating partner at the negotiating table with the union. I ask this minister: Will he do the right thing?

Will he ensure that non-unionized workers are not forced to pay union dues and will he ensure that the employer group is a fully participating partner at the negotiating table? That is what Manitobans expect. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I think what Manitobans expect is better consideration for a report like the Wally Fox-Decent report than the members opposite gave. Within two hours of the release of the report, they had rejected the report which involved a lot of effort. I would remind the member opposite if he had taken the time to read that report, he would note that Mr.

Fox-Decent, himself, said, "It is important in terms of working conditions to determine by negotiation between the Manitoba Building Trades Council and the Floodway Authority, working in close association with relevant employers or employer associations." That was in his report. We have indicated we want the Floodway Authority to establish a mechanism for the industry to participate in a meaningful and constructive manner. It was in the report. We have endorsed the report. It is unfortunate members opposite did not even bother to read the report before they rejected it within two hours of its release. Mr.

Murray: Mr. Speaker, I think what is unfor- tunate is the Doer government insists on forcing non- unionized workers to pay union dues. It is a kickback. That is clearly wh at it is. The fact is the employer groups, of whic h 95 percent of those employer groups look after the employees' safety, ensure the employees have proper training programs, that is what the employer groups are going to do.

I simply ask the Doer government to do the right thing, to ensure that non-unionized workers are not forced to pay union dues as a kickback and then ensure that the employer groups, who represent 95 percent of non-unionized workers, have a fully participating position at the bargaining table. That is the right thing to do. Mr. Ashton: The only thing the member knows about is the right-wing thing to do, because when he talks about kickbacks, I would remind him his party is the only party that is opposed to banning union and corporate donations.

In fact, the Conservative Party, the national Conservative Party, believes in banning that. Only members opposite are stuck in the past on that. They are stuck in the past on labour relations. * (13:50) In the last election the member opposite ran on a platform of repealing the provisions of The Labour Relations Act that involved the Rand Formula. They are against the Rand Formula, which has been in place since the 1940s in Manitoba in terms of labour legislation. The only right thing from that side is the right-wing approach, the extreme right-wing approach. Ours is the Manitoba way of compromise and consensus.

Red River Floodway Expansion Master Labour Agreement Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): The only thing this minister has stated he is in favour of today is a kickback to his union-boss buddies. Forcing workers

June 8, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3021 to pay union dues is undemocratic. Workers have made the choice to work in– Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed the word "kickback" to continue and I have accepted it when it is used in a general fashion. [interjection] Order. But when it is directed at a minister or an individual in this House pertaining to kickbacks, that will not be acceptable to the House. In general terms, I have allowed it, so I would ask the honourable Member for Steinbach to pick and choose your words very carefully. Mr.

Goertzen: This government has generally participated in a kickback by accepting to put forward union dues for non-unionized workers. Workers have made a choice. Mr. Speaker, workers have made a choice, a democratic choice, to work in a non-unionized environment, and that means not paying union dues. This is not about the Rand Formula. This does not have to be negotiated that way. Wages are already covered under The Construction Wages Act. Employees are provided training before. Safety can be done by regulation, but this minister has sold out workers for his union-boss buddies.

Can he tell us why he has betrayed workers in Manitoba? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): Again, I think we can see how the members opposite are able to reject the report within two hours because they cl early have not read the report. Mr. Wa lly Fox-Decent, that well-respected Manitoban the opposition talked about, clearly identified in this particular case the provisions for a fee for service. In fact, he made a definition that included a differential between those who are unionized and those who are not.

To use terms like "kickbacks" and "union bosses" and "buddies," I do not know which decade, which century the member opposite is living in, but that kind of language went out of this province decades ago. The Manitoba way is to work towards compromise and consensus. That is what we did with Wally Fox-Decent. That is why we have adopted the report. Mr. Goertzen: Make no mistake, Manitobans know a kickback when they see it, and this is a kickback. This minister has written a very sad story when it comes to development of the floodway.

First he tried to force unionization on workers, but the Leader of the Official Opposition (M r. Murray) led the charge against that and, with support of the public, was able to change the minister's mind on that. Second, he said his opinion was that all workers on the union project should pay union dues. He said that before Mr. Fox-Decent's report was even commissioned. Then he delayed the review and now he is agreeing with his own recommendation he made two months ago that all workers should be paying union dues on the floodway whether they are unionized or not.

I wonder if this minister has given any consideration of what the costs will be to workers who are now forced to pay union dues who are not involved in a union. Mr. Ashton: I would point out to members opposite, one of the reasons we br ought Wally Fox-Decent in is this is the Manitoba way. We took a step back. We worked with the stakeholders through Wally Fox- Decent. Wally Fox-Decent brought in a report that I think is a reasonable co mpromise. In fact, many observers, many members of the public have indicated that.

I would like to remind members opposite one of the key elements we have stated all the way along is important in terms of the floodway. Perhaps something they do not have the same concern about is to make sure that we do have stability, Mr. Speaker, no strikes, no lockouts. This agreement, the framework that Mr. Wally Fox-Decent has put forward, will ensure that is the critical thing, building the floodway expansion, not playing politics like members opposite do day in and day out in this Legislature. * (13:55) Mr. Goertzen: Mr.

Speaker, the Manitoba way is to respect democratic choice, the democratic choice of workers who decided to work in a non-unionized environment and to not pay union dues. The NDP way, by contrast, is to first try to find a way to force all workers to join a union, and when they are backed off by the Manitoba public on that, they try to find a way to still get their money to their union-boss buddies through a kickback, through this forced unionization,

whereas Manitobans know their way is

3022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2004 not the NDP way, not to force union dues on non- unionized workers. This minister should be ashamed of his kickback scheme. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Just previously I asked the honourable member to be careful to pick and choose his words carefully and I just heard him say, "his kickback scheme." I just cautioned all honourable members about–[interjection] Order. I have let it go when it has been used in a general term. Every member in this House is an honourable member and each and every member should be treated as such.

I ask the honourable member to withdraw that last comment. Mr. Goertzen: I withdraw the comment. I meant to say the government was participating in a kickback scheme. Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I just mentioned to the House that I would accept it in a general term and that is what the honourable member has just done and that should take care of the matter. Mr. Ashton: I think it is rather interesting, Mr.

Speaker, that this opposition has spent more time asking questions about this one issue of the floodway expansion than even issues like BSE and many other critical issues. I would just like to remind Manitobans it is not just on this bill members opposite are extreme. This is the same party that voted against the unanimously recommended workplace safety and health legisla- tion in the previous Legislature. They ran against the Rand Formula in the last election, something that goes back to the 1940s, the labour legislation. They even voted against the compassionate care bill, Mr. Speaker, last year.

This is an extreme opposition and the kind of phraseology and the kind of ideology they are talking about went out of style decades ago in Manitoba. The Manitoba way is to work towards the kind of consensus we see, the kind of approach in the Wally Fox-Decent report, the report we have adopted and we will go forward with from here on in. Winnipeg Regional Health Authority Cost-cutting Measures Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, in 1999 the Doer government promised to fix health care in six months with $15 million.

Well, four years and over a billion dollars later, hospitals may be forced to lay off staff, cut programs and close beds according to an edict sent out by the WRHA. I would like to ask this Minister of Health if he ordered the WRHA to send out that edict. Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the "edict" the member is referring to was the funding letter that went from the WRHA to the hospitals saying this year the WRHA is receiving an increase of 4.4 percent on its $1.2 billion budget.

While not all demands have been met, $94 million of the $111 million requested would be provided for and then ask the hospitals to allocate accordingly. I might add, the funding letter indicated an increase of 4.4 percent. I might ask the member opposite to reflect on the fact that her party promised an increase in health care spending this year of 1 percent. One percent is what they asked for. They voted against a 4.4% increase in the budget . I think the facts speak quite clearly for themselves. Health Care Services Bed Closures Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr.

Speaker, the facts certain ly speak clearly enough through the edict that was sent to the hospitals. The Minister of Health has been adamantly saying over the past few weeks that there would be no bed closures. He has been dancing all around this issue. Dr. Brian Postl, of the WRHA, is saying they are looking at bed closures in that edict so who are we to believe? I would like to ask the Minister of Health if he would come clean now and tell us: Are they going to be closing any hospital beds? * (14:00) Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): The member will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that we closed some beds at St.

Boniface Hospital in order to allow the cardiac program I thought members supported to move over to St. Boniface Hospital in order to consolidate one program. By virtue of doing that we

June 8, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3023 have been able to reduce the wait for elective cardiac surgery 62 percent. We also consolidated and are consolidating orthopedic surgeries at Concordia Hospital, Mr. Speaker, and the wait time for hip and knee surgery is down 20 percent. We have also introduced the gamma knife in which outpatient surgery takes place where an individual used to have to stay in the hospital six or seven days. They now get the surgery on an outpatient basis.

We have also doubled day surgeries at Pan Am Clinic when members opposite asked us to give more funding to the Maples, of which the members have good friends, and Western Surgical Centre. They want us to fund private clinics instead of public clinics, Mr. Speaker. The facts speak for themselves. Winnipeg Regional Health Authority Cost-cutting Measures Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, the facts do speak for themselves.

I have been receiving letter after letter and phone call after phone call from people that are on huge waiting lists waiting for orthopedic surgery, and this minister can stand and brag about something like the waiting lists going down when we have some people waiting for two years for orthopedic surgery. Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks the Minister of Health has be en adamantly denying that hospital programs would be cut because of deficits, yet the edict just issued may force programs to be cut or staff to be laid off.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health to now come clean and tell us: After pumping more than a billion dollars into health care, how many programs are going to be cut and how many staff will be laid off? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the letter that went from the WRHA to the hospitals indicated the increase from the government would be 4.4 percent. This is to a region– [interjection] Will the member allow me to answer the question? Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Chomiak: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, the members opposite asked for a 1% increase to the health budget this year. That would be a total of $30 million, which would not even be one third of the increase we gave to the WRHA this year. They put that in their platform. They asked for it, one third of what they are actually getting. That is what they asked for. Mr. Speaker, the facts of our giving them 4.4 million will mean expanded programs like palliative care, like gamma knife, like the second-lowest waiting list for hip and knee in the country and growing; more hip and knee in this province, more cardiac in this province.

Our cancer waiting lists are the best in the country and have been reduced in half since members opposite were in government. The facts speak for themselves. We are innovative and we are giving more money, not less. Winnipeg Regional Health Authority Administrative Costs Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): In four and a half years, Mr. Speaker, under this minister's watch, the administrative costs at the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority have tripled from $5 million to $16 million, millions of dollars that could have been used for front-line health care.

Will the minister now do what he is asking health care facilities to do and find administrative savings at the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority and direct those dollars to front-line health care? Hon.

Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): The letter that went out from the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority to the regions and to the hospitals that said we are talking about the 4.4% increase or $94-million increase this year over the increase of last year, and over the incr ease of the year before, talked about the first issue to be dealt with by the participants, the regionals, the regions, the hospitals, personal care homes. The first area to be looked at is administrative savings, Mr. Speaker. I will take no lectures from a member who had two regional health authorities and thirteen vice-presidents in one city.

We cut that in half. Mrs. Mitchelson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess the definition of cutting administration in half, for this government, is having administrative costs for the regional health authority go from $5 million to $16 million. I do not call that a cut in administration.

3024 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2004 This minister's priorities are all wrong. More money for administrative costs in his bureaucracy at the expense of much-needed front-line health care. When will this minister get his priorities straight and issue an edict from his department to start reducing administrative costs and redirect that funding to front-line services? Mr. Chomiak: Mr.

Speaker, not only have we asked the WRHA to reduce its administrative costs by 5 to 7 million, but a third-party independent review by the Canadian Institute for Health Information that did a comparison across the prov inces of all administra- tive costs not only found that Manitoba had the third- lowest administrative cost in Canada, but as a percentage of savings, our administrative costs have gone down from when that member was around the Cabinet table to now. Mrs. Mitchelson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know how– An Honourable Member: That is not true. An Honourable Member: Five to sixteen is not up. Mr.

Speaker: Order. I would like to remind all honourable members that when the Speaker is standing, all members should be seated and the Speaker should be heard in silence. I ask the co- operation of all honourable members. Mrs. Mitchelson: Well, Mr. Speaker, that just says it all. Here we have a Minister of Health that talks about decreases in administrative costs when his own numbers and figures indicate the administrative costs in his regional health authority under his direct responsibility have increased from $5 million to $16 million. I guess that is NDP math, an increase of $11 million, he calls a decrease.

Mr. Speaker, again, 4.5 years under this minister's watch, a billion dollars later into our health care system and we see threats of bed closures, staff layoff and reduced surgeries. When will this minister get his priorities straight, reduce administrative costs and put the money into the front-line service? Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the CIHI preliminary provincial and territorial government health expendi- ture estimates November 2002, of which members have a copy, indicates that administrative cost across the board is $195 million in '99-2000. It is down to $179 million in '02-03.

That is down from the time members opposite were in government. The CIHI, that is national data. It is put together– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Chomiak: I would also like to add, Mr. Speaker, when the members put out that same press release the member referred to as her data, last year we indicated that not only has the WRHA expanded its programs, palliative care program, taken over VON administration, has taken over Deer Lodge administration and a variety of services have gone into that particular line. Finally, Mr.

Speaker, any members who closed 1400 beds, laid off 1000 nurses, have no right to talk about layoffs. They are already experts in cutbacks and layoffs and firings. Adolescent Parents Supports and Services Mrs. Leanne Ro wat (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, a 16-month-old baby was battered and beaten, perhaps comatose, for up to two days without medical attention. Peter Bradburn, an outreach worker in Oxford House, publicly stated, "It just doesn't make any sense. How do you explain it?" Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Family Services must show some leadership.

She must outline today what steps she has taken in her department to respond to this tragedy. What immediate action, immediate, has the minister taken to ensure resources are in place so no other child falls through the cracks? Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Mr. Speaker, I have informed the House many times of the services we have put in place since 1999 in the perinatal service unit. These services are available to all our teen parents, be they young men or young women.

We are continuing to provide those services in partnership with service providers throughout our province. * (14:10)

June 8, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3025 Mrs. Rowat: Manitobans are outraged. This government is taking no action. Mike McIntyre on CJOB's "Crime and Punishment," indicated that people are wondering what can be done. What can we do to help the system that would allow a child so young and so innocent to be killed? The minister has failed. We are hearing from front-line workers that caseloads are unmanageable and may have been a contributing factor in this tragedy.

My question is to the Minister of Family Services: Can the minister today advise what is the average client caseload social workers currently have? What is the current caseload? Ms. Melnick: The average caseload ranges between 20 to 25 cases, Mr. Speaker. That may vary depending on how the individual worker is working with individual clients. We do work one on one through our perinatal service unit. There are counsel- ling services available on parenting, on financial matters, on working with family members and we will continue to do that. Mrs.

Rowat: My concern is where was the one-to- one worker that was supposed to be working with this mother and this child. Obviously, it was missing. A tragic mistake has happened. Darlene Papiano, a youth care worker with Macdonald Youth Services, publicly stated, "We need to do something more in some way just to be able to stand up for her." Child and Family Services employees need to know they can come forward with solutions to improve the system. Mr.

Speaker, will the Minister of Family Services lift the gag order on her department today and find out whether caseloads are too high and whether the appropriate programs are in place to support potentially volatile parents? How many more babies have to be brutalized before this minister calls for a public inquiry? Ms. Melnick: Mr. Speaker, there are two investiga- tions currently underway, Winnipeg Police Service, Winnipeg Child and Family. We are watching those closely. We are awaiting the results. Child and Family Services Accommodations–Hotels Mr.

John Loewen (Fort Whyte): It is unfortunate in our society but it does happen that the minister's department, Child and Family Services, has to apprehend children from dysfunctional homes and other places and house them in hotels from time to time. As a matter of fact, the Premier (Mr.

Doer) when in opposition, stated, and I quote, "We do not believe that in dealing with children in care, hotels will deal with inadequacies of dysfunctional families." We agree with that statement, but what we have today, what we are hearing today from the minister's staff is these numbers of children warehoused in hotels are at all-time highs, yet this minister consis- tently refused, in Question Period, in Estimates, through written correspondence, to advise how many children are in hotels. I would ask her today: How many children were housed in hotels last weekend? Hon.

Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Mr. Speaker, there are substantially less children in hotels today than there were when members opposite were in government. Some Honourable Members: How many? Mr. Speaker: Order. Ms. Melnick: Hotel usage for children who have been apprehended, under this government, is used primarily to keep sibling groups together. I would like to inform– Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Fort Whyte, on a point of order. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Beauchesne's 416, "A Minister may decline to answer a question," but it is the common practice of this House that if she does not have the answer for a question, she take it as notice without any

preamble, without any explanation. Day after day she refuses to answer these questions in the House. I would ask you simply to advise her if she does not have the answer to a question, just take it as notice. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Member for Fort Whyte, we have in place an agreement and that was agreed to by all parties. [interjection] Order. We have an agreement

3026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2004 in place that allows members to state other issues while they have the floor. They have 50 seconds for that. Also, according to the rule that was cited by the honourable member, 416, a member may put a question but has no right to insist upon an answer. I have a ruling as an example. I just happen to have it, dated December 16, 1992, by then-Speaker Rocan. It was a question that was raised by the House leader at that time about the Premier not answering a question.

The ruling stated that, on the point of order raised, Beauchesne's 416, a member may put a question but has no right to insist upon an answer. That has been ruled by other Speakers and that will be consistent with my ruling today. The honourable member does not have a point of order. * * * Mr. Speaker: Have you concluded your answer? Ms. Melnick: I would like to inform the House today that hotel usage for siblings will soon be lowered even more. We have recently opened one shelter which will be dedicated to siblings, and we will open a second one in the fall.

We believe that children are better placed in a home-like environment which is why we have undertaken to open two shelters which are dedicated to siblings and keeping sibling groups together. Mr. Loewen: This is totally unacceptable. When in opposition, the Premier (M r. Doer) referred to the placement of children in hotels as an abandonment of children, yet today he allows his minister to stand in this House, she refuses to answer a very straight- forward question.

She tells us it is less than before so she must have the numbers if she has done that comparison, but she refuses time and time again to give members of this House, to give the public in Manitoba, an opportunity to see the real numbers. The question is: Why? What is she trying to hide? What disaster is befalling the children of Manitoba because she refuses to speak up and because this Premier continues to allow her to dodge the question? It is simple. How many children were warehoused in hotels this weekend? Tell us. Ms.

Melnick: I would further like to inform the House we have put out a request for proposal for 50 new foster home beds so that children underage will be placed not in hotels, not in shelters, but again in a foster setting. We are taking care of the children, and we will continue to put children No. 1. Mr. Loewen: This continues to be a shameful practice by this minister. While in opposition, the Premier and his party thought they had a policy to get children out of hotels. We see in government they have completely abandoned this policy like they have abandoned so many. Mr. Speaker, the question is simple.

We are hearing from staff that two and three weekends ago, there were 70 and 80 children warehoused in hotels. We hear from staff this weekend there were over 40 children warehoused in hotels. This minister, who can get the answer by one simple phone call, refuses to say. That is shameful. I would ask this Premier today if he will stand in this House, get his information from the minister and tell the people of Manitoba how many children were warehoused in hotels in the last weekend. * (14:20) Ms. Melnick: Mr.

Speaker, I can assure the House that children are not put in hotels in the numbers they were when members opposite were in government. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind honourable members the clock is ticking. We need to try and get as many questions and answers– An Honourable Member: It is ticking on the children, too, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Order. We would like to try and get as many questions and answers as we can in. I would ask the co-operation of all honourable members. Ms. Melnick: Mr.

Speaker, we are continuing to work on what we believe is a better placement for a child who is undergoing the stress of apprehension which is why we have currently opened one of the new sibling shelters. Another one will be opened in the fall. Sleep Disorders Testing Waiting Lists Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, currently individuals may wait for up to five years

June 8, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3027 for sleep disorder testing in Manitoba. Studies have clearly shown it is cost-effective to test patients rapidly because medical problems picked up early can be associated with substantial improvements in health and in cost savings. I table today a study by Dr. Kathleen Ferguson conducted in 1999 which recommended major improvements to sleep disorder testing in Manitoba.

Doctor Ferguson's review noted that at that point there had been at least 10 deaths of patients while on the waiting list for sleep disorder testing between 1996 to1998, essentially signalling then there was an urgent need for action. I ask the Minister of Health why Doctor Ferguson's recommendations have not yet been fully implemented. Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the honourable member as I recall now that he has gone back to this issue he raised at the beginning of the session, having spent time on other issues which is his right.

I want to point out that, in fact, we spent several million dollars of reinvestment in the sleep lab and in sleep lab waiting lists. Urgent cases are permitted other alternatives. I might also add to the member opposite, with our negotiations with the federal government they have only identified five areas to deal with waiting lists to give us additional resources on, and sleep lab and sleep testing is not one of them, Mr. Speaker. I have had discussions at the federal level about the extent to which the federal government are assisting us in this regard. Mr. Gerrard: Mr.

Speaker, calling up this morning to the St. Boniface sleep lab, the message on the answering machine is: "You may be waiting up to five years for sleep disorder testing." Mr. Speaker, this is a problem which is very important. It is time for the Minister of Health to step up to the plate and find some solutions.

There is substantial information to show that rapid diagnostic testing and treatment of sleep disorders like obstructive sleep apnea can have a very positive impact on other aspects of health including reducing blood pressure, reducing hospitalizations, and perhaps reducing cardio-re spiratory failure, heart attacks and strokes. Why has the government not acted to improve the situation and to make sure that sleep disorder testing can be provided promptly when needed? Mr. Chomiak: Mr.

Speaker, as I indicated to the member when he first accused the government of, I think, some things that he ought to have apologized in terms of what happened when he got those inaccuracies straight, I indicated to the member opposite we have cut the surgical, lifesaving treat- ment for cancer care in half and we are the leading in the country. We have reduced cardiac wait lists by 62 percent. We are the second best in the country for hip and knee replacements. We now have one of the leading neurosurgery programs in the country. We have doubled the number of MRIs we provide.

We have tripled the capacity for CT scans in this province. We have done many things. In addition, we have put several million dollars into the sleep waiting program. I admit, Mr. Speaker, there is more work to do but I note his federal partner has not even identified it as a priority issue from the federal government, not even during an election campaign. Legislative Assembly Sitting

Schedule Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. There was a time in which one would say the Premier while in opposition was a great defender of opposition rights. I can recall the Premier at one time saying to Gary Filmon that we need to sit more days. I can recall the Government House Leader (Mr. Mackintosh) when he was the Opposition House Leader tramping across the floor demanding more rights for opposition members. Well, what has happened is this government has taken a complete turn, Mr.

Speaker, and what we are seeing is an attitude that is going to limit the rights of MLAs to be able to participate fully in terms of this Chamber. At one time, this Premier did support those rights. My question to the Premier is: Why does this Premier not see it is in the best interests of Manitobans that at the very least this Legislature Chamber should be sitting at least 80 days in any given calendar year? Why does this government

3028 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2004 oppose that, Mr. Speaker? At one time this Premier recognized that was important. Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the current sitting of the Legislature that started in November, and I did comment in opposition that we would have a Speech from the Throne every fall, I would say since then we have progressed, I thought, to a place where the parties would negotiate a predictable calendar, especially for MLAs who live outside of the Perimeter Highway.

I know that is a new concept to members opposite, but people living outside of the Perimeter Highway can be more effective in their representative roles. The Legislature sat some 102 sittings with the committee work, et cetera, and I can say my criticism of having a fall Speech from the Throne stands.

I have tried to correct that, but if we always agreed to break off in other committees, into Committee of Supply and other committees of the Legislature to try to facilitate, first of all, the public's right to present their views on bills, I believe the all-party agreement that was signed by the member opposite, obviously with invisible ink, would allow for the public to participate in the legislative public hearings on the bills. That is good for the public and I think good for this Legislature, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. SPEAKER'S RULING Mr.

Speaker: I have a ruling for the House. Following the daily Prayer on Monday, June 7, 2004, the honourable Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) rose on a matter of privilege regarding a government motion that appeared on the Notice Paper. At the conclusion of his remarks, the honourable Member for River Heights moved "THAT this serious matter now be referred to the Committee on Legislative Affairs and then be reported to the House." * (14:30) The honourable Government House Leader (Mr. Mackintosh), the honourable Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and the honourable Member for Fort Whyte (Mr.

Loewen) offered advice to the Chair on this matter. I took the matter under advisement in order to consult the procedural authorities. There are two conditions that must be satisfied in order for the matter raised to be ruled in order as a prima facie case of privilege. First, was the issue raised at the earliest op portunity, and second, has sufficient evidence been provided to demonstrate that the privileges of the House have been breached, in order to warrant putting the matter to the House.

Regarding the first condition of timeliness, the honourable Member for River Heights asserted that he did raise the matter at the earliest opportunity, and I will accept the word of the honourable member. Regarding the second condition, I must advise the House that Joseph Maingot advises on page 223 of the Second Edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, that "a breach of the Standing Orders or a failure to follow an established practice would invoke a point of order rather than a question of privilege.

Allegations of fact amounting to allegations that proper procedures were not followed are by their very nature matters of order, and even if valid, would not receive priority in debate as would a prima facie case of privilege." Also, Speaker Rocan ruled on March 12, 1993 that there were precedents from both the Canadian House of Commons and the Manitoba Legislature that would allow for Standing Orders to be suspended or amended by motion on notice.

A motion has been placed on Notice, and is now on the Order Paper, that would outline House business for this week, as well as outlining sitting dates for the upcoming year. The placement of this motion on the Notice and Order Papers is not a prima facie case of privilege, and it will be up to the House to debate and ultimately decide the disposition of the motion. I therefore rule that there is no prima facie case of privilege. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS IS-Image Promotions Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I am pleased to share with honourable colleagues the success of Brad and Gloria Letkeman's Morden-based family business.

IS-Image Promotions recently celebrated its tenth anniversary by hosting a customer appreciation open house on June 1. Along with the mayor of Morden, Mr. John Wiens, and the vice-president of Buhler Industries, Mr. Larry Schroeder, I had the privilege

June 8, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3029 of attending this celebration and I was invited to share a few remarks. For 10 years the Letkemans have provided quality promotional products to local business organizations and sports teams. Creative decals, banners and signs are but a few of the many products available at IS-Image Promotions. The Letkemans' quality products and superior customer service has been a wonderful addition to Morden's business community. The Letkemans are not only astute businesspeople, they are al so actively involved in community.

One example of the Letkemans' generous spirit was during the 1997 flood of the century when they produced hundreds of T-shirts with the proceeds, all $30,000 going toward Manitoba flood victims. Small businesses like IS-Image Promotions are key to Manitoba's economy. Many women and men have combined their creative ideas and keen business sense to establish such enterprises in the province. Locally owned and operated businesses are especially important to building Manitoba's rural economy and strengthening rural communities.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratu- late Brad and Gloria and IS-Image Promotions on 10 successful years in busine ss in Morden and wish them all the best as they continue to provide quality products and service to Morden and the surrounding area. Prairie Grain Roads Program Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, 24 Manitoba rural municipalities along with 3 towns, 2 cities and 1 secondary highway will benefit this year from funding assistance through the Prairie Grain Roads Program. This year there are 31 roadway construction projects in 2004 with a cumulative value of $16.76 million.

Since 1999, the provincial and federal govern- ments have provided special support to rural highways through the cost-shared Prairie Grain Roads Program of which the Highway 68 project from No. 8 to Poplarfield was a big project. The intent of this program is to target and improve roads and highways most impacted by heavy grain transportation. The abandonment of branch rail lines and consolidation of grain elevators have placed heavy demands on our ageing grain roads system.

The maintena nce and restoration of these corridors is vital to Manitoba's economy and to facilitate the vital and timely movement of Manitoba grain. The Prairie Grain Roads Program has allowed Manitoba municipalities to make road improvements that may not have been possible without the commit- ment of all three levels of government. This is the fourth year of a five-year program. To date, 95 municipal road projects and five provincial secondary highway projects have been approved for funding assistance in Manitoba.

In all, 697 kilometres of Manitoba municipal roads and 122 kilometres of provincial secondary highways have benefited from the program. I am proud to say that every cent of provincial fuel tax is invested in roads. Manitoba's five-year, $600-million highway program is now in its third construction season. This year's budget added $10 million for the upcoming season and a further 10 million for next year.

Over the life of the Prairie Grain Roads Program, the combined funding from the federal, municipal and provincial governments will deliver approximately $66 million toward the construction and upgrading of secondary highways and municipal roads. Thank you. Gasoline Taxes Mrs.

Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): This morning, our leader and 11 of my PC Party colleagues and I joined representatives of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the CTF, and concerned members of the public on the steps of the Legislature to sign a petition calling on the federal Minister of Finance to lower gasoline taxes and dedicate 50 percent of federal gasoline tax revenues to municipalities and roadway development and infrastructure mainten- ance.

I must say that I was ex tremely disappointed and very concerned with the lack of support shown by this Doer government for what would be clearly a benefit to fix the roads in the city of Winnipeg and rural municipalities in our province. This was demonstrated by the Doer government's conscious decision not to participate in this event. Their absence, as well as the absence of the Liberal

3030 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2004 independent members of this Chamber, speaks volumes. Gas taxes, on average, cost as much as 42 percent of the pump price. For every litre of gasoline that is purchased across Canada, Ottawa collects 10 cents in gasoline tax plus applicable GST. The vast majority of funds collected, however, do not make it back to local communities to pay for maintenance and upgrades into Canada's ageing infrastructure. This year, Ottawa will spend only $135 million, or 2.8 percent of its 5.3 billion in gasoline taxes, on highway renewal.

To add insult to injury for Manitobans, 99 percent of that money will go to improvements on highways east of Ontario. The CTF petition calls on the federal government to dedicate gasoline taxes to rebuilding Canada's roads and demands that the excess taxes be cut from the pump price. I congratulate the CTF for this initiative and encourage all members of this House to sign the petition, and demonstrate their support for lower gas taxes and a federal redistribution of 50 percent of gas taxes collected back to municipalities.

The city of Winnipeg and rural municipalities in our province will clearly benefit from this initiative. Mr. Speaker, this is a no-brainer when it comes to supporting what is in the best interest of all Manitobans. Shame on this Doer government, and shame on the Liberal members in this Legislature for not supporting this very important petition. Thank you. Chief Warrant Officer Frank Emond Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (St. James): Mr. Speaker, an extremely valuable member of our Armed Forces community will be retiring this month. Chief Warrant Officer Frank Emond first joined the Canadian Forces on January 9, 1969.

Chief Warrant Officer Emond was promoted to his present rank in 1995, and was posted at CFB Borden until his appointment in July of 2000 as 17 Wing Chief Warrant Officer. It was at this point that the Minister of Healthy Living (Mr. Rondeau) and I met him and the new commander, Colonel McLennan, in our ongoing efforts to work in partners hip with 17 Wing to help military families. It was a pleasure to introduce and pass Bill 9, which extended the rights of service people.

I know that one of Frank's proudest moments here in Winnipeg was organizing the parade at the awarding of the first ever Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medals, April 12, 2001. In May 2002, Chief Warrant Officer Emond was appointed as member of the Order of Military Merit, and the following year he was awarded the Queen's Golden Jubilee medal. With the change of command in 2003, Frank also left 17 Wing, accepting a secondment to Veterans Affairs Canada to provide outreach to reservists. He went beyond his job description to help regular service force members in their transition to civilian life.

His greatest enjoyment was his role in advocating for members suffering occupational stress injuries. It is, in part, due to his drive and passion that an occupational stress injury clinic will be opening at the Deer Lodge Centre this year, serving members, veterans, RCMP and families. Mr. Speaker, our community has been very fortunate to have Chie f Warrant Officer Frank Emond. His distinguished record of service reflects his dedication to our country and to the many serving men and women under his command. The Minister of Healthy Living and I wish to thank him for all his dedicated efforts in our community.

We wish him all the best as he begins a new part of his life. Thank you. Cam Tibbett Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): It is my pleasure to rise today to congratulate a young constituent from Neepawa, which is part of the Ste. Rose constituency, by the name of Cam Tibbett, who is this year's recipient of the Eddie Belfour Most Outstanding High School Hockey Player Award, sponsored by the Maple Leaf star goaltender, Eddie elfour, who originated from Carman.

B Nominees are judged on their performance and achievement throughout the season, both on and off the ice, and must maintain an academic average of at least 65 percent. Cam Tibbett was team captain of the Neepawa Tigers for the 2003-04 high school hockey season and led his team to the provincial semi-finals. * (14:40) This young man scored 38 goals and 55 assists in 49 games in this past season and was named a

June 8, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3031 league all-star and game star at several tournaments throughout the year. Cam maintained an 80% average throughout his graduating year at Neep awa Collegiate, active in extracurricular academic and intramural programs. He is expected to add goal-scoring ability, leadership and determination as we hope he will take a regular forward position with the Neepawa Natives in the Manitoba Junior League.

On behalf of all members and certainly on behalf of my family and the constituents in the area, I would like to wish Cam all the very best and good luck throughout his hockey career. MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I would rise on a matter of urgent public importance. To that degree, using Rule 36(1), I would move, seconded by the Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard), that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the impact of the rule changes from 2002 and the subsequent impact it has had on the House. Mr.

Speaker: Before I recognize the honourable Member for Inkster, I believe I should remind all members that under Rule 36(2) the mover of a motion on a matter of urgent public importance and one member from the other parties in the House is allowed not more than five minutes to explain the urgency of debating the matter immediately. As stated in Beauchesne's Citation 390, urgency in this context means the urgency of immediate debate, not of the subject matter of the motion.

In their remarks, members should focus exclusively on whether or not there is urgency of debate and whether or not the ordinary opportunities for debate will enable the House to consider the matter early enough to ensure that the public interest will not suffer. Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do truly believe that this is a matter that is worthy of having and introducing a MUPI for debate inside the Chamber. I think it is important that we have a better understanding in terms of how people perceive the operations of this Chamber. In Question Period I ma de reference to the Premier (Mr.

Doer) and the Government House Leader (Mr. Mackintosh). When they were in opposition, they seemed to have had a different opinion at that time. What we have to do is we have to put it in the context of the changes of rules that were made back in 2002. You go back to the rule book. Inside the rule book it allows for an orderly fashion of debating and asking questions of government expenditures. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you put it in the context of the sessional calendar year, and we are looking at 2(1)(

a) and 2(1)(b), where it talks about we could call the session in the first week in February, we can call the continuation of the session in the first Monday after Labour Day, the framework of that discussion was to try to allow for a better flow so that MLAs would, in fact, be able to organize constituency events that much better, that there were a number of real tangible benefits in terms of trying to have more of an organized calendar throughout the year. But there was at least a feeling in the minds of some, Mr.

Speaker, that that was not going to be used as a justification of marginalizing the number of sitting days inside this Chamber for the province. We truly do believe it is to the detriment of the public's best interest by seeing this government not allow for due diligence, whether it is on bills or budget debates or questions. You have to put it in the perspective of what time, Mr. Speaker, inside this Chamber. We would have 240 hours of Estimates. There were individual government members who would be afforded the opportunity even then to ask questions of the government of the day.

You did not have the same sort of pressure on opposition members that were not the critics. They had the opportunity to be able to ask questions. There were no limitations put on issues such as concurrence. Mr. Speaker, you look at private members' bills. At one time, every private member's bill at least was afforded the opportunity to be able to be debated or discussed through a rotation we saw Monday through Thursday in terms of private members' hour. We had numerous resolutions that were being debated. Mr.

Speaker, I think it is important that we reflect on the purpose of this Chamber and it is very important that we do that today. Ultimately, the government will say to you, as they say to me and the Leader of the Liberal Party, that this is all in the name of efficiencies, that in fact, by having other

3032 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2004 committees meet simultaneously that they are able to do that much more work. Well, if you use the logic that the government is using in terms of the expanding or getting into that speed-up, then one could ultimately argue that the government might decide next year or the following year to sit 25 days and have 4 committees going on and sit until twelve o'clock every night. There are ways around it, and that is why I truly believe for the democrats, the individuals that believe in democracy inside this Chamber, that we genuinely practice it.

If we want to genuinely prac- tice it, I suggest to you that indeed this is a matter of urgent public importance, because what is more important in Western civilization than democracy, as far as I am concerned. The core, one of those fundamental pillars of democracy is what happens here inside our legislative bodies, and I do not think that we should do anything that is going to limit the opportunities of individuals to be able to hold government accountable by taking the types of actions that the government might be taking, whether it is today or tomorrow, at another time.

All we are suggesting to the government is to recognize the value, as they did when they were in opposition, Mr. Speaker, recognize the value of this Legislature sitting, and this is what it is all about. We want the government to see that value and then we can work the rules around at that point. Thank you very much for the oppo rtunity to express my thoughts. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, we simply see this as another part of a strategy from the independent members to try and slow down public business.

The member opposite should be well aware that the sessional calendar that we are working on and the new rules, which is the subject of his motion I understand, were agreed to. The Leader of the Liberal Party was a party to those discussions, Mr. Speaker, and indeed, he had a veto. He had a veto over what came from those discussions, and he was listened to. Indeed, it was the Leader of the Liberal Party that was a very strong voice for moving toward a long-term schedule, moving toward a fixed calendar. But the words just ring hollow.

The member has repeatedly in this House over the last three days turned down time for debate, even when the debate time was allowed just for the two independent members. That belies the concerns of the member, and it belies the argument that there is some time lines or some urgency to something that is being raised. The only suffering on the part of the public that will occur is if the public's business is not attended to, so I submit there is certainly no urgency. * (14:50) There is ample opportunity to debate the rules. A rules committee will be called this fall. He is dealing with hypotheticals.

He is talking about some unreal- istic scenario. That cannot be the subject, obviously, of a MUPI in this House. So it is apparently part of a strategy from the two independent members to extract some advantage for their status. In fact, I never heard from the members, the two independent members or the Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), any concern about the time for debate until we said no to their bill for recognized party status.

The MUPI is simply about the member's view that he does not like the new rules, new rules which modernize procedures, which makes sure that the Legislature is accountable more on a year-around basis to the people of Manitoba, and not simply meeting throughout the dead of summer and in the pre-Christmas period. There is no urgency to someone not liking the rules. Mr. John Loewen (Deputy Official Opposition House Leader): There is no reason for this member to be bringing this motion before this House. We have before the House a motion which will debate the points that he has attempted to raise in his speech.

It is simply another stall tactic, as we have seen from the independent members throughout the course of the sitting of th is House. We would like to get on with the very important business that this House has before it, the important work that is to be done, particularly that pertains to moving along a host of public bills that we have in front of us. This member and his leader have had an opportunity to be involved in negotiations regarding hours of sitting, regarding the rules and regulations of this House. They took

part in those negotiations, and in fact they went so far as to sign an agreement regarding those rules. Now, I guess something has changed. They brought a bill before the House that says, "We would like the limit reduced from four to two in terms of being recognized as a party."

June 8, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3033 Once again, they seem to want to stand in this House when in fact what they should be doing is getting out and converting some of the people in Manitoba to perhaps consider voting Liberal so that they can get to four seats, but we will be debating all of the issues this member has brought before the House in a short time here when we deal with the motion that has been put before this House. The Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) has history.

He took the opportunity to look at some rulings, and I will get into that in the debate on the motion, but he knows he does not have a leg to stand on, and this is simply another stall tactic to hope in some way the other members of this House will cave in to their ridiculous request to be recognized as a party. Mr. Speaker, having said that, I will just close by saying there is no need for a MUPI on this issue. Mr. Speaker: There are two conditions to be satisfied for this matter to proceed. The first condition has been met in that I did receive the proper notice from the honourable member of his motion.

The second condition is that debate on the matter is urgent and that there is no other reasonable opportunity to raise the matter. Although I understand that this is a serious issue about which the member is genuinely concerned, I am not satisfied that the public interest will suffer if this issue is not debated today. I must therefore rule the motion of the honourable Member for Inkster out of order, because I do not believe that it warrants setting aside the regular business of the House. ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS GOVERNMENT MOTION Debate Time Extension Hon.

Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): It would be my intention to move the time extension motion. Mr. Speaker, I therefore move, seconded by the Member for Fort Whyte (M r. Loewen), that the following Sessional Orders apply despite any other rule or practice of this House: Extended Times for Debate 1. On Tuesday, June 8, 2004, the House shall sit from 1:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. 2. On Wednesday, June 9, 2004, the House shall sit from 10 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and from 1:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. 3.

On Thursday, June 10, 2004, the House shall sit from 10 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. on government business and from 1:30 p.m. until The Appropriation Act, 2004; The Loan Act, 2004; and The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, are given royal assent. 4. The Government House L eader or designate shall be empowered to call consideration of concurrence in the Committee of Supply to take place in the committee room simultaneously with the House, and shall also be empowered to call meetings of standing committees to take place concurrently with the House. 5.

There are to be no quorum counts in the Committee of Supply meeting concurrently to consider concurrence and there are to be no quorum requirements for standing committees meeting concurrently with the Hous e. There are to be no votes in the Committee of Supply meeting concurrently with the House to consider concurrence until the question is put to dispose of the concurrence motion. Bills 1.

All government bills and private bills and Bill 207, The Medical Amendment Act, and Bill 212, The Pension Freedom Act, not given royal assent at the sitting of June 10, 2004, to be reinstated during the Third Session of the Thirty-eighth Legislature at the stage they are at when the Second Session of the Thirty-eighth Legislature is prorogued. 2.

All standing committee reports, with the exception of committee reports from morning meetings, are to be presented on the day following a committee meeting, and set down fo r concurrence and third reading or report stage (if applicable) on the day the report is presented. Once re port stage (if applicable) is concluded, the bill is to automatically be eligible for concurrence and third reading. Committee reports from morning sittings must be presented by 6:30 that evening.

3034 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2004 3. Rule 92(8) is to be waived until June 10, 2004. 4. Royal assent on bills that have had third reading disposed of must take place before adjournment on the sitting of June 10, 2004. Budget 1. The question must be put on both the concurrence motion in the Committee of Supply and the concurrence motion in the House by 10 p.m. on June 10, 2004. All remaining questions must start being put for the following bills by 11:45 p.m. on June 10, 2004: The Appropriation Act, 2004; The Loan Act, 2004; The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2004.

If the Committee of Supply, the Committee of the Whole, or the House has not concluded any item or stage described above by the required hour and day, the committee Chairper son or the Speaker, as the case may be, must inte rrupt the proceedings at the time specified and put all remaining questions necessary to dispose of the required items without further debate. Subsequent sittings 2004-05 The following are to apply for the next legislative session. 1.

Subject to Rule 2(2), the Third Session of the Thirty-eighth Legislature must begin on November 22, 2004 with the Throne Speech, and must rise on December 9, 2004; 2. Subject to Rule 2(2), the House is to return on March 7, 2005, and is to break for spring break commencing March 24, 2005. The House is then to resume sitting on April 11, 2005 and must adjourn no later than June 9, 2005. 3.

All government bills introduced prior to April 28, 2005, must have all remaining stages, including second reading, committee stage, report stage (if applicable), concurrence and third reading, and royal assent completed by the sitting of June 9, 2005. 4. The Appropriation Act, 2005; The Loan Act, 2005; and The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2005, must have all remaining stages, including second reading, com- mittee stage, report stage (if applicable), concurrence and third reading, and royal assent completed by the sitting of June 9, 2005. Point of Order Mr.

Speaker: The honourable Member for Inkster, on a point of order. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if we were to look at our rules and orders produced by the Legislative Chamber, we believe that the motion being brought forward from the Government House Leader is not in order. According to Rule 48(1), the motion being proposed would be deemed a time allocation motion, and as such, Rule 48(5) states, and I quote: "When notice can be given 48(5) Notice of a time allocation motion cannot be given: (

a) for proceedings on a Bill, until two weeks have elapsed since the Bill was distributed in the House, and the Speaker has called the Bill for debate at least three times; and (

b) for any other government motion, unless debate on the motion has begun." Mr. Speaker, you will find, I believe, whether it is Bill 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, and in the case of Bill 53, it was not even before us for two weeks. It is obvious that this motion is, in fact, out of order. I would ask, unless the Government House Leader is prepared to say that this is not a time allocation motion. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order. Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, this motion is not made under Rule 48. It is not made under the time allocation motion.

It is a comprehensive motion dealing with the dealings of House business in the sessional calendar. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Member for Inkster, this is not a time allocation motion. The Government House Leader has not used the provisions of a time allocation motion. Time allocation motions can only be used on one government bill.

June 8, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3035 * (15:00) Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for River Heights, on a point of order? Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Yes, I rise on a point of order. Now that the motion we have is properly before the Assembly, I would like to raise– Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to stop the honourable member, because the motion is not before the House, because I have not put the motion to the House. Until I do, it is not before the House. That is just for clarification. So do you wish to continue with the point of order or not? Then I will put the motion. * * * Mr.

Speaker: The motion is moved by the honourable Attorney Gene ral (Mr. Mackintosh), seconded by the honourable Member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Loewen), THAT the following Sessional Orders apply despite any other rule– An Honourable Member: Dispense. Mr. Speaker: Dispense? Dispense. An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: No? Okay. You would like to hear? All right. Okay, let us have some order. Order. Let us have some order so all members can hear this. THAT the following Sessional Orders apply despite any other rule or practice of this House: Extended Times for Debate 1.

On Tuesday, June 8, 2004, the House shall sit from 1:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. 2. On Wednesday, June 9, 2004, the House shall sit from 10 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and from 1:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. 3. On Thursday, June 10, 2004, the House shall sit from 10 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. on government business and from 1:30 p.m. until The Appropriation Act, 2004; The Loan Act, 2004; and The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, are given royal assent. 4.

The Government House L eader or designate shall be empowered to call consideration of concurrence in a Committee of Supply to take place in the committee room simultaneously with the House and shall also be empowered to call meetings of standing committees to take place concurrently with the House. 5. There are to be no quorum counts in the Committee of Supply meeting concurrently to consider concurrence, and there are to be no quorum requirements for standing committees meeting concurrently with the Hous e.

There are to be no votes in the Committee of Supply meeting concurrently with the House to consider concurrence until the question is put to dispose of the concurrence motion. Bills 1. All government bills and private bills and Bill 207, The Medical Amendment Act; Bill 212, The Pension Freedom Act (Pension Benefits Amendment Act), not given royal assent at the sitting of June 10, 2004, are to be reinstated during the Third Session of the Thirty-eighth Legislature at the stage they are at when the Second Session of the Thirty-eighth Legislature is prorogued. 2.

All standing committee reports, with the exception of committee reports from morning meetings, are to be presented on the day following a committee meeting and set down for concurrence and third reading or report stage (if applicable), on the same day the report is presented. Once report stage (if applicable) is concluded, the bill is to automatically be eligible for concurrence and third reading. Committee reports from morning meetings must be presented by 6:30 p.m. that evening. 3. Rule 92(8) is to be waived until June 10, 2004. 4.

Royal assent on bills that have had third reading disposed of must take place before adjournment on the sitting of June 10, 2004. Budget The question must be put on both the concurrence motion in the Committee of Supply and the concurrence motion in the House by 10 p.m. on une 10, 2004. J All remaining questions must start being put for the following bills by 11:45 p.m. on June 10, 2004:

3036 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2004 The Appropriation Act, 2004; The Loan Act, 2004; The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2004. If the Committee of Supply, the Committee of the Whole, or the House has not concluded any item or stage described above by the required hour and day, the Committee Chairperson or the Speaker, as the case may be, must inte rrupt the proceedings at the times specified and put all remaining questions necessary to dispose of the required items without further debate.

Subsequent sittings for 2004-05 The following are to apply for the next legislative session: 1. Subject to Rule 2(2), the Third Session of the Thirty-eighth Legislature must begin on November 22, 2004, with the Throne Speech, and must rise on December 9, 2004. 2. Subject to Rule 2(2), the House is to return on March 7, 2005, and is to break for spring break commencing March 24, 2005. The House is then to resume sitting on April 11, 2005, and must adjourn no later than June 9, 2005. 3.

All government bills introduced prior to April 28th, 2005, must have all remaining stages, including second reading, committee stage, report stage (if applicable), concurrence and third reading, and royal assent completed by the sitting of June 9, 2005. 4. The Appropriation Act, 2005; The Loan Act, 2005; The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2005, must have all remaining stages, including second reading, committee stage, report stage (if applicable), concurrence and third reading, and royal assent completed by the sitting of June 9, 2005. Point of Order Mr.

Speaker: The honourable Member for River Heights, on a point of order? Mr. Gerrard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, now that the motion is before the Assembly, I would like to raise a point of order to outline why I believe this motion, as it currently stands, violates the rules and practices of the House and therefore cannot be placed before the House in its present condition.

I have two major points: first, the imposition by the House of deadlines upon the Lieutenant- Governor; second, the imposition of summoning of a new session of the Legislature by the way of this motion thereby affecting th e prerogative powers of the Crown in relation to the granting of Royal Assent. Mr.

Speaker, I would direct your attention to Beauchesne's Citation 756(1), which states the following: "If a bill should receive the Royal Assent and be afterwards discovered not to have passed its proper stages in both Houses or be otherwise not in conformity with the constitutional procedure, it is in such cases so much waste paper." The process outlined in the motion does not provide the House with sufficient time to ensure that due consideration is bein g given to the necessary steps within the various processes.

Moving business at such a pace really is an abuse of the process and could lead to errors occurring, as has happened in the past when the previous government had a mix-up in the Estimates process when at the third reading stage it was realized that the House was on the verge of passing the previous year's Estimates again. The second point rests on the following words of the motion as found under the heading Subsequent sittings, 2004-05. The following are to apply for the next legislative session. 1.

Subject to Rule 2(2), the Third Session of the Thirty-eighth Legislature must begin on November 22, 2004, with the Throne Speech, and must rise on December 9, 2004; 2. Subject to Rule 2(2), the House is to return on March 7, 2005, and is to break for spring break commencing March 24, 2005. The House is then to resume sitting on April 11, 2005 and must adjourn no later than June 9, 2005; * (15:10) The rule cited in the motion is not correct.

Rule 2(2) states the following: Recall of House 2(2) If the government advises the Speaker that the public interest requires the House to meet at any other time because of an emergency or extraordinary

June 8, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3037 circumstances, the Speaker must advise the Members that the House is to meet at the time specified by the government. The House must begin to meet at the specified time. Mr. Speaker, this rule was based upon similar provisions made in the House of Commons of Canada. It is designed in order to ensure that, should an emergency event or extraordinary circumstances occur that requires the attention of this House, the government is able to bring us back. However, the ability to use this rule can only be done when the House has been adjourned and not prorogued.

I would direct your attention, as Speaker, to Marleau and Montpetit, page 327, where you will find the following: "Consultation between the Speaker and the government regarding a recall of the House usually begins with a government request made in writing to the Speaker setting out reasons why it is in the public interest to recall the House. The request may be made at any time. When a decision is taken to recall the House, the Speaker advises the Clerk of the House and asks that the necessary steps be taken to resume the session.

The Clerk then ensures that all is made ready for the resumption of the sittings." Therefore, Mr. Speaker, what the Government House Leader (Mr. Mackintosh) is attempting to do in this motion is to use the provisions of Rule 2(2) to effectively commence a new session date by resolution of this House. This is in violation of Beauchesne's 6th Edition, Citation 234, which states, in part, "The prorogation of Parliament is a prerogative act of the Crown. Just as Parliament may only commence its deliberations at the time appointed by the Governor General, so it may not continue them any longer than the Crown pleases.

But each House exercises its right to adjourn itself independently of the Crown . . . ." So while my colleague and I have no question about the government adjourning at various times during the next session of the Legislature as outlined in the motion before us, we question the procedural ability of the House dictating by way of motion when the next session will commence, thereby affecting one of the prerogative powers of the Crown. Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to Beauchesne's 6th Edition, Citation 727, which deals with this issue and the issue of royal consent. It states the following: "

(1) The consent of the Crown is always necessary in matters involving the prerogatives of the Crown. This consent may be given at any stage of a bill before final passage; though in the House it is generally signified on the motion for second reading. This consent may be given by a special message or by a verbal statement by a Minister, the latter being the usual procedure in such cases. It will also be seen that a bill may be permitted to proceed to the very last stage without receiving the consent of th e Crown but if it is not given at the last stage, the Speaker will refuse to put the question.

It is also stated that if the consent be withheld, the Speaker has no alternative open except to withdraw the measure. "

(2) The procedure with respect to signifying the consent is different from that in giving the recommendation of the Crown. The recommendation precedes every grant of money, the consent may be given at any stage before final passage, and is always necessary in matters involving the rights of the Crown, its patronage . . . or its prerogatives." Let me cite some Manitoba precedents. April 20, 1926, page 338 of the Journals: "Honourable Mr.

Bracken informed the House that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, being acquainted with the subject matter of the proposed amendment to Bill 108 to amend The Manitoba Insurance Act, consents to the consideration of this clause by the Legislative Assembly." Two: March 31, 1927, page 182 of the Journals: "The order of the day being read for the second reading of the Bill 121, entitled

An Act to Amend The Gasoline Tax Act, Honourable Mr. Bracken, a member of the Executive Council, then acquainted the House that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, having been informed of the purport of the bill, recommended it to the consideration of the House." The index to the journal has this under the title of Consent.

Third, the ruling of Speaker Talbot of April 12, 1933, as found on pages 140/1 of the Journals, which upholds the principles of Beauchesne's 6th Edition when he states, "The consent of the Crown is required in matters involving the rights of the Crown, its patronage, its property or its prerogatives." Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of seeking your thoughts related to the Constitution or to a point

3038 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2004 of law, for that is quite clear. The point of order deals with the imposition of a motion by the Government House Leader (Mr. Mackintosh), with the assistance, I might add, of the official opposition, to have this House adopt a motion which it cannot enforce and which it has no jurisdiction unless it receives the royal consent. The authorities are quite clear, Sir, as to what your role is in this matter. Citation 162 of Beauchesne's 6th Edition tells us that the Speaker is the representative of the House itself and its powers, proceedings and dignities.

I would note in passage Citation 171, which states in part, "The Speaker has the duty to maintain an orderly conduct of debate by repressing disorder when it arises, by refusing to propose the question upon motions and amendments which are irregular, and by calling the attention of the House to bills which are out of order." I would submit, Sir, that the motion before us now is irregular as it proposes to exercise an authority which could call into question the authority and dignity of this House, which you, Sir, are duty- bound to uphold. Mr.

Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order. Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest strongly that the two aspects of this point of order are spurious. First of all, the citation in Beauchesne's 756, the member was talking about if royal assent was given and it was later discovered that there were some irregularities, the bill may not survive, but that is entirely hypothetical.

Having an argument that dealing with legislation could lead to errors occurring is entirely speculative, and there is nothing in the motion itself which suggests that there would be any lack of oversight by this Legislature and indeed the bills that are not passed during this session will go over to the fall. The second point is related to Rule 2(2). Somehow there is an argument being made that there cannot be a recall of the House.

Well, first of all, the words "subject to Rule 2(2)" are in the motion only to signal that there could still, despite the motion before the House currently, be overtaken or be changed as a result of an emergency or extraordinary circumstances leading to recall of the House. Mr. Speaker, for the me mber to conclude that somehow we need the Queen's okay to do this is just patently ridiculous, in our view. The Legislative Assembly of Manitoba has full right and authority to set its own agenda, set its own schedule. That is what the whole Rules Committee is about, that is what this House is about.

To suggest that we should go and get the Queen's okay flies in the face and belies the fact that this member okayed the current sessional schedule, which was done in a very similar way. It is just spurious. It is just taking up time in this House. To suggest that the Queen has to get a letter from us first is just ridiculous. I cannot believe it. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, I do concur with the Minister of Justice on this one occasion. It seems that the Member for Inkster and the Leader of the Liberals have a rather short memory.

I took the opportunity to look through Hansard at some previous occurrences, and in particular, regarding where the Member for Inkster complained about the government changing the order in which the House operates. He raised at that point a matter of privilege as the independent members tried to again in the last day.

I would remind him that at that point, it was a very clear ruling from Speaker Rocan that it was not a matter of privilege and that if it needed to be addressed, it should be addressed as a point of order. * (15:20) I am glad to see today that they are actually taking the right approach and addressing it as a point of order, but, it is clearly not. It has been ruled previously by Speaker Rocan that it is allowable for the House to change the way it does business by means of a motion.

There are several precedents of occurrences in the Canadian House found in Journals for March 16, 1883; June 1, 1898; April 8, 1948; April 24, 1961; and May 14, 1964. Clearly, then, both the authorities and our practices allow for our standing orders to be suspended or amended by a motion of notice. That was Speaker Rocan's ruling back in 1993. So, clearly, there is no point of order here, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: I will recognize the honourable Member for Inkster, if he has something new to add to the point of order.

June 8, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3039 Mr. Lamoureux: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, I do. I think that what is important to recognize is that there was an agreement on both the opposition party and the government in terms of what is being proposed. That do es not necessarily mean if you have two or whatever number of members that we authorize the actions that might be in violation of rules of procedure. Mr. Speaker, the Memb er for River Heights articulated, and articulated well, genuine concern as to this particular motion, made specific references.

The Government House Leader was very selective on picking up on one citation. I think that we owe it to this Chamber and ultimately to our rules, whether it is our current rules that we adopted back in December or we can talk about the Beauchesne's rules which is, I believe it was the Beauchesne's 6th Edition. Mr. Speaker, we have operated for many a year under these rules and I expected, at least in part, the response that I heard from the Government House Leader. What is important is not necessarily what a political faction within the Chamber would see, but what is more important is that we respect the rules.

I think given the amount of energy and resources that the Member for River Heig hts (Mr. Gerrard) put in to researching this motion and pulling out the citations, that is only with respect that we should be at least, maybe, possibly, meeting with the Member for River Heights. I would suggest to you that before there is any sort of ruling because the response that we got from the Government House Leader or the Acting Opposition House Leader did not address the different citations that the Member for River Heights has raised. So, until those citations are properly addressed, Mr.

Speaker, we do not know whether or not this motion is, in fact, in contradiction of Beauchesne's, something which I have cited from and members of all sides of this House have cited and relied very heavily on. Even though we have heard the position of three other members on the concern, I would emphasize what is new for me in terms of the discussion on this particular point is, given the very nature, the urgency of making a good decision based strictly on the rules, I would suggest to you that there might be an opportunity for you, Mr.

Speaker, to work with the table officers to be able to address the different points that have been raised before making a d e c i s i o n s o t h a t w e k n o w f o r s u r e o r w e f e e l comfortable that you are comfortable with what is happening as the Speaker of this Chamber, as the guardian who protects all rights, in particular enforces our rules, whether it be the current rules or the Beauchesne's rules. I would conclude my remarks by just appealing that we take the time to ensure that we understand exactly what the Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) was pointing out with the references.

I know the Member for River Heights would be more than happy to meet with you to be able to share the concerns, or table staff, I am sure, so that it can be adequately addressed. We do not want to see a quick decision that goes to the detriment of our rules or Beauchesne's. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Member for River Heights, I would like to advise the honourable Member for River Heights that it is the government that establishes when legislative sessions will start and not the Lieutenant- Governor.

The House has this ability to establish sitting dates and times according to rules and to arrangements and agreements that the House comes to. I would also like to point out that the House has the ability to carry business over to the next session. There is the precedent from the anti-smoking bill sponsored by the honourable Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan) that was allowed to carry over from one session to another by motion of the House. Further, there is precedence to use a motion to set specific sitting dates when the House will sit.

Such a motion was used for establishing the sitting days for the current session. The reference to Rule 2(2) in the motion is used to state that the government retains the ability to recall the House in case of an emergency in spite of the sessional dates that are outlined. The reference to emergency recalls in Marleau and Montpetit is not applicable to Manitoba, as Manitoba has its own practices for recall procedures that are not the same as what the Canadian House of Commons does. I would therefore rule that there is no point of order. * * * Mr.

Speaker: The honourable Member for River Heights, debating the motion? Mr. Gerrard: Yes.

3040 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2004 Mr. Speaker: Just wait. I have to move first. Just wait. I just moved the motion. Normal practice is to recognize the mover of the motion. Then we will entertain members to debate. The motion has been called, and now the honourable Attorney General. Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, this motion is essentially to put into practice what has been a long sought after objective of members of both sides of this House and indeed all three parties represented in the House, and that is a se ssional calendar. That is the big picture of what this is.

It builds on the new rules that have been introduced after considerable discussion among the representatives of the people of Manitoba in this House and as well the all-party agreement that we are still operating under in respect of the current session. I can also advise that the motion is also then the result of some hard and at some times difficult negotiating. We have to recall that although a government under the new rules is given new powers to curtail debate in order to give effect to the fixed end dates of sessions that are contemplated and of course has the traditional closure rules available.

We instead have opted, after consultation, to extend time for debate. Indeed, I am advised that in the current motion the time for debate may be extended by as much as up to 45 hours. As well and very importantly, aside from the budget, I will deal with currently, the debate on the bills is not in any way curtailed. In fact it is facilitated.

More hours are added with the hope that the public business is concluded in large part on June 10, although we have made arrangements as a result of the negotiations for several bills to be moving to standing committee in the fall period, and then with final votes and royal assent presumably after the November recall. * (15:30) This is our first attempt in this House at a fixed sessional calendar. I think we have all learned some lessons.

I think, collectively, and no way I am going to assign any blame, because I say this collectively, we all have learned some things about how to process and move bills perhaps earlier in the session, but we are learning by experience. The extended time set out in the motion also helps ensure that the bu dget pass on June 10. The motion does set out a

schedule for votes so that this is dealt with, as of course contemplated by the all- party agreement, to end the spring session on June 10. I want to deal very briefly with some debate that has been going on and some argument that I have heard from the Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). In fact, that member alone, when it comes to measuring the work that a Legislative Assembly does, the Member for Inkster has focussed on the number of what he calls sittings, which is the traditional notion of how many times the House comes in for routine proceedings, presumably.

But that is a wholly unsatisfactory and indeed arbitrary way to measure parliamentary work. It does not measure parliamentary work at all. In fact, it is entirely misleading. We looked at this issue, and we have discovered that since the current session began on November 20, 2003, and until June 10, MLAs will have effectively attended to 102 sittings of the House or its committees.

That includes 53 Question Periods; 16 committee hearings, and there could be more depending on the number of committee hearings over the next 3 days; 12 days when the Legislature sat simultaneously in 3 places; and 6 days when it sat simultaneously in 2 places. With the motion passing there will be more of that simultaneous sitting. We have to get better at measuring our work. We cannot say that our work is measured by the number of the Order Paper publications. Entirely irrelevant and that does no service to the public. It does no service to the people in this Chamber who work on behalf of the public.

I hear the Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). He likes to give speeches from his seat while others are speaking. I will remind him, the member opposite, the Member for Inkster, has been making an argument that the Legislature needs more time to do work. If he really believ ed that we needed more sessional time, why for three days in a row has he turned down requests for more sessional time? So that belies that statement he has been making, making that argument. When he stands up and says the House should be sitting 80 days or 80 sittings, at the same time he is saying, "I do not want to meet

June 8, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3041 today. I do not want to meet tonight. I do not want to meet tomorrow," not even when time is set aside just for the independent members to question government ministers in concurrence. What is the purpose of their recent interest, their newfound interest in public bills that began on Wednesday and their interest in speaking to bills to an extent I have not seen before? I can only reflect back on Wednesday morning, when, during discussions on this mo tion, a new element was introduced.

That was the demand that official party status be provided to the independent members and that the private member's bill of the Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) be agreed to. Now, I understand that the Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) said they did not want any new resources right away. They wanted official party status now and after the next election they wanted the resources to flow. That creates an immediate demand for resources, quite frankly.

A member from the opposition actually said to me that means they would get disproportionately more supports for their caucus and we have to start discussing right now the new supports for the opposition caucus. I can tell you that the NDP caucus is going to be next in line to LAMC. We are not just talking about another quarter-million dollars or so for the independent members, or an enhanced salary for the Leader of the Liberal Party, or all the other incidental benefits or perks, however you call them, Mr. Speaker.

To tie in the status of a political group in this House to the processing of public business, I think, and I have said this before, is unethical. I could not support it, and I told the Member for Inkster that I would not couple that demand with what is at stake here, and that is the dealing of public business. I just want to conclude my remarks. For the first time, a sessional calendar is now laid out for a full year in advance. I think that is a tremendous achievement, and, indeed, was something that the Leader of the Liberal Party had wanted to see.

In fact, he wanted us to move more toward the House of Commons model, and our discussions concluded that we will work by way of agreement to try and accomplish that over the next few years. What is also important is not only that we have a sessional calendar but the calendar now is supporting legislative activity outside of the discredited and pre- Christmas periods. It was discredited by members of the public, who have said time and again that the public generally has not been paying as much attention to legislative activity during that period.

Representatives of different interests and representatives who have wanted to come down and speak on public bills, Mr. Speaker, were often prohibited from doing so, or were having to spend valuable summer time in the mosquito-filled rooms of this Legislature building in rooms 255 and 254. So I think with this sessional calendar now it provides more time for political strategic planning, obviously, by all members and their caucuses. It allows for the better planning of other MLA business and ministerial business.

It also allows, of course, for some planning of some family time in the schedules that we have taken on. As well, it provides for greater accountability to the public. Indeed, when looking at the sessional calendar, if the standing committees meet in September and October on the bills that are more contentious on the agenda, the Legislature, either the House or its committees, will be sitting in periods of eight of the next twelve months. So, in our view, this kind of calendar, this kind of planning and this kind of hard bargaining, I think, is good for democracy.

I look forward to us getting down to work and making sure that we make more effective use in terms of accountability of this Legislature's time. You can have 100, 120 sittings of the House as defined by the Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), but if the Question Periods are all in the months of July and August, I question the real value to democracy in Manitoba. I think by moving the legislative calendar across the months we will have a stronger Legislature and I think the public will be better for it. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, we are indeed in a bit of an unusual situation.

Your putting a notice on the Order Paper about the change of hours of operation of the Assembly is not something that is used on a regular basis. It is inde ed unfortunate that the Government House Leader (Mr. Mackintosh) has had to resort to this sort of method.

3042 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2004 The House leaders have attempted to get the unanimous consent of the House to extend sitting hours in order to pass a host of public bills that are on the Order Paper. They have tried on several occasions. Even yesterday, the Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan) asked for leave to sit until 10 p.m. It was denied by the Member for Inkster. It is unfortunate that the people of the province of Manitoba are being used as pawns by the Liberal members of this Chamber–I should say, the independent members.

Their quest to have party status changed from four members down to two members is ridiculous. As I stated yesterday in the House, if they are so anxious to gain party status, we have two by- elections coming up before the end of the month: one in Minto, one in Turtle Mountain. If they simply put their efforts into going out and winning those two by-elections, their mission will be accomplished. They will have their four members and they will have party status.

They should continue to work toward that so that they do, in the normal course of events, by our traditional rules, gain themselves party status and thereby, the perk s, the benefits, the extra money that they are looking for will flow their way. But I would ask them simply to do it the old- fashioned way. Go out and work for it. Do not sit in this House and try to pin every other member of this House up against a wall and try to blackmail us through some type of negotiation to provide you party status when, in fact, you have not earned that status according to the people of Manitoba.

They are the real judges at the end of the day. They are the ones that determine who gets to represent them in this House and one day, if the members are ever fortunate to have four members in this House again, then they will realize the benefits of having official party status. Until then, they obviously have their work cut out for them. * (15:40) Now, Mr. Speaker, for the independent members to continue to go about denying leave in terms of any requests to enhance the hours of operation of this Chamber is absolutely ab surd.

We have offered them, as the Government House Leader has mentioned, they have been offered their own sessions where they could go through concurrence on their own, specifically to ask their own questions. As members of the opposition, I think we have been more than generous in terms of giving up hours of Estimates time so that the independent members could have some questions put to ministers during the Estimates process, but obviously that is not good enough for them. The Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) stands in this House every day reading the petition that he wants more time spent in the Chamber.

Well, we have offered him more and more and more, and yet, consistently, he rejects it. What hypocrisy. It seems passing strange that the Member for Inkster would have such a short memory. Reviewing Hansard, I was able to find similar occurrences where the Member for Inkster com- plained about the government changing the order in which this House operates. This occurred 10 years ago, as he stood in his place and cried foul. I guess what goes around, comes around. He was told on March 12 of 1993, by then-Speaker Rocan, that, in fact, he should deal with it as a matter of order, not as a matter of privilege.

Yet they come to this House on the same issue, the independent members, and try to raise it as a matter of privilege when it has already been ruled out of order on that. There are several other precedents in this House that give opportunity to change the way things are done in the Chamber. As I mentioned earlier regarding the points of order, it was ruled by Speaker Rocan, and the precedents were found in the Canadian House in Journals for March 16, 1883, June 1, 1898, April 8, 1948, April 24, 1961, and May 14, 1964.

The ruling states that clearly, then, both the authorities and our practices allow for our standing orders to be suspended or amended by motion of notice. Unfortunately, that is what they forced the Government House Leader, the process they forced upon him. He was told in 1993 that the practices of Manitoba practice allow for standing orders to be suspended or amended by a motion of notice. He was told quite clearly then that this is an option of government. He should have enough ability to remember these rulings as he was directly involved in them.

As a matter of fact, back then he even tried to challenge the ruling. He lost that vote 40 to 6. You would think that would be something that would stand out in the member's mind, losing a vote 40 to 6 in this House. Some days the Member for Inkster simply does not

June 8, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3043 get it. He even tried again on March 15, 1993, to raise the same point. He lost that vote 43 to 7. An Honourable Member: I was not even here. Mr. Loewen: Well, the member says he was not even here; perhaps he would like to peruse the ruling given by Speaker Rocan in 1993. An Honourable Member: March 1993? Mr. Loewen: Well, March 15, 1993. He raised it on March 12 and he raised it on March 15. He proclaims he was not even here and I guess now I am starting to understand why he cannot remember rulings. He cannot remember where he was 10 years ago.

That is unfortunate. Mr. Speaker, clearly both the authorities and practices allow for standing orders to be suspended. [interjection] Sorry, I see the member wants to correct it now. He was here in 1993, he finally admits. Well, that is good to know. I am glad I did not have to serve with him that long. Both the authorities and our practices clearly allow for standing orders to be suspended or amended by motions of notice. We entered into a good-faith agreement. Our House leader entered into a good-faith agreement with the Government House Leader (Mr.

Mackintosh) and others in order to establish a calendar for this House. I have not been here that long but I was here in the summer of 2000 when, I believe it was Bill 44, was brought before this House. This House sat until almost the end of August. We sat through some committee meetings that lasted all through the evening, and we were asking members of the public to come to committee and sit there all night. I mean, not only is that unreasonable to the members of the public who want to present their information on bills that come before this House, but it is dangerous.

I mean we could have had some serious, serious health consequences, not only to members of the public, to the members of the committees that were forced to sit there throughout the evening and into the early morning, and that happened on more than one occasion. As a result of that, negotiations have been entered into, and good-faith negotiations, to try and set a reasonable calendar, to bring our House rules and the way in which we operate into the current century. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe we have made some progress.

Did we as members of the official opposition get all that we wanted in those negotiations? Well, I can assure you, as in any negotiation you enter into in good faith, you always do not get everything you want. [interjection] Well, then the Member for Inkste r (Mr. Lamoureux) wants to know what we did not get. We would like to have a question period 365 days a year. I mean this is a government that needs to be held to account, but we have to way that, we have to weigh our demands– [interjection] I would ask the Member for Inkster to listen.

We have to weigh our demands with the rights of the public and the responsibilities of members of this House to get out and do work that is necessary in their constituencies. We always have to have a balance. So have we got things perfectly? No. Would we like more Public Accounts meetings? Yes. Would w

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-2-51
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 2nd hansardpdf 51.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	02933a78c2461e10d723fcf7e8379c52ec9d8318

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