Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 25B (36th Legislature, 4th Session)

36-4-25b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVIII No. 25B - 1:30 p.m., Thursday, March 26, 1998 ISSN 0542-5492

MANIT OBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ASHTON, Steve Thompson N.D.P. BARRETT, Becky Wellington N.D.P. CERILLI, Marianne Radisson N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste. Rose P.C. DACQUA Y, Louise, Hon. Seine River P.C. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. Rob lin-Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary Concordia N.D.P. DOWNEY, James, Hon. Arthur-Virden P.C. DRIEDGER, Albert Steinbach P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. ENNS, Harry, Hon. Lakeside P.C. EVANS, Clif Interlake N.D.P. EVANS, Leonard S. Brandon East N.D.P.

FAURSCHOU, David Portage Ia Prairie P.C. FILMON, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo P.C. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. Springfield P.C. FRIESEN, Jean Wolseley N.D.P. GAUDRY, Neil St. Boniface Lib. GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. Minnedosa P.C. HEL WER, Edward Gimli P.C. HICKES, George Point Douglas N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. KOWALSKI, Gary The Maples Lib. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar The Pas N.D.P. LAURENDEAU, Marcel St. Norbert P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord St. Johns N.D.P. MALOWA Y, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McALPINE, Gerry Sturgeon Creek P.C. McCRAE, James, Hon. Brandon West P.C.

McGIFFORD, Diane Osborne N.D.P. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. Assiniboia P.C. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn St. James N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East P.C. NEWMAN, David, Hon. Riel P.C. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. PITURA, Frank, Hon. Morris P.C. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. Lac du Bonnet P.C. RADCLIFFE, Mike, Hon. River Heights P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack, Hon. Niakwa P.C. RENDER, Shirley St. Vital P.C. ROBINSON, Eric Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Gladstone P.C. SALE, Tim Crescentwood N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Broadway N.D.P. STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. Kirkfield Park P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan Dauphin N.D.P.

SVEINSON, Ben La V erendrye P.C. TOEWS, Vic, Hon. Rossmere P.C. TWEED, Mervin Turtle Mountain P.C. VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. Fort Garry P.C. "' WOWCHUK, Rosann Swan River N.D.P. Vacant Charleswood

1127 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, March 26, 1998 The House met at 1:30 p.m. MATTER OF PRIVILEGE Apology-First Minister Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, I want to rise on a matter of privilege in regard to comments that were made by the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) in Hansard yesterday wherein he said that if I had not been inciting conflict in Cross Lake, the chief and council members of Cross Lake would have been to the table to finish negotiating the terms and conditions of the Northern Flood and ready to be implemented.

Now, Madam Speaker, on Thursday afternoon, while I was here, I received a fax from members of Cross Lake telling me, advising me what they had done. That same afternoon, I went to the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Newman). I asked him if he had a fax and he said: Yes, I have one. I asked him what he was going to do. He advised me that a letter was being written up and he was going to send it to the members of Cross Lake. That was Thursday afternoon. Friday I was in The Pas, I believe it was four in the afternoon.

I received a call from the Minister of Northern Affairs asking me if I would be willing to accompany him to Cross Lake, if he were willing to go. I said yes, I would be willing. Then towards the end of our conversation, he said: But you have to be invited by the chief in order for you to go. At that point, I became confused as to what he was driving at. In any event, I promised that I would do whatever I can to resolve the situation. If he needed me, I would be willing to go. As a matter of fact, he went so far as to say: Do we have a deal then? I said: What deal?

Well, that you are going to come with me to Cross Lake. He said: I will make arrangements for us to be paired for Monday. I said yes, fine. That was the conversation I had with the Minister of Northern Affairs. Now, if I had been to Cross Lake organizing a blockade, as the First Minister is saying, would I have been talking to the Minister of Northern Affairs, offering my services, offering my advice and guidance wherever he might need me? [interjection] Yes, with a smirk on your face, because that is the kind of attitude you have had right from day one.

This morning, the First Minister was interviewed by his buddy Peter Warren at CJOB. I listen to them every now and then when they meet with each other, and the Premier apparently said on radio that I had gone up to Cross Lake to organize the blockade. Madam Speaker, I find those comments to be offensive. I find those comments to be demeaning. I find those comments to mean that I, as a representative of the riding of The Pas, cannot go to my constituents when they invite me to talk about issues that affect them directly.

Also, when I ref er to aboriginal people and the problems that they face, I always say-and I have said it in this House before-1 as an aboriginal person have a vested interest that my people are being treated right, that we are being treated right. When the woman and a child were shot by the RCMP in Alberta, it af fected me. It affected me greatly. As one of my friends said to me, if you prick my people, would I hurt?

So when things like this go on, whether it is in Cross Lake, The Pas, Norway House or Alberta or Garden Hill, it affects me because I am an aboriginal person, and I have said that over and over again in this Chamber. Whatever happens to my people, it affects me; it affects my daughter; it affects my family and my community. So for the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to say that I had gone up to Cross Lake to organize a blockade, Madam Speaker, he is wrong. He is totally wrong. So, therefore, I move, seconded by the member for Rupertsland (Mr.

Robinson), that the Premier apologize to this House for comments he made in Question Period yesterday in regard to myself on the blockade at Cross Lake.

11 28 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 26, 19 98 Motion presented. Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader, on the matter of privilege. Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I understand the rules, there are two matters to be decided at this point: first, whether the honourable member for The Pas has raised his question of privilege in a timely fashion. I do not propose to argue on that matter as this will have been the first opportunity the honourable member would have had to comment on the printed Hansard.

On the second matter, that being whether the honourable member has a prima facie case of privilege in order to raise the matter, his argument falls very far short of what is required, Madam Speaker, in my opinion. being extremely defensive about his own rhetoric and his own behaviour with respect to the matter about which we are talking, sensitive about his own position and his own actions, and this is what gives rise to his question of privilege today, or it may also be a wish to carry on with the kind of behaviour on his part which has been to bring about some disorder in that part of Manitoba.

So in my opinion, Madam Speaker, the honourable member for The Pas has been caught. He has been caught by his own rhetoric and his own behaviour and now wants to blame the First Minister for his own problems. The First Minister's words are, in no way, a breach of anybody's privilege either inside this House or words uttered outside the House, which I suggest-[ interjection] * (1 340) The honourable member, for whatever reason, failed Madam Speaker: Order, please. A matter of privilege to quote from Hansard the words of the First Minister is a very serious matter. about which he is concerned.

I believe the words he is referring to are found on page 1 066 of Hansard for yesterday, which I will read into the record as follows, quoting the First Minister: "This government has operated in good faith, has negotiated to try and arrive at fair and reasonable settlements, and I might say four of the five First Nations involved in the Northern Flood Agreement have resolved their issues and have settled with hundreds of millions of dollars being flowed to those First Nations. I think that is a record of which we can be very, very proud.

I say to the member opposite, rather than stir up discontent and conflict, he ought to get involved in attempting to ensure that the people of Cross Lake come to the table to complete the negotiations for the benefit of all of the people of Cross Lake." Those are the words, I believe, the honourable member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) finds so offensive, and he uses other words to describe those words.

But what is really happening is-as a matter of fact, what we have here is a difference of opinion on the construction of these words by two honourable members, one being the First Minister and one being the honourable member for The Pas. But as an observer and not one who was part of that discussion between the two, it appears to me the honourable member for The Pas is An Honourable Member: Well, kick the Premier out. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Could we all afford each other a little common courtesy?

The honourable member for-[interjection] I interrupted previously when the honourable member for The Pas was having exchanges across the floor when he was speaking. The honourable government House leader, to complete his remarks. Mr. McCrae: As I was saying, Madam Speaker, the point raised by the honourable member for The Pas (Mr.

Lathlin), by no stretch of the imagination amounts to anything resembling or close to a question of privilege, and on this occasion-especially when we are dealing with such a serious matter as a question of privilege-the honourable member ought to have thought twice before raising this matter as a question of privilege. Indeed, the honourable member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) himself, on the day previous to yesterday, day before yesterday on March 24, used these words in this House: "The blockade that we have set up in Cross Lake currently." Those are the words of the honourable -

March 26, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 29 member for The Pas. He has been caught by his own activity and by his own rhetoric in this House. He has no question of privilege, and honourable members ought not to abuse the rules of the House in this way. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, on the same point of privilege. Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that the member has raised this at the first opportunity. It ref ers to comments made yesterday. We have received the Hansard.

It certainly meets that aspect of a matter of privilege, and I would also suggest that this is particularly germane to the elements of privilege that are established through many centuries of tradition which enable members of the Legislature, members of any parliament, to come before the House and represent their constituents. You know, Madam Speaker, the comments made by the Premier (Mr. Filmon), I would say, are not atypical of comments that we hear from the Premier. Unfortunately, I might add, they are not atypical of comments we have heard from this Premier regarding the member for The Pas in the past.

I find it ironic that the member was censured for using the term "racist" in terms of policies, but I have sat here and heard this member, the Premier, accuse the member for The Pas of being racist. You know, where have we come to in this province when we have the Premier and the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Newman) doing such things as the Minister of Northern Affairs, in his letter to the people of Cross Lake, saying I expect you to lead, being guided by the honour and value system of your people.

Where is the trust, honesty, respect, courage, integrity and wisdom in what you are condoning supported with these actions? The days of the great white father belong in the 18 90s, not the 19 90s. That minister and this Premier are showing a paternalistic and condescending attitude to aboriginal people in this province. That is unacceptable. Perhaps this Premier cannot understand that in 19 98 the people of Cross Lake make their own decisions independently, and he should understand that and respect that, Madam Speaker, and not try and find others, point fingers at others.

I say as someone who has been proud to represent many aboriginal people in my constituency that I think the attitude shown by this Premier (Mr. Filmon) and this Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Newman), with their condescending attitude, is at the root of many of the problems we face, the frustration aboriginal people face in this province. I want to suggest that they have given away exactly what they think. I find it interesting that the Premier talked about the negotiations in four other flood communities and how the negotiations took place in terms of good faith.

We now see that so long as there was an agreement, they consider it to be good faith, but when the people of Cross Lake say that they do not agree, that somehow is something that is not acceptable, and this Premier and this Minister of Northern Affairs then have a greater say. Madam Speaker, negotiations are a multipart process. It involves people coming to the table with differing views, and fundamentally it must start with respect of those views.

I say to the Premier and to the Minister of Northern Affairs, if you wish a resolution of this situation at Cross Lake, the way to start is by respecting the people of Cross Lake, something you have shown you are fundamentally incapable of doing. I say that if the government is looking for some of the root causes at what is going on in Cross Lake, they might want to look at what has been happening in that community. It is a community that I know well. It is a community I have managed to have the opportunity to visit many times. I have talked in Cross Lake.

I remember- and I was in Cross Lake-there were I believe five young people committed suicide in the space of six months. It is the legacy of the kind of poverty that we see in that community, the desperation that we see and we have seen in other communities. I know the frustration of talking to the elders and what happened in that process. What is happening in Cross Lake is obviously a decision that that community has taken. No one should doubt that. Whether it is the right or the wrong thing is none of the business of the Premier or the Minister of Northern Affairs.

It is fundamentally, first of all, the business of the people of Cross Lake. I ask the Premier to consider the following, what level of frustration there is in Cross Lake. I do not know when the last time he was in Cross Lake. Unfortunately, the Premier's travel

11 30 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 26, 1998

schedule usually manages to include Switzerland before it includes northern Manitoba. I say that if he did take the time to talk to the people of Cross Lake, they would talk about such issues as the bridge, the arbitration, the fact that we have had rulings saying that we should receive, the people of Cross Lake are entitled to decent road access and bridge access. The bottom line, it is because of much of the frustration of a government that does not even take the time to go and visit the people of Cross Lake. I would urge you to consider this as being a prima facie case of privilege. The member for The Pas (Mr.

Lathlin) has repeatedly, and I say the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) as well have repeatedly had to face kinds of attacks on their individual characters that many of us in this Chamber do not have to face. I say if there is one thing we wish to see in this Legislature is that it reflects all Manitobans, and it is time that aboriginal Manitobans can come in this Legislature and not face the kinds of attacks from this Premier, the cheap personal attacks from this Premier. They are entitled to speak out on behalf of aboriginal people just as any member of this Legisla ture is on behalf of their constituents.

I conclude, Madam Speaker, by suggesting that the appropriate thing for the minister to do, for once, instead of taking these cheap, personal shots, would be be a sta tesperson, to put down the rhetoric of confrontation that he is stirring up, nobody else, that he has got his Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Newman) writing letters on. I say to the minister let us follow up what the original suggestion was.

Let us meet, let us sit down, let us talk, let us withdraw the rhetoric, and fundamentally, let us start understanding that we have to respect the rights of aboriginal people in this Legislature, not attack their personal integrity. * (1 350) Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I am sure, Madam Speaker, you will have noted that the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) did nothing but engage in very, very aggressive, loud condemnation of members opposite but did not address the substance of the presumed attempted matter of privilege because there is no matter of privilege.

In fact, the member opposite, in attempting to allege that something I said was a matter of privilege, did not even quote any of what I said. The only accurate quote of what I said that was put on the record was put on by the government House leader, and it was not even close to anything that I am alleged to have said by the member opposite because I did not say what he alleges. The member for Thompson, (Mr. Ashton), of course, is embarrassed at having to defend that, and so he resorts, as he always does, into simple, low, personal attacks.

I will tell you, if he wants to talk about people who are being personally slandered or personally attacked every day in this House, all he has to do is look in the mirror, as each one of his members does. Even just a matter of minutes ago, the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) shouted "redneck" across here and does not have the courage to withdraw that kind of statement. That is what we have to put up with day after day after day from this crew opposite, and that is why they are where they are because they do not have, nor do they deserve, the respect of the people of this province.

I will say that the reason that they attempt to have this kind of flimsy political issue as the basis of their attempting to get support for their position is because they are embarrassed at two decades of inaction by New Democrats in this province when they had a chance to do something for the people of the North, and particularly for our aboriginal brothers and sisters in the North. I say to you all you have to do is look at their being in office for some 15 years and during that period of time not making any resolution of the treaty land entitlements in this province.

Since we have been in office, Madam Speaker, we have resolved the treaty land entitlement for almost 30 First Nations in this province. While they were in office, they did absolutely zero, zero towards the north central hydro system to provide hydro electricity, finally, to nine First Nations communities in that part of the province, that inaccessible part of the province.

They were getting, finally, finally, the opportunity to live to a standard that others in the province are able to live because they had electricity provided for them, not only at a cost savings, but at a dramatic increase in their quality of living. -

March 26, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 31 This government did that for them, and they are embarrassed about it. Finally, of course, there were the negotiations on the Northern Flood Agreement, negotiations that got absolutely nowhere under the New Democrats. I have spoken to many First Nations people in the North over the years when they were in office, and they said that they knew, despite the fact that they were represented by New Democrats, that they would never get a settlement out of New Dem ocrats.

They were just being given lip service all the time by New Democrats who represented them, and they got nowhere, absolutely nowhere towards the settlement of those northern flood agreements. Because we treated those people in those First Nations with respect, because we acted in good faith at all times, four of the five First Nations were able to arrive at a settlement, at a comprehensive settlement.

Even Cross Lake, under its former leadership and administration, arrived at an agreement in principle because we were determined to resolve all of the issues that were outstanding irritants left to us by the New Democrats between the aboriginal people and the rest of society.

We did that by making a commitment in good faith and a commitment that was not delivered in any way by the New Democrats despite all of their rhetoric, and now they are embarrassed, and so all they can do is lash out in this phoney way to try and get away from the substance of the fact that we have been delivering all of the things that they could not or would not to the aboriginal people ofthe North.

Madam Speaker, I say to the member for The Pas that I agree with him completely when he says that when things are happening to his people, to his aboriginal brothers and sisters, that appear to be negative towards them, it hurts him. I agree, and that is precisely the point that I am making is that by not supporting their going to the table to complete this agreement, he is hurting them in the long term. He is denying them a hundred million dollars or more of compensation, and in supporting the blockade he has denied several communities the ability to have electricity for a full year.

I think that hurts all of us, and that is the kind of thing that we have to be aware of. It is not rhetoric, it is not politics; it is helping the people of the North, and that is exactly what we are attempting to do by all of the things that we have been doing. So I say the member has no point of privilege and did not even read the exact words that I said because they would not support his point of privilege. There is none, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: A matter of privilege is a serious matter.

I am therefore going to take this matter under advisement to consult with the authorities, and I will return to the House with a ruling. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Women's Resource Centres Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Doreen Thordarson, C. Marks, N.

Watkin and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Filmon government to consider providing long-term, adequate and stable funding for Evergreen Women's Resource Centre and other women's resource centres in the province to ensure that the vital services provided by these organizations are continued. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Women's Resource Centres Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense. THAT the Evergreen Women's Resource Centre provides services which focus on prevention and intervention in domestic abuse for communities within a I 00-kilometre radius; THAT with only partial funding from the provincial government, Family Dispute Services, in the amount of

11 32 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 26, 19 98 $37,600 and some funding from the communities it serves, the Evergreen Women's Resource Centre hires three part-time employees and provides telephone, counselling, training and seminar facilities, in addition to education, iriformation and outreach programming; and THAT Evergreen Women's Resource Centre is also involved in referral services on a crisis-intervention and second-stage outreach level; and THAT for years, the Evergreen Women's Resource Centre has struggled to provide these vital programs and services with limited funding or commitment from the provincial government; and THAT during the 1995 provincial election, the Filmon government said, "The safety and security of the individual, our families and our communities is vital to the quality of our life.

"; and THAT if the Filmon government is really committed to that statement, it must back it up with funding for the agencies that provide services to make it a reality. WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Filmon government to consider providing long-term, adequate and stable funding for the Evergreen Women's Resource Centre and other women's resource centres in the province to ensure that the vital services provided by these organizations are continued. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon.

Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review for the Department of Rural Development. Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the 19 97 Annual Reports Concerning Complaints about Judicial Conduct. Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have this afternoon 19 visitors from the Teens Against Drunk Driving Program under the direction of Mrs.

Dorothy Streamer and Mr. Bob Davis. This group is located in the constituencies of the honourable members for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans), Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) and Thompson (Mr. Ashton). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Misericordia General Hospital Breast Care Services Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, yesterday we asked the government about its closure of the comprehensive breast care program at the Misericordia Hospital. We asked questions of whether the government had consulted with patients.

We have since heard from people that have been patients and are patients of the Misericordia Hospital comprehensive breast care program. A person named Shirley Gering yesterday stated that we have something great here, please leave our services where they are-as a statement to the provincial government. I would like to ask the Premier: will he override his Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) in terms of his final decision on the Misericordia that is contained in the minister's letter to the Misericordia Hospital?

Will he override that decision of the Minister of Health and order that his Minister of Health begin a consultative process on what decisions the government is making including the patients that rely on these very, very lifesaving and important services that we have here at the Misericordia Hospital? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I want to make a number of points.

Firstly, the reorganization of hospitals and health care in Manitoba under regional health authorities is a very comprehensive process that requires a great deal of consultation and a great deal of input from people, stakeholders throughout the system. That is something that has occupied a great deal of time of the Minister of Health, many members of our government and certainly all of the various people within the Department of

March 26, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 33 Health and indeed within health care in the province. That has resulted in many areas that have become obvious and areas that required us to take action to ensure that we could improve the availability of services.

Throughout the past decade, that has certainly been an objective of our government, particularly as it relates to providing more comprehensive services and spreading them more widely throughout the province, which is why breast screening, for instance, something which it was available perhaps for a few thousand people a year back at the time we took office, is now available in three different cities in the province: in Brandon, in Thompson, in Winnipeg. We have a very comprehensive unit in Misericordia that does provide extensive opportunities for various breast cancer and breast health initiatives.

We have gone from a period of time in which we did less than a few thousand to where over the last two and a half years we did 35, 000 breast screenings in this province. We now are moving with two additional mobile breast screening units to expand that to where we will have over 35, 000 breast screenings this year alone. Comprehensive service is being developed and many things that have to be dealt with, and our government is committed to ensuring that we provide the best possible service to the people of the province, the women of the province.

We have made that commitment not only with available facilities but with the money available to expand these comprehensive services to them. Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed that the Premier will not consult and have his minister consult with the patients that are directly affected, that want a voice in the future of health care and want a voice before this government destroys the comprehensive breast care program here in Winnipeg at the Misericordia Hospital.

I want to table a letter today from a surgeon at the breast surgery program at the Misericordia Hospital, and I want to quote this surgeon who states: it makes no sense to have any kind of postoperative care in acute care ifthere is no surgical access. Will this government consult with the medical experts who are also saying do not destroy the comprehensive breast care services program located at the Misericordia Hospital? Mr.

Film on: Madam Speaker, I know that the minister will be listening to people from all areas of the health care field and experts in the field of dealing with breast screening, breast cancer and all of the various services and supports that go into that. That is why our government has gone into this area to such a great extent; that is why it has expanded this area dramatically, and we will continue to do what we can to ensure that we make the system as good as possible for the people who use the system. Mr.

Doer: Madam Speaker, the doctor goes on to talk about the need to connect the surgery and the program of surgery for breast cancer with all the other presurgical programs and postsurgical programs and counselling. He says that the decision to make this radical change does not make any sense, and it belies the issue of understanding the whole program in terms of a comprehensive breast care program. So the government is not listening to patients. It is not listening to medical advice.

Every time this government destroys a very positive program, whether it is home care or whether it is a comprehensive program for breast care services, they do not listen to patients. They do not listen to medical advice. They just go ahead. They build up a program over four years. It is a good program, and then they try to destroy it without any cost-benefit analysis, without any review of the patients and without any review of the medical staff. Will the Premier perform a cost-benefit analysis?

Will he agree to have his minister meet with patients, and will they listen to medical advice that says that this government is making the wrong decision? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, we are not going to destroy this program. We are the government that created this program and that has built up this program over the last four years. So the members opposite can take no credit for that. I can tell members opposite that, despite the fact that we have put a lot of resources and we have built up the program, there are still areas of concern and complaints that are made by people.

I saw some in the paper within the last week that talked about having to move from one hospital to another with wires in them, and of

11 34 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 26, 19 98 course, the reason for that is that those who do breast cancer surgery do not always have admitting privileges at the same hospital in this particular system that exists today, which is why we have to bring it under a central health authority, the Winnipeg Health Authority, to try and overcome that problem so people do not have to move from getting one particular part of the treatment at one hospital to another and so on and so forth.

So we are having to deal with all of these issues to create a better system that will provide care on a more comprehensive basis to the people who need it. Indeed, in the process of doing all of that, the minister has been consulting, will continue to consult, and that is why we will, I am sure, arrive at the best solution for all concerned. Misericordia General Hospital Breast Care Services Ms.

Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Health has consistently told this House that his government is committed to a comprehensive centralized one-stop breast care program, just like the one that he wants to dismantle at the Misericordia Hospital. Yet on CBC this morning the minister says that, and I quote: surgery does not have to be done at one particular place. Then we have Dr. Blake McClarty calling for a one-stop program.

Madam Speaker, I want to call on the Premier and ask him to stop this equivocation and tell this House whether his government favours comprehensive centralized service or fragmented services. Is there a plan? What is the plan? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I know that it will be difficult for the member opposite to understand when we talk about having a central program administration with decentralized delivery, but she should know, for instance, that people can go for mammography even today in Brandon, in Thompson, in Winnipeg. So there is a decentralization that is good for women throughout the province.

We are adding two mobile breast screening units so that it will become even more decentralized in part of its delivery. In conjunction with all of those things, there are people throughout the province, and I hear from them regularly, who want to have as many of the different functions that are able to be performed in their area of the province done so. You can still have a central organizational unit, a central program unit, without having everything done in one location throughout all of this process.

That is something that the minister is working on with the experts, and he is not just doing it on the basis of the kind of short-term politics that the member for Osborne is attempting to portray. * (1410 ) Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, the Premier certainly is gallant. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Ms. McGifford: Since indications are that the Misericordia ophthalmology program will continue, or may continue, with all its components, I want to ask if this government, if this Premier will guarantee Manitoba's women that the Misericordia breast care program will also remain in place. Mr.

Filmon: This is not a question that I should be answering on behalf of the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik). I will take that question as notice on his behalf and suggest that as of the next time we will be sitting, the Minister of Health's Estimates will be up for debate and discussion, and I am sure that she will want to get into a very comprehensive discussion with him on that topic, and I would recommend that she do so. Ms.

McGifford: Madam Speaker, since the Premier seems unwilling to listen to us, I wonder if he will listen to consumers like Alison Bailes who says, and I quote: without a program, we are not getting totally holistic comprehensive care. Well, if he does not want to listen to the public, I will ask the question- Madam Speaker: Order, please. Point of Order Mr. Filmon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, at no time did I say I was unwilling to listen to the member for Osborne; at no time did I say that. In fact, I encouraged her to get the information in detailed form from the Minister of Health (Mr.

Praznik) who is the -

March 26, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 35 appropriate authority on this matter. Now how she could possibly misrepresent that is beyond me, and I would ask her to please withdraw that comment. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, on the same point of order. Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yes, on the same point of order, Madam Speaker.

It is clearly not a point of order; in fact, the member is very specific in her question, and I find it quite noteworthy that what she was ref erring to was the fact that the Premier, who presumably is in charge-that is where the buck stops in this province, at his desk-refused to answer the question. So not only was the member not out of order, she was absolutely right on in asking that question on behalf of the people of Manitoba.

Madam Speaker: I will take the point of order under advisement and report back to the House. * * * Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Osborne to please pose her final supplementary question with no postamble or

preamble. Ms. McGifford: I want to ask the Premier if he will listen to consumers like Alison Bailes from Breast Cancer Action Manitoba and keep the Breast Care Clinic at the Misericordia Hospital open for Manitoba women. Mr. Filmon: I will definitely listen to all women, all consumers and all citizens of Manitoba. Misericordia General Hospital Breast Care Services Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, Misericordia has a lodge which provides low cost housing for rural and northern women who are in need of breast cancer treatment, not breast screening but breast cancer treatment.

They can stay there while they are getting treatment, and they can get supports. The hospice provides a secure and supportive environment for rural and northern women as they go through a very traumatic experience. Why does the Premier not recognize the importance of this service for rural and northern women, and will he ensure that that service that is there now will continue to be in place for women who have to face this kind of treatment? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): We do recognize the importance of that service; that is why we created it. I can assure her that we will continue to provide that service. Ms.

Wowchuk: I want assurances from the Premier that he will recognize the importance of that housing program that is there, and given that a nurse in the surgical unit says that she sees a great difference between women who come through with these supportive services and those that do not and that women who come through the program are more prepared than those who do not get the services and have a better outlook on life, will he ensure that the housing program that is there for rural and northern women who are taking cancer treatment, not screening, will have that service provided. Mr.

Filmon: I think I just answered that question. Health Care System Diagnostic Testing Waiting Lists Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Swan River, with a final supplementary question. Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): I would like to ask the minister how he can face people in rural Manitoba when, although he says the service will not be fragmented, we know from people that it will, but also, although they announced that diagnostic waiting list would be slashed, I have a constituent, Mrs.

Vivian Toderash, who was told in January she has a possible brain tumour, it is three months- Madam Speaker: Would the honourable member please pose the question now. Ms. Wowchuk: I would like to ask the Premier how he can explain that diagnostic waiting lists are supposed to be shorter in Manitoba when I have a constituent, Mrs. Vivian Toderash, who was told in January that she had a possible brain tumour, she is just now being put on

11 36 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 26, 19 98 the waiting list and told she will have to wait seven months before she can have an MRI to diagnose whether or not she has a brain tumour. How can you face Manitobans with those kinds of stats? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I know that the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) could probably give a better answer if he knew the circumstances of the case and could speak with the doctor involved to understand just exactly what the doctor is recommending and under what circumstances.

I do know this: that we announced both in December and again in the budget additional funding for reducing the waiting lists in all of these areas, and we are committed to do so. Health Care System Diagnostic Testing Waiting Lists Mr. Dave Cbomiak (Kildonan): Manitobans are waiting far too long for diagnostic tests, particularly MRis in this province. I spoke with a physician whose waiting lists for MRis is completely out of line with the designated clinical guidelines. I should note, for the Premier, and I am asking this of the Premier, that Ontario patients are getting their MRis done at St.

Boniface in March, while Manitoba patients, because they are not paying patients, have to wait till July and have to wait up to six months for MRI because they are only operating under a limited time period. Will the Premier do the right thing and expand the operation of the MRI so that people like Mrs. Toderash in Swan River and all those other Manitobans who are not paying clients like the Ontario residents or the MPIC claims and the Workers Compensation claims can get their MRis done within clinical guidelines? Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, this government announced that it was one of our highest priorities in health care to reduce those waiting lists, and therefore we put more money in to reduce these waiting lists in December and again in the budget that was just announced a couple of weeks ago, and that is our firm intention to reduce those waiting lists. Mr. Chomiak: What does the Premier propose that we tell these individuals-we have all written to, we have all contacted the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik}-people like Mrs.

Toderash who has to wait for her brain tumour to be looked at on the MRI; Ron Berry [phonetic] who has been waiting since November for an ultrasound; Ken Gilliam who must wait until June for an MRI; Brenda Camarat [phonetic] who must wait until the summertime to get her echocardiogram done for her valve problem? What are we supposed to tell these individuals to do while the Premier says they have promised, and they are not extending the operation and the hours of these machines to provide the service to Manitobans? Mr. Filmon: That is precisely what we are doing.

I heard the minister say that the additional funding will allow them to extend the time of use, and that involves hiring new staff so that they can expand to longer hours and more days of use ofthe equipment. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Kildonan, with a final supplementary question. * (1 420) Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, I go back to the Premier. How can he explain the fact that the MRI at St.

Boniface Hospital presently is operating on limited hours to Manitoba residents, while paying customers like MPIC, Workers Comp and people from Ontario can get in sooner than Manitoba residents because you are not willing to extend those hours immediately? Mr. Filmon: I have just told him that that is precisely what the minister plans to do with the additional money. Education System Administration Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My question is also for the Premier.

It is dealing with the on-again, off again, if you like, will to try to have some sort of change in public education in terms of the way in which it is administered. In Alberta you have 480 school trustees for a half million students. In Ontario you have 700 school trustees for 2.1 million students. In Manitoba we have approximately 400 school trustees for 194,000 students. My question is: because the Premier has said in the past that this was a priority, when will the government make the issue of -

March 26, 19 98 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 37 redistribution a priority and see some tangible action taken to resolve it? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the member opposite knows that we identified this as an issue that should be dealt with back, I believe it was in 19 90. We initiated there the Norrie commission that spent a couple of years going throughout the province, coming up with comprehensive recommendations as to change in our school boundaries, as well as in the administration of our school system, public school system.

Many of his recommendations, I think some 21 recommendations, have been implemented. The implementation of boundary change is something that obviously was greeted with a great deal of opposition by people at the local community level. Now members opposite would be the first to jump up-if we were to impose a new set of boundaries, they would be the first to jump up and say: why do you not listen to the people.

In this case, we have listened to the people, and we have said: here are the benefits of school boundary changes, of amalgamations and reductions in the numbers of school boards, and we are prepared to put money in as an incentive for you to amalgamate school boards. It is up to you to get together now and co-operatively negotiate these new school boundaries and this ability to deliver more efficiently education through our public system in Manitoba. That process is underway. Some are already committed to amalgamation, and others are looking at it on a co-operative basis.

Those negotiations are underway in several other areas of the province. We believe that is ultimately the best way to go, because you need to have the support of the public when you are making such major changes. If the member opposite just wants us to bring down the hammer and do it from the provincial government, please have him stand up and say that and let him take the consequences of that statement, Madam Speaker. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, what I would like to see is some real tangible action. That has not been the case with respect to this government.

My question to the Premier is: if he is relying on public opinion on this, will the Premier then indicate that if the will of the public is to see this issue dealt with in a way in which there is some tangible action taken, will he then agree that he will be prepared to take some sort of action, not this over 10 years where we have seen one school board talking to another school board- Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I would like to think that part of the reason why we continue to be in office l 0 years after we were elected is because we do listen to people.

We do work with people. We prefer a co operative approach as opposed to a confrontative approach. We have tried to do that in everything we have done, and that includes, in this particular case, working with people throughout the province on the area of school board governance and school board boundaries and all of the things that impact on the education of our children. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, regional health boards would probably be a good case in point.

My question to the Premier is: will he then acknowledge that because of this government's approach at dealing with this issue, you have many Manitobans paying a disproportionate amount more of tax dollars to finance public education, because this Premier has failed in dealing with this issue? Mr. Filmon: No, Madam Speaker. Churchill, Manitoba Regional Health Authority Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the First Minister as well. When the regional health authorities were set up, Manitobans were told that the results would be improved services and more accessible health care.

I would like to ask the Premier to explain: in the case of Churchill, in a period of one year under their appointed chair and board, they have lost a 25-year contract to supply doctors to the Keewatin region of the N.W.T., but the business that Churchill realizes, almost 80 percent of it comes from the Keewatin region.

11 38 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 26, 19 98 Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I am not sure I understand exactly what the member is after. If he is suggesting that somehow we are responsible for the decision that the Northwest Territories have made to not use to as great an extent the Churchill Health Centre, then I am prepared to answer that, but I am not quite sure I understood what he was getting at. Mr. Robinson: I know the rules of this House, Madam Speaker, do not allow me to go with a lengthy

preamble- Madam Speaker: Order, please. With the indulgence of the House, the honourable member could quickly repeat his question. Mr. Robinson: Thank you, Madam Speaker. When the RHAs were set up in the province of Manitoba, it was understood by people in Churchill and throughout Manitoba that it would result in better services, improved health care and so on. We have on this side of the House, in a spirit of co-operation, worked with-I have worked with the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr.

Tweed) in trying to address the shortcomings of the regional health authority in Churchill, and obviously, we have not been able to do that. Simply, the board chair of Churchill has not done the negotiating jobs that are needed that go with the regional health authority. I am asking the Premier if he will remove this chairperson from the regional health authority and make it much more effective where it will be representative of the community of Churchill. Mr. Filmon: Again, I am not sure what it is that the chair has not done properly.

If it is to do with the relationships with the Northwest Territories, Madam Speaker, I know that many members on this side of the House have been working with the people of the Northwest Territories. In their move to the new territory of Nunavut, there will be, obviously, a lot of changes that involve their taking responsibility for the delivery of services and their choice of where they get services, and I know that that is a concern. I have spoken with the head of the Northwest Territorial government, Don Morin, on numerous occasions. He has a history with Manitoba, having lived and worked here.

He is very familiar with relationships with Churchill, and he has been very supportive ofus in terms of supply and also in terms of the accessing of medical services. So, if I could understand better exactly what it is that the member thinks should be done that has not been done, then perhaps I could pursue it with him.

I respect the member and his concerns and I would like to help him solve the problem, but just to suggest that we should fire the chair ofthe board of the regional health authority without having some greater understanding of how that would solve the problem is difficult for me to do. * (14 30) Mr. Robinson: It is very simple, Madam Speaker. He could perhaps discuss with the MLA for Turtle Mountain, (Mr. Tweed), and I am sure the member for Turtle Mountain will agree with me that there is a definite problem in Churchill. The regional health authority is now losing their pharmacist, their accountant, head nurse.

There has been a 98 percent turnover of nurses since the regional health authority took over. Simply, there is a problem that has to be addressed, and I want to ask the Premier what action he will take. Mr. Filmon: I would be happy to ensure that when he returns from his meeting, the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) will respond to that issue and will get involved and make sure that the member for Rupertsland knows just exactly what is being done and what can be done to try and address the circumstances. Cross Lake, Manitoba Arbitration Award Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the First Minister. The government is speaking in terms of dealing with the Cross Lake community, and the Minister of Northern Affairs is using terms like ethics and justice. I would like to ask the First Minister: why has the government failed to implement the arbitration award that was achieved and written by G. Campbell MacLean and issued on March I 7, 19 97, an award that was provided pursuant to the Northern Flood Agreement, an award that rules in favour of the Cross Lake community in dealing with

March 26, 19 98 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 39 roads and bridges pursuant to the Northern Flood Agreement? Why does the Premier not instruct his minister, who is also the Minister of Hydro, to take the highroad, be a sta tesperson and settle the arbitration award that has gone against the government twice, rather than appealing it on a third occasion? Hon. David Newman (Minister of Northern Affairs): The process underway is the kind of process contemplated by the Northern Flood Agreement of 1977 and that is a claim-by-claim basis.

Where there is a lack of clarification, or there is a dispute as to what something means or what the intention was of the agreement, or how to deal with a claim, or how to determine what the facts are and how to determine what the amounts of compensation are, you go to an arbitrator. When the arbitrator makes an award and the decision of the arbitrator is not clear enough or there is a jurisdictional question, you go to courts to have that resolved, and I might say that Premier Schreyer objected to the signing of the NF A agreement, as I understood it, in his day, because there was not an appeal procedure. Mr.

Doer: I was in Cross Lake last year, and they feel that they have used the rules of the Northern Flood Agreement on two occasions, and on two occasions they were able to succeed with an independent arbitrator. Now you are going on a third occasion to appeal it. I would ask this question of the Premier (Mr. Filmon): do you not think you should start taking the highroad when you have lost twice, implement the arbitration awards from Mr. MacLean? Why can you not live by the rules of their Northern Flood Agreement and start defusing the situation and concerns in the Cross Lake community instead of inflaming them?

Live by the arbitration award instead of appealing it a third time. Come on, stand up. Mr. Newman: Madam Speaker, the difficulty which is underlying that question is, of course, the official opposition through its Leader and through the different members that have spoken on the Cross Lake issue, in particular the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin}-is that at the moment there are serious efforts being made by people of reason and goodwill in trying to come to grips with this.

I include in that my counterpart, the federal minister and the regional director, Loren Cochrane, Grand Chief Rod Bushie, Grand Chief Francis Flett and many people in the community who are very concerned about this situation. What the opposition party is doing here is simply stirring up trouble at a time when they need reason and good guidance for the members of the community and their sharing of facts. Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, there he goes again. We are asking a question on the issue of Cross Lake.

The question was very clear: will they live up to the award given by the arbitrator on two occasions. Madam Speaker, for this member once again to use terms like "stirring up trouble" is not only not answering the question but I think it is showing a real contempt for Question Period. I would ask you to have him called to order and answer the very serious question being asked on behalf of the people of Cross Lake. Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order. Hon.

James McCrae (Government House Leader): Yes, Madam Speaker, it is sort of deja vu all over again with honourable members opposite. Whenever they hear something they do not like, they raise a point of order about it. On this particular occasion, I do not even know if it could be construed as a dispute over the facts, but that would be the most it would be. Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Northern and Native Affairs, on the same poin t of order? Mr. Newman: No, I will just quickly finish my response to the question, if l may. Sorry. Madam Speaker: Order, please.

On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), I would appeal to all members in this House to use caution both in the tone and the words they use to address each other, both in asking questions and responding to questions, because it becomes very inflamed and does nothing to enhance the members as 57 leaders of this province.

11 40 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 26, 19 98 I would also, on the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, request that the honourable minister comply with the rules and respond to the question asked. * * * Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Northern and Native Affairs, to quickly complete his response. Mr.

Newman: The kind of issue that has been raised by the Leader of the official opposition is the kind of matter which can be resolved through discussion and agreement, the kind of discussion and agreement that we are seeking with the members of Cross Lake through their leadership, and that is the kind of issue which is inherent in the 1977 Flood Agreement. Those are the processes that go through. We are trying to achieve a process which is more advantageous for all concerned. Mr. Doer: The government will know that the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) and the member for Rupertsland (Mr.

Robinson) took a very, very co operative approach in dealing with the issue of flooding on the sacred burial ground of the Cross Lake community, but it is unacceptable for the government to lose once, appeal the decision, lose a second time by an independent arbitrator, and a year later they are still talking about good faith. Madam Speaker, why will the Premier not instruct his Minister of Northern Affairs and Minister responsible for Hydro (Mr. Newman) to implement the arbitration award that was handed down by Mr.

MacLean a year ago as a way of starting to take leadership and fulfilling our responsibilities as a province? Let us start working in partnership, let us start working together instead of in confrontation as the minister opposite is doing. Mr. Newman: I have already answered the question. The answer is simply that a clarification is needed because you cannot implement something that cannot be understood, and that is what the court is there for, to give that guidance. Short of that or the alternative to that is to achieve an agreement through discussion.

Winnipeg Beach Hotel Video Lottery Termina ls-Reinstallation Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Reid Kelner, former Tory candidate, is back in the VLT business even though he allowed and encouraged known problem gamblers to play even if they had to, he had to, break the law by providing cash by allowing illegal withdrawals through debit cards, an illegal act as defined by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson). The government's response was remove the VL Ts. Then it was, you can have them back in six months. Now, less than three months later, Kelner is back in business.

My question to the Minister responsible for the Gaming Commission: how does this minister justify giving back the VL Ts to Kelner when only a month ago even the Finance minister, who we know is hooked on VL Ts, openly believed that a severe punishment was needed? Was Kelner's politics a factor in this decision? * (14 40) Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Hon.

Mike Radcliffe (Minister responsible for The Gaming Control Act): Madam Speaker, we have legislation in this House which has appointed an independent Gaming Commission, and this Gaming Commission was called for- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Radcliffe: The member for St. James seems to find something funny in the answer which I am attempting to give to the House. I feel this is a very serious issue today before this House.

The Desjardins report that was called for by this House recommended an independent Gaming Commission, and in compliance with that suggestion in that report, this government instituted legislation which called for and created a Gaming Commission. We set up the Gaming Commission. The Gaming Commission has reviewed the facts, conducted an inquiry and they have made a conclusion which is independent of this government.

March 26, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 41 If my honourable colleague opposite is suggesting that we politically interfere with the conclusion of the Gaming Commission, I would reject that soundly. The member opposite may not like the answer given by the Gaming Commission. There may be members on this side that may not like the answer given by the Gaming Commission, but I think the important issue here is that there has been a process created. We have followed the process, and we have the answer which has been given to the community, and we must follow that. Ms.

Mihychuk: Is the minister trying to deny that members of that Gaming Commission made personal donations to the minister's own political campaign? Is this government- Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Ms. Mihychuk: I did not quite finish my-this guy was a Tory candidate. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr.

Radcliffe: Madam Speaker, I am not sure if the question was put to me in a facetious fashion or not, but I can tell the honourable member opposite that the two individuals who sat on this fact-finding commission was one Claudia Weselake and the second member was one Joan Montgomery. I can assure the honourable member opposite that these are both well-qualified and skilled members of our community that have the confidence of this government, have continued to retain the confidence of this government and they had nothing to do with my campaign. Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Action Daycare Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Madam Speaker, this morning I had the opportunity to visit Action daycare with the Honourable Bonnie Mitchelson, the Minister of Family Services. Our government has committed an additional $5 .1 million to ensure that children and families in Manitoba are provided with flexible and quality child care. Our government listened to the parents who use our daycare system. We listened to the daycare providers who work in the system, and together we have improved the system. Our government will now spend $48.3 million in 19 98-99 on daycare.

We will now be providing an additional 1, 000 subsidized spaces to families. They will now have the ability to choose the day care that best meets their needs, and 2,000 existing infant and preschool spaces will now be fully funded. Operating grants for the infant and preschool spaces in the centres and family daycare homes will increase by 2 percent. We will also be providing an additional $1 97,000 to extend the children with disabilities program to all nonprofit facilities. Also, an additional $200,000 will be provided for the development of new flexible child care arrangements.

I would also like to thank the Minister of Family Services for providing me with the opportunity to participate in the fact-finding mission of Manitoba daycares. I would also like to thank the daycares and families for their co-operation, and I would also like to thank the regulatory review committee for their research and assistance in compiling the information gathered in the fact-finding mission. Madam Speaker, our government turned to the experts. Those experts are the people who work in daycare day after day. We asked them to work with us and find out how operations could be more efficient.

We understood the necessities of those people who are being part of the decision-making process. We will continue to make Manitoba a great place to live, work, invest, and especially raise a family. Nova Scotia Election Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus, I rise to congratulate the voters of Nova Scotia on an exciting and historic election last Tuesday, March 24. It was a massive, although not unexpected, breakthrough for the New Democrats who went from four seats to 19 , tying the tired, ineffectual Liberals and relegating the equally

11 42 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 26, 19 98 tired and ineffective Tories to third place. The results were not only a repudiation of a tired, old-style government but also a message that government has to represent the best interests of all the people. Government must provide for and protect the public health care system, the public education system, and the future for all our families.

The Nova Scotia NDP built upon the solid base established by Alexa McDonough who, when she left Nova Scotia politics to lead the federal NDP, was heralded as the "best Premier Nova Scotia never had." Alexa's provincial and federal leadership resulted in an unprecedented six Nova Scotia seats for the NDP in last May's federal election and set the stage for Tuesday's historic election. Robert Chisholm and the other 18 members of the NDP caucus will be a powerful, effective voice for all Nova Scotians.

I hope all members of the Manitoba Legislature will join with us in congratulating the Nova Scotia New Democrats and wishing them luck in the exciting times ahead. * (1 450) AECL-Future Status Mr. Ben Sveinson (La Verendrye): I rise today, in part, to address some of the comments made by the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) here in the House yesterday. The federal government has hindered efforts to commercialize the Whiteshell laboratories in Pinawa, increasing the uncertainty of the workers at the lab.

The federal government has not responded to requests made by our Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) for meetings to discuss the impending prices facing the Whiteshell laboratories. During the fall session of 19 96, I introduced a nonpartisan, private member's resolution that called on the federal government to provide a long-term commitment to the Whiteshell laboratories. We wanted to show the federal government Manitoba's united commitment for the Whiteshell labs. However, the NDP refused to pass that motion or that resolution.

Despite the comments they made about the importance of the facility to our economy, when the time came to give their support, the NDP abandoned the people of Pinawa and the affected workers at AECL. Now, Madam Speaker, no one in this House or in this province is surprised when members opposite use people, such as the workers of the AECL, for their own shallow, political benefit. Comments made by the member for St. James illustrate that practice when she spoke here yesterday.

The phoney concern presented by the NDP yesterday in this House can be characterized in a nice manner, I might add, as words without substance. The commercialization of the Whiteshell laboratories is the responsibility of the federal government. Our government stands ready to implement an economic development plan, as announced in December of 19 96, as soon as the federal government lives up to its commitments. I encourage an immediate meeting with the federal minister of natural resources, as was requested by our Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism. Thank you. Northern Manitoba Mr.

Steve Ashton (Thompson): Earlier today we saw the kind of contempt that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this province continues to show for northern Manitobans. I might add it is ironic that this Premier is the Premier who has been sighted less in northern Manitoba than sightings of Elvis. I mean, this is a Premier who has not been in my community, the community of Thompson, since before the last election when he talked to the Tory faithful-has barely been seen in an aboriginal community in northern Manitoba. I think, in fact, the last time he was anywhere in the North was at a Chamber of Commerce meeting in The Pas.

He has spent more time in Davos, Switzerland, than he has in northern Manitoba. He is not a Premier that has any right to talk about the North. I want to list some of the record of 10 years of neglect ofthis government. This is the kind of record that has led people in the North to reject the Conservatives time and time again. This is a record that talks about cuts to the Access programs, to New Careers, cuts to job creation programs. They even cut the program that provided swimming for young people, and water safety training. They cut northern hospitals,

March 26, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 43 they implemented the $50 user fee, they cut our public schools, like the school district of Mystery Lake, more than anywhere else in the province. They have had a terrible record on highways. We had as little as 5 percent of the construction budget, and our roads are not even worthy of being called highways in many cases. In fact, the Highways minister himself has admitted they were built only to pioneer standards. They cut the friendship centres, they cut MKO, they cut pretty well everything that moves in northern Manitoba.

You know, they talk about dealing in good faith. We see what age they live in. They live in the days of the 18 90s, Madam Speaker, when the Indian agents went around northern Manitoba talking like the great white father. That kind of condescending and patronizing attitude is no longer acceptable. I say to the Premier, if he ever did bother to come to northern Manitoba, 1 will take you to the communities like Nelson House, where I believe six people voted Conservative compared to 200 for the New Democrats. In Split Lake, six people voted for the Conservatives compared to 200 for the New Democrats.

People of northern Manitoba voted. They said this Premier (Mr. Filmon) and this government does not represent them. Education System-Administration Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I just wanted to continue on with the question that I had asked the Premier earlier today. What I was hoping to be able to see come from the government is some sort of a commitment to fairness. It is not necessarily to take a side per se but to acknowledge that we have many inequities that are there today in the way in which we administer our public education.

So, if you are going to allow some citizens, for example, of the province to have more community-oriented school divisions, well, that same principle should also be allowed for all Manitobans. You cannot have one megaboard here and this small school division over here unless, of course, that is the will of what those actual people want. If that is in fact the direction the government wants to take public education, then at least they should be on the record clearly demonstrating that.

If in fact they want to look at a way of reducing the overall administration of school divisions, going towards the Norrie report, on which hundreds of thousands of tax dollars were spent, then they should show that by their actions. I am disappointed that the government has not acted in any sort of tangible way in dealing with that, primarily because, whether it is the quality of service being delivered in different school divisions as a result of size or it is the extra cost that some Manitobans have to pay over and above other Manitobans because of the school division in which they live, it is not fair.

I would appeal to the government to acknowledge the fact that the current system is not fair and for the government to take action to rectify it. Thank you, Madam Speaker. ORDERS OF THE DA Y Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, the House will resolve itself into Committee of Supply. The House will resume in Committee of Supply. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY Interim Supply Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): The committee will come back to order. Could I ask the members who want to carry on a conversation to do so quietly. It is a little noisy in here right now. Ms.

Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I just have a couple of quick issues I want to raise with the Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer), and it is related to this government's attempts to deal with its problem with vacancy rates in its MHA properties. I know it has been struggling with this for a number of years. I am waiting for the minister to tell me how much money he is losing per month, because they are still having to pay the taxes and the maintenance and all the costs related to those units, but they are not able to fill them.

I know that they have done a few things that I think are not going to be helpful in terms of raising the rents and now this new policy on rent arrears. But I actually want to offer the minister a couple of positive suggestions and

11 44 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 26, 19 98 to see if he will do a couple of things that I think would be helpful in having him fill his vacancies.

I have met with a few community groups, and one of the things that I want to draw the minister's attention to is I think that if he would take the time to meet with community groups like the International Centre, who can place as many as a hundred new tenants who are new Canadians per month-some months they have more than a hundred new Canadians that they have to find housing for in the province, mostly in Winnipeg and they have a couple of suggestions that were discussed in meetings that I had with members. I want to see if the minister would seriously consider taking action on these.

The first is that they would provide lists of where the vacant properties are to agencies like the International Centre on a regular basis, at least monthly, so that the staff can assist potential tenants with selecting these potential units and picking the ones that they would like to see. The second part of it that they are requesting is that the minister would consider changing the policy of Manitoba Housing to only show a potential tenant one unit.

If they could look at a couple of units, I think that would also help tenants make a choice and not feel that they are in this take-it-or-leave-it position, and I think again that would help them fill some of their vacancies. * (1 500) Lastly, if they would also designate one staffperson with Manitoba Housing Authority that would liaise with some of these communities groups like the International Centre, so that they can develop a relationship with one staf fperson.

I know that the minister has not filled all of the tenant-relations positions that are available through his department, and one of these types of positions, the tenant-relations positions, would be a good kind of contact that could send out the lists of the vacant units, that could take questions from this type of agency, the International Centre, and I really think that an agency like that could place quite a few tenants on a regular basis with Manitoba Housing Authority properties.

They often have a situation where they want to place tenants in mid-month, which provides more of a problem I think in private accommodations and the market, and that is another issue that they want to see addressed. So I would like to hear the minister's response if he thinks these are positive, good suggestions and if he can see his department acting on them. Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): Mr. Chairperson, this is indeed a unique situation.

I think, as the member is aware, what you have at the International Centre is you have the coming together of two very strong personalities that are more or less the spearhead at the International Centre and that is a Mr. Marty Dolin and a Mr. Tom Denton. Mr. Marty Dolin is known for his involvement over the years with the NDP party, and Mr. Tom Denton has been known over the years to be very involved with the Conservative Party. But they work very well together, and they do excellent work for the International Centre. I have from time to time been involved with some of their events.

I have talked individually with them. I know of their commitment, and I know of their involvement, and it is a sense that their political differences and their backgrounds do not come into their judgments of what is good for the International Centre. I will say that just as the member for Radisson and myself have different political differences, I think that this is something that we can come together and work together with also.

I think the suggestion that she has made is excellent, the idea of providing the lists and the idea of not limiting the showing of units just to one area, and the fact of assigning a staffperson is an excellent idea, and I will certainly work towards those ends, because I believe that is one way that we can try to accommodate some of those people that are in need coming through the International Centre, because they do provide a very excellent service to the community.

If there is a way that you get personalities like Marty Dolin and Tom Denton together, I am sure that there is way that the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) and the member for Niakwa can do the same thing and try to accommodate these people, so I will certainly take those suggestions and work on those. Ms. Cerilli: I thank the minister for his openness to those suggestions. I have one other issue I want to raise with him quickly, and that is a letter that he received on February 9, '98, from a Mr. Rudy Blanchette and Bill

March 26, 19 98 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 45 Peters, Ken Simpson and Alasdair MacGillivray. These people are concerned with the government's legislation passed last session, Bill 60, the amendment to The Elderly and Infirm Persons' Housing Act, which allowed for the grandfathering of an exemption on life lease buildings to not pay their school tax. I guess this is one of the times when here in the opposition we are saying we told you so. We told you that this bill was a problem.

We recommended you hoist it and you consult more with seniors, with the community, with a lot of the other groups that are developing housing. Now we have a petition that is attached to this letter of a number of seniors that are saying this is not fair, that their condos they are purchasing are of equal value or sometimes even less than the properties that have been grandfathered under this legislation, so I just want to ask the minister how he is going to respond to this letter and to these petitioners. I know that he met with them last week.

I know that there was staff there from his department that were very concerned about the issues that were raised. They have itemized seven very specific questions they want answers to, and I think that some of the comments that we made when we debated this bill was that the minister is opening a big can of worms with this one, so I would like to hear how they are going to deal with this. Mr. Reimer: The member is alluding to the legislation that was introduced last session in which there were limitations placed on the size of units that are classified under The EIPH Act.

The reason for the introduction of that legislation was the fact that what we have seen in the proliferation ofhousing in the last little while is what we call life-lease units that are being built. The original intent of The EIPH Act was to address the availability of people in need in seniors living within a fixed income to an extent where they could not afford accommodations, so The EIPH Act would give them the relief for school taxes. There was criteria that was set up under that act which goes back, I believe, into the 19 50s when it was first brought forth.

What it indicated was that it was based on square footage size. It was also based on income and rental as a percentage of their income. At that time, I believe it was 20 percent of their income plus the square footage. As units have increased in size now through the life lease program, where you have units that are upwards of 1 ,400, 1 ,600, 1, 800 square feet, they are not necessarily classified as-and their pricing can run up to anywhere between $1 00,000 to almost $200,000, $1 75,000 for some ofthese units.

This is not really what you might call units for people in dire straits that are in for seniors housing. To not make any movement on that, what we are doing is we are encouraging people to get into these life-lease units under The EIPH Act and not pay any school tax which is dispr oportionate to the income and the amount of monies that everybody else is paying on their school tax. So what the amendment brought forth last year, it restricted the sizes of new construction only. Under the existing legislation that was passed last year-pardon me.

Existing units under the legislation that was passed last year would be still grandfathered or would stay within The EIPH Act, so there should be no apprehension for people that are currently covered under The EIPH Act, that we are going to rescind that classification for them. It will only apply to new buildings, new units that are being built, that they have to comply within those square-footage guidelines if they want to apply for an EIPH Act. So there should be no- Point of Order Ms. Cerilli: Mr.

Chairperson, I just want you to call the minister to order, so he will deal with the specifics of the question I raised. He is going into a lot of detail about extraneous matters on this topic. I am wanting to know when are you going to respond to the letter that was sent to you on February 9 of this year. You met with this group last week. Let us not revisit your debate on the bill last session. Mr. Chairperson: The minister, on the same point of order? Mr. Reimer: No, no point of order, just a reply.

11 46 LEGISLAT IVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 26, 19 98 Mr. Cha irperson: In that case, I will rule the honourable member did have a point of order. I would like the honourable minister to be a little bit more relevant to the answers. * * * Mr. Cha irperson: The honourable minister, to continue. Mr. Reimer: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson. I will respond to that as soon as I have contacted my office and find out-it must be, for lack of a better word, in the system, and I have not seen a reply that has come forth, so it will be as soon as possible. * (1510 ) Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr.

Chairperson, I have a few questions for the Minister of Housing. I have had calls and letters, and I have written to the Minister of Housing with respect to side-by-side properties in my constituency of Transcona. I have listed for the minister information, and, in fact, I have gone out to see these homes personally. There are basement windows that are missing, basement walls that are leaking water into the inside of the building, causing deterioration of the property of the residents that are living there. The siding on the outside of the house has shifted and fallen down in one particular case.

In another case, the doors are falling off the building. The building has not been painted in a dozen years. The fences are, well, you might as well say they are nonexistent. So it appears to me from what I am seeing in my own community-! am not sure about other communities, but in my community, your Department of Housing has not undertaken a repair program to keep these buildings in good shape, and when I say good shape, in the sense of just general maintenance practices.

I want to ask the Minister of Housing what plans you have for this year to rejuvenate some of those properties to make sure that they are put back into what I would consider to be habitable conditions. Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, the member for Transcona, he has alluded that he has written to me on this particular piece of property.

I do not have the correspondence in front of me, but if he is willing to give me the address of those units, I will see that they have been looked at, because in all our normal course of action, we try to get back to the member within a very reasonable time as to the course of action and the follow-up that is implemented by the department.

If nothing has happened, I am very surprised, because have a fair amount of confidence in and a great amount of respect for my department in the following up of any type of inquiry, whether it is for conditions of units, problems with tenants or problems with trying to get people into our units, because we are a service orientated department and we try to service our clients and the people in the most efficient and most expedient way. If there is a problem, I am glad that the member has pointed it out to me, because I will certainly follow up on that on his behalf. Mr. Reid: Well, Mr.

Chairperson, I have written to the minis ter, I believe, three times on this one particular proper ty on the comer of Dowling and Wayoata in Transcona. Mrs. Jackson is the resident in that particular building, and she has graciously let me into her home on her invitation to see the condition of the property, and the information I put on the record here a few moments ago are my observations of that particular property. That is why I wrote to the minister, and to this point not much has happened to improve the condition of that property.

The siding on the outside which is stucco siding around the door entrance to the side-by-side property has shifted downward, and I am afraid for the safety of anybody walking along the sidewalk for that particular property. The basement windows, you might as well say they are nonexistent. They are letting water into the basement area which is causing the deterioration of the inside of the structure itself, and there are other problems internal to that particular building. I have drawn that to the minister's attention.

Outside of the residents doing some minor repairs themselves for which the department has reimbursed the residents, not much else has happened by way of maintenance from his department. So I have drawn it to your attention in a letter before.

March 26, 19 98 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 47 At the other end of that same block on Dowling, there are also properties that I believe are the property holdings of the Department of Housing in similar condition, fences falling apart, snow-covered doors in the house, in the kitchen area, and there is just a general state of disrepair of these buildings, no paint on them for at least a decade. At least a decade these buildings have not been painted, so it is just deplorable conditions for the properties for which your department is responsible, and I draw it to your attention.

I have raised it in the past with previous ministers of Housing, but I hope that this Minister of Housing (Mr.

Reimer) will take a look at it, because the asset itself is depreciating in value by lack of maintenance on those proper ties, and whatever you plan for the future of those properties, your maintenance will have an impact on the decisions that you are going to make, and if you are not going to repair them, then, of course, you are going to have substandard housing conditions for the people who are living there, and at the same time whatever other plans you might have for those housings, of course the value of them will drop; so it is living conditions for the people and also the value of the asset itself.

I want to ask the Minister of Housing with respect to another property in the constituency of Transcona. I believe it is 30 Wynford Drive, and it is my understanding that the residents there have just received their renewal notices for their lease. I want to ask the minister why, under this particular new arrangement, his department is now having a surcharge of $5 for every resident who is living in that particular facility who has a balcony when that charge has never been there in the past. Mr. Reimer: Mr.

Chairperson, the information that the member for Transcona has brought forth to me regarding a balcony, I am not familiar with that, whether that is a difference or a change in policy, but I will certainly follow up with that on his behalf and try to get back to him in a very short time on that. Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that.

I hope he will respond in a short time because the residents of that particular facility have called my office and have indicated to me that some of them have been there for a number of years and they have never seen it in their lease agreements before, that your Department of Housing would be charging for a balcony.

If you take a look at the building structure itself, every suite on the outside of that building has a balcony, so every one of them is getting the $5 surcharge added to them when it has never been added before, so I do not know if your department is trying to nickel and dime these particular individuals and their families. Many of them are single moms living there with their children, and you are taking another $5 a month out of their pocket to charge them for the balcony.

So I do not understand why the department is making that decision, but that is the information that has been related to me by the residents of the structure, and I hope the minister, when he goes back to his department, will check into that decision, and if you are indeed doing that, that you will rescind that policy decision because the residents have said that if that is the case, find me a suite internal to the building where you do not have a balcony and I will be glad to move in there and you can charge somebody else the five bucks, but they are not willing to pay that extra five considering that in all those cases they are on what we would consider a fixed income, many of them on social assistance.

So I leave that with the minister for his investigation, and, hopefully, he will forward along some background on his research to me, so that I might provide an answer to my constituents. Mr. Reimer: Yes, I will, thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I do have a number of questions that I could be asking, and I would go to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer) and maybe ask him in two parts. I know he is the minister responsible for Housing and Urban Affairs. I do have questions in both areas. First, I would acknowledge the Minister of Housing (Mr.

Reimer) for putting in excellent efforts at assisting me and the tenants association over at Gilbert Park, trying to make tenant management work. With all modesty, I do believe that there has been a considerable

11 48 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 26, 19 98 amount of success, and I would acknowledge that that success would not be possible had it not been for the co-operation of the minister. On behalf of the tenants over at Gilbert Park, I would acknowledge that, and even his predecessor who put in a considerable amount of effort also. Having said that, I am going to stay away from that aspect of asking questions. What I want to focus some attention on is, a couple of years ago the government came up with a program for trying to get more construction brought into Manitoba in home improvements.

I studied at one time urban affairs at the University of Winnipeg, and one of the things that was really important to me was to recognize the negatives of urban decay. A major part of urban decay has been one's housing stock. I have always believed that the government has to pay special attention to housing stock in the province of Manitoba, and I have always believed that there is a role for government to ensure that at least there is something that is always happening in that whole area.

One of the reasons why I had gotten involved in the residents association a number of years back was to try to get an older community, in this case it was Weston, to try to get people to invest more of their private dollars tapping into programs like the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. At one time it used to be a fairly healthy program. You will find if we went through the records that . Weston benefited tremendously by a program like that. * (1 520) Mr.

Chairperson, the reason why I bring that up right now is that I do believe that we need to be more progressive in coming up with construction, revitalization type of programs in the housing area. I am not as convinced that we need to have programs like NIP from many years ago, Neighbourhood Improvement Programs.

I am more concerned, especially when the economy is doing relatively well, that we concentrate the efforts on programs that will get some of the areas in which maybe one is on a fixed income, or it is a lower end, in terms of the wage scale, · these individuals will have some sort of an incentive or some sort of assistance in upgrading the housing stock in the community in which they live. I am interested in just hearing the minister's comments as to how he believes, let us say, renovations of homes in older areas fit into his plans. Mr. Reimer: Mr.

Chairperson, the member for Inkster, when he first started his line of questioning brought up the matter of Gilbert Park Residents Association. He is being a little bit modest in his accolades to our government, because a lot of it was initiated by himself in his role as the MLA who represents Inkster. It was through a lot of his dedication and hard work-not only with me but also with the former minister-that he persisted in trying to set up a program at Gilbert Park. So he has been involved, and now the member for Point Douglas (Mr.

Hickes) has also indicated that possibly we should be doing the same thing at Lord Selkirk Park. I think there is a lot of room for this type of initiative. These are the types of things that can grow in the community as positive aspects for the betterment of a safe and friendly community. Gilbert Park has certainly turned out to be an ongoing adventure, if you want to call it, because as we delegate more and more authority to them, there is more and more of a maturity and a sense of community that is taking place in that particular area of the riding of Inkster. I thank the member for his comments.

The member has mentioned about neighbourhood revitalization, and I think that is something that this government has taken to heart quite seriously in the city of Winnipeg, because there is a recognition that the more a neighbourhood is made safe and more compatible to the living standards that we expect from our community that it is safer not only for the families, but it is safer for the neighbourhood, and it fosters a sense of accomplishment that the people can take pride in.

That is one of the reasons why we have continually supported the City of Winnipeg financially with what we call the MWCRP program, which is the Manitoba Winnipeg Community Revitalization Program. I cannot off the top of my head say exactly how much money we have spent in the last while, but I believe the number is somewhere around $6 million that has been put into various areas of the city of Winnipeg.

March 26, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 49 One of the thrusts of that program has been for neighbourhood revitalization and the enhancement of community structures and community involvement areas, where there is positive growth, positive results, by getting the community involved, by working with the local communities, giving them the ability to make decisions and being a catalyst in the sense of providing some funding through our government to enhance these communities. Some of the communities that have benefited from that has been, I believe, the area of Fort Rouge, the area of Elmwood.

Some of the other areas that have also benefited have also shown some positive upgrading, and a lot of it has to do with the community getting involved. So there is a program, to an extent, that has proven to be quite beneficial in the city of Winnipeg. The idea of upgrading housing on an individual basis is something that we were involved with the Home Renovation Program, which generated spinoffs of almost $80-million worth of investment on reconstruction, if you want to call it, of housing through the program. That program was discontinued; I believe it was just over a year ago.

Whether it will be reinstated is a matter of further consideration of budget limitations, so we do not have that program available right now. But we do have a program under Manitoba Housing called the HELP program which is the home renovation program for seniors and people on fixed income, where there are loans available for up to $3,000. It is a 10 - year loan, it is interest-free, and we have made that program available for seniors and for people of low income to renovate their homes. It is something that we can work towards.

We have the Winnipeg Development Agreement that we can look at housing for high-risk groups. We have an allocation of funding that is available through that. We are presently looking at applications and the processing of applications for housing assistance along those lines, so there is the availability of funding through that. The member is aware of a program that the City of Winnipeg just extended.

In fact, I believe it was just yesterday that they extended the program for another year, the home improvement tax incentive grant which has an incentive for infill housing in the core area, of a greater need and in a greater proportion of funding, tax credit availability from it. So the City of Winnipeg has seen that there is the availability of trying to get infill housing in the city of Winnipeg. I believe there are still other areas that should and could be explored through inner city housing.

One of the things that possibly the City of Winnipeg-my correspondence and conversations with them has been to try to look at some of the existing wonderful heritage buildings we have in the city of Winnipeg and try to utilize them for some sort of housing component for further utilization. I know that they have just recently announced the heritage tax credit program for heritage buildings, and that was legislation that we introduced and passed two years ago at the city's request and they finally implemented it.

So that is an excellent program that I think can be utilized for not only some of the heritage buildings but also for the fact of bringing in additional housing in the loft units or on the second floors or third floors of some of these wonderful old buildings that are downtown, because there is niche marketing and there is niche availability of housing that people look for in certain areas, who want to be downtown. It is the attractiveness, it is the affordability, primarily, of trying to use these buildings and these facilities, that we can get better utilization for housing downtown.

I continually work with the city and encourage them to look at innovative ways they can use these, and these are some of the things that I think are positive aspects that we can work at. It is not an end solution yet, but I think it is going down the road to something that is a lot better for Winnipeg and a lot better for the core area of the city. I encourage the member for Inkster just as he said that he had taken urban studies a while ago. I believe the instructor at that time was a Mr.

Axworthy, and I believe that his continual contact with that gentleman would help, actually benefit Winnipeg and Manitoba because of his close relationship with the individual, that he could possibly look at federal intervention and federal funding that we can also utilize for some of the funding in Winnipeg.

11 50 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 26, 19 98 * (1 530) Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, indeed, it would be nice to see a sense of co-operation in the sense of a program that would be all-encompassing, not only, let us say, for the city of Winnipeg but for many of the rural communities that are in Manitoba. I say that knowing the minister across the way is also very interested in rural areas. [interjection] Well, actually I have a little bit of rural Manitoba in my riding too, a couple of farms. I do have a couple of farms. [interjection] I am very proud of the area I represent. Let us just leave it at that. Mr.

Chairperson, the type of a program that I think would be beneficial would be one that could, in fact, be implemented province-wide, one that would see benefits for smaller rural communities that have older housing stock, to urban areas, not only the core of Winnipeg, if you like. I would use the area, for example, of Mynarski, Shaughnessy Park, Northwood, the Westons, the Brooklands, the oldest parts of St.

Vital, Crescentwood, all over, where we have housing stock that-for example, maybe it is windows, and if the government was to provide a program and provide incentives for individuals to tap into so that they can get windows replaced, much more ene rgy-and I am not talking computers here-that you would see by having these older neighbourhoods invest in programs of this nature or look at programs of this nature and take advantage of programs of this nature, you will see very quickly that people in the communities will, in fact, be that much better off, and that, in itself, adds to the community life.

That brings more people participating, gives a higher sense of pride. I can recall, for example, at one time I used to live on Logan A venue, and on Alexander, we had about four or five completely dilapidated houses. A couple of them were completely levelled. We had a couple of infill houses come up. Some residential rehabilitation assistance program applications were processed, and now that particular block looks quite nice

whereas before, it was perceived as an area in which no one would want to even walk down the back lane because ofthe dangers. You know, there was a tarp for a roof. Well, Mr. Chairperson, that is one of the extremes, I guess. What I am looking for is that we do not necessarily need to wait for more and more communities to look like that, that, in fact, what we should be doing is much like we have annual programs like SAFER and SAFFR as assistance for those individuals on low income that they can tap into, so that they can have only a certain portion of their income going towards rent.

Well, I would suggest what we need, Mr. Chairperson, is, in fact, a program that is put into place that is there. It is not brought in and about for a special throne speech debate or because we might be getting closer to an election or anything of that nature. It should be a permanent part of the Department of Housing in which incentives and programs are developed to try to encourage individuals to invest in their homes in older areas. By doing that, I would ultimately argue that we will be saving communities into the future. By doing that, I believe in long-term costs, we will see some benefits.

That is very easily said, I recognize that, but I think that if we had some study-one ofthe professors I had was Professor Carter over at the institute and Professor Leo. They very clearly demonstrated, at least in my mind, the benefits of having revitalization occurring on an ongoing basis in our older communities, that the cost, if we want to try to change that community, once it has hit a certain point, is much, much greater. I think that we can prevent that, and the only way we can prevent that is if, in fact, we see a more progressive way of dealing with issues such as revitalization.

I just wanted to more so get on the record with that. did want to venture into the other area that the minister is responsible for, and that is Urban Affairs. I did have other questions for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), Health (Mr. Praznik) or Education (Mrs. Mcintosh), if any of them are, in fact, available. I know the government Whip is there, and I say it, so hopefully he heard that. But, Mr. Chairperson, having said that, with respect to the Capital Region, I, once again, have thought, you know, the structure on paper looks wonderful. In reality, I do not think that it has been successful.

I would challenge to see something that has come out of the Capital Region that shows that there is a very strong focus for the development of the entire region. I know

March 26, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 51 we have had some plans, but I really have not, in my opinion-and a great example of that, and the Minister of Environment (Mr. McCrae) would be aware of this one, was the landfill. I really believe that the Capital Region could have and should have played a leading role in that, but because it did not do that, in my opinion, we have a situation where we had three landfill sites servicing a population of less than 700,000 people. Mr. Chairperson, I think that in the future we should be relying more on the Capital Region.

When we hear about Winnport, for example, and the potential at Winnport, municipalities like Rosser and the city of Winnipeg and other municipalities, it is critical that we have a plan that takes into consideration what is going to be happening, because the entire Capital Region benefits. In fact, the entire province benefits with something like Winnport, but there needs to be that co ordinated approach.

We have seen the city try to address the whole issue of people leaving the city to build out in rural Manitoba, and I had an interesting phrase-and I do not know if I have mentioned this before inside the Chamber or if the minister has ever heard of it before. I was out in rural Manitoba when someone coined the phrase of "urbanite," and "urbanite" is someone who enjoys both living in the rural area and the urban area and works or spends a good portion of the time in the city of Winnipeg, but has that family time, ifyou like, out in rural Manitoba where they have their home and so forth.

So they see the benefits of both lifestyles. But, in my opinion-and I do not discredit all the benefits of living in rural Manitoba or the benefits of living in an urban centre-but what I do emphasize is that there is a problem that the city of Winnipeg has been having with respect to the whole property tax issue, with respect to competing in some of those rural satellite communities, and as opposed to maybe seeing more co-operation in some of that development. Mr.

Chairperson, again, I would think that the Capital Region should be playing more of a role in how that is happening, so that we are all playing on somewhat of an equal playing field. So I am interested in hearing the minister's comments with respect to the Capital Region board and what he feels the future role of that particular board should be, and he can feel free to comment, as I have, on how effective he believes that board has been in past years. * (1 540) Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, the member alludes to a fair amount of different scenarios and questions in his comments there.

The Capital Region Strategy, the Capital Region commission, the Capital Region itself, I believe is a very useful and a very positive initiative to come to resolve of problems and situations in the resolving between the City of Winnipeg and the surrounding municipalities and also between the municipalities that are surrounding the city of Winnipeg. The Capital Region Committee is structured so that it provides for a forum.

I am of the opinion, and I believe it is conducive to thinking that the best way to try to solve problems is to have a forum or a playing field where individuals can get together and discuss and recognize where there is a common front, where there is a common need, where there is a common area of solution within themselves to come to new directions and solutions of a problem. I would rather work within a sense of co-operation and consensus building without coming to conflict or working on criticisms between the various communities as they look for solutions.

The Capital Region Strategy is that vehicle, and it is there to be used. The member has alluded to its inaction or its nondirection, as he may have alluded to, but we have to remember that the Capital Region Committee is relatively young in its existence. It has only become a part of government philosophy and policy in the last three years. In 19 96, when it first started to meet on a regular basis, there was a direction and there was a recognition that a lot of things could be accomplished by the Capital Region Strategy. One of the things that was alluded to by the member for Inkster (Mr.

Lamoureux) was the fact that there was a land management waste study conducted within the Capital Region. It came out with some very positive and some very knowledgeable recommendations and observations that a lot of the municipalities were not aware of until there was this land management study that was done. There were a lot of municipalities that were looking at

115 2 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 26, 19 98 possibly redeveloping their landfill sites. There were municipalities that were talking about establishing new landfill sites. Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair The study provided an overview and an exposure to what was in the region, where there was the possibility of other municipalities sharing the landfills or not even getting involved with landfills and having someone else look after the use of their facilities. So that was a very positive initiative and that was within the first year of the formation of the Capital Region Strategy.

Last year, granted, the Capital Region did not meet, but last year, I guess, as we all know was a very, very exceptional year with the flood. It af fected every municipality in the Capital Region, some very, very drastically and some to an extent that it was not that severe. So the idea of getting together during 1997--during the flood or before or after-and that year proved to be near impossible because of the fact that the municipalities were just so busy that they just could not get together.

Since that time, in 1998, we recognized that we now have a chance to build upon that sense of co-operation and consensus building with the Capital Region that we have had three meetings, two on the task force side and one with the Capital Region with all the members. The meetings at that time were to form· a new direction, if you want to call it, a new raison d'etre for the Capital Region, and that was under strong leadership by the provincial government to try to find out how we can start to implement a lot of the strategies that are recommended in the Capital Region Strategy.

The recommendation which was passed unanimously at the meeting just over a week ago was that a five member panel be appointed which would go out into the communities, talk to the elected officials, get their views, their concerns, their directions, their problems, their solutions, talk to the people in the city of Winnipeg, the elected officials, work with the elected officials to find out where there is this commonality of · purpose and this direction that the Capital Region should be going, also at the same time, talking to the public to get the public feedback into the scenario of coming back with a report or direction for consideration.

I think that is a very positive initiative, because we have seen that there is an uncertainty to a degree that there is a wanting by the municipalities and the city of Winnipeg to come to an understanding that we as a Capital Region have a tremendous strength of working together in trying to make Manitoba and Winnipeg one of the best places to live, to work and to raise a family. To work in co-operation and to work towards a common goal of working as a region can only enhance Manitoba, can only enhance Winnipeg.

If you have a strong Manitoba, you have a strong Winnipeg, and vice versa, if there is a strong Winnipeg, you get a strong Manitoba. So we are of the opinion that the Capital Region Strategy and the direction that has been implemented in co-operation with the municipalities and the city of Winnipeg has some very positive outlooks and positive perspectives that we can grow upon for all of Manitoba, and particularly, for the Capital Region. Rural Manitoba has shown that they are growing at a very significant and a very noticeable pace.

We just have to look at some of the expansions and some of the new growth and the aftermarket that has been happening in rural Manitoba. So everybody should be benefiting from this, but the best way to benefit from it is to recognize the strength in co-operating and working together. So the Capital Region really is a very, very powerful mechanism for this to come about. I am very optimistic that this is the direction, and we are going to see some positive initiatives coming out of this. As the member has alluded, it is a newer format.

The format for the Capital Region Strategy is only three years old, but in looking at a lot of the planning and studying of some of the major urban areas right across North America, three years is a very, very short time. We are on the cutting edge of doing a lot of things here in Manitoba for the betterment of Manitobans, and working within the Capital Region Strategy, I believe, has got a tremendous opportunity for Manitoba and Winnipeg and the Capital Region to really shine above a lot of the other areas right across Canada and North America because North America and the world is our

March 26, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 53 market. So the more that we can bring ourselves together and focus our attentions, the better it is for everybody and particularly for Manitoba. Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Chairperson, I have a couple of questions that I would first like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources, who has been patient in waiting here. The issue that I want to discuss for a short time is the capture of elk.

Earlier this year, the government made an announcement that First Nations would be the ones who would be doing the capturing for the government, then they changed their mind and the wildlife management committee of the Swan River Valley was given the responsibility of deciding who would do the capturing of the elk. I want to ask the minister whether he feels that his government has fulfilled the commi tment that they made to First Nations that they would be the ones that would have the responsibility of capturing elk for this season. Hon.

Glen Cum mings (Minister of Natural Resources): Yes, if I understood the first part of the question correctly relating to the input from the management board in the Swan River Valley as related to sites for capture of elk and what the implications might be for the First Nations in that respect, is that the direction the member was going with her question? Because Natural Resources in all cases retained the right for final approval where a trap would be located, and we exercised that authority in a couple of ways, but generally it was a co-operative arrangement.

We also at the same time, as the member indicated, have allowed-allowed is the wrong word. We made an agreement with the First Nations Assembly of Chiefs to also run a capture, but there, as well, final decisions as to where the site would be loca ted was Natural Resources. I also indicated, and I think this is maybe where the problem or question is flowing from, that in all cases where a private landowner was involved, his rights would not be impeded if he did not want to have a capture on his property.

We were not interested in anything other than a co-operative arrangement where there was private land involved. * (1 550) I am not sure if this is where the question was headed, but there was certainly some concern expressed and, I think, some apprehension and some misunderstanding about whether or not the province was going to say, well, only the First Nations would capture in the Swan River Valley.

Contrary to some of the debate we heard earlier in the House today, I think this is an example of where, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the co-operation of the opposition should indicate that this is certainly a forward-looking process where we involved the assembly and the First Nations in helping them ·and working with them to be established in the elk ranching business. There was some misgivings from residents in the valley about whether Natural Resources would override their best interests in allowing for trap sites. I do not think that happened.

I believe in the end we ended up with-well, we did not end up with a lot of elk, we ended up with a reasonable understanding within the valley of the fact that trapping, while not everybody's most desirable occupation, can be carried out in a reasonable and cooperative manner with landowners, and that if we had had a colder winter with more snow, we would have been able to run a more successful trapping venture. I would ask the member if she wants to rephrase something around that question, because I am not sure if I know where she is going. Ms.

Wowchuk: The question I was asking the minister was late last fall you signed an agreement with First Nations to do the capture. Was it your intention-and I think you might have answered this-that First Nations would be doing all of the capture for the Department of Natural Resources this year, and after meeting with the people in the Swan River Valley and a different proposal put forward by the Elk Management Board, did you then change your mind and allow for the elk capture? What was your first intention? Mr. Cummings: There was never intent that they would run all of the capture. There was a

11 54 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 26, 19 98 misunderstanding in the Swan River Valley only that the First Nations might be the only ones who were going to trap in the valley. I know where that story started, but it was never my intention, nor was it ever part of the agreement that that would occur.

The success that I think I have had this year despite the fact that we did not catch many elk was that the First Nations began their capture, had actually greater success than our other contractors in the end; and secondly, the Elk Management Board agreed to work with us on something that in the main they considered distasteful and, in fact, took a role in attempting to capture some elk themselves. That was in my view a positive step forward, and I am anticipating being able to add quite a few more elk to the basic herd in this province next year.

I want it said clearly for the record that we have said-we have made it clear that in many statements that the government wishes to capture a certain number of elk and then the capture will be stopped in all forms. That number nominally was 700, I believe. Whether we are going to get there or not remains to be seen, but in the interests of everyone including the wildlife community, and the elk industry for that matter, there eventually has to be a known number of elk held in captivity, and then the industry will be purely volume driven and demand driven from there on. Ms.

Wowchuk: The minister indiCated that as a result of the weather the number of elk captured this year was not as large as he anticipated. It is my understanding that there was one individual who tried to help the government out to capture elk and, in fact, did capture some in a pen that was not inspected without approval. It is my understanding as well, it has been brought to my attention by people in the valley, that this individual then came to the Department of Natural Resources and said that he had these elk, and he would like to sell them to the government, which was an illegal activity.

It is my understanding as well that this individual was not charged but was told to let the elk go. Can the minister indicate what he knows about this incident and why, is it government policy when someone captures wildlife, or holds wildlife illegally, that they would be allowed to let them go, or is it government policy that if someone is holding wildlife without a permit that they wou

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-4-25b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 4th hansardpdf 25b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	09e0a05dd6a541ee1a1fca72a4ec2c318e286a42

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