Manitoba Hansard — 16 June 2005 (Sitting 65B, 38th Legislature, 3rd Session)

38-3-65b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session - Thirty-Eighth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LVI No. 65B - 1:30 p.m., Thursday, June 16, 2005 (Reprint - 2)

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

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

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

Brandon West N.D.P. STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. SWAN, Andrew Minto N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

3689 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, June 16, 2005 The House met at 1:30 p.m. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us today Bev Lacasse from Transcona Scout Group and KateLynn McManus, the youth representative for Scouts Canada. These visitors are the guests of the honourable Member for Radisson (Mr. Jha). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. ORDERS OF THE DAY (Continued) GOVERNMENT BUSINESS House Business Hon.

Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Would you canvass the House to see if there is leave for a committee to sit concurrently with the House this afternoon? That will be the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for a committee to sit concurrently with the House this afternoon? [Agreed] Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, would you also ask if there is leave for there to be no quorum counts while that committee and LAMC meet this afternoon? Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement for no quorum counts while LAMC and the Rules Committee meet this afternoon? [Agreed] Mr.

Mackintosh: I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Rules of the House will meet at 1:35 this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: It has been announced that the Rules of the House Committee will meet at 1:35 in Room 255. Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, today is third readings day. If you would call concurrence and third readings in the following order: 8, 22, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39– Mr. Speaker: Slow down, 37. You lost me at 37. Mr. Mackintosh: – 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 5, 33, 48, 51, 16 and 50. Mr.

Speaker: Concurrence and third reading, Bill 8, The Manitoba Council on Aging Act– Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order? Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, yes. I do not know whether to raise this as a point of order or perhaps some additional House business, but I was wondering whether there would be leave of the House to allow members who have petitions today to simply table them rather than to have them read in the House. That would, I think, Mr. Speaker, allow us to spend more time on the other business of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House for the members that have petitions to just table them for today? [Agreed] An Honourable Member: And consider it read. Mr. Speaker: And it will be considered read. Okay. That has been agreed to. We will table the petitions when we get to Routine Proceedings. CONCURRENCE AND THIRD READINGS Bill 8–The Manitoba Council on Aging Act Mr. Speaker: Right now we are dealing with Bill 8, The Manitoba Council on Aging Act, concurrence and third reading.

3690 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2005 * (13:35) Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), that Bill 8, The Manitoba Council on Aging Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed. Motion presented. Mr. Jack Reimer (Southdale): Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to put a few short words on the record in regard to this bill. We are in favour of this bill. It was brought to committee.

There were presentations made at the committee in regard to some of the concerns that were brought forth. In essence what it is, it is a bill that is putting into legislation the Council on Aging that has been in place for many years through, not only the present government's term, but when we were in office also. It is a very fundamental and a very necessary part of getting feedback and involvement from the seniors organizations here in Manitoba. The repre- sentation on the board has always been from various parts, not only here in Winnipeg but throughout Manitoba, which is very commendable.

I think the minister has indicated it and made that commitment that it will continue to be that way so that it gives the perspective of getting the views, the expressions, from various seniors organizations here in Manitoba. I think it has been pointed out a few times, Mr. Speaker, that here in Manitoba we have a very vibrant and very active seniors groups throughout all of Manitoba.

I have had the opportunity to visit quite a few of them when I had the opportunity to be the Minister responsible for Seniors, so I was always impressed with the amount of involvement, their commitment and their sense of community that is still part of the volunteer sector that Manitoba is so very, very proud of and that we celebrate from time to time with a lot of aw ards and achievements and recognitions throughout the year. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid): Other speakers to Bill 8? Is the House ready for the question?

So the Council on Aging, in drawing upon the expertise and the experience of many of the older seniors in our community and the groups that they support, is something that I think that the government is very, very aware of in looking at legislation, in looking at procedures, in looking at amendments that come through with various bills and the introduction of other bills and how they affect seniors is very, very important. Having that conduit through a Cabinet position and a Cabinet minister is very important.

That way they can bring that perspective to the Cabinet when they are doing their final analysis and evaluations of directions. * (13:40) Mr. Daryl Reid, Acting Speaker, in the Chair It has been pointed out here in Manitoba that the amount of seniors in Manitoba is a growing sector. In fact, I believe indications are that within the next short little while Manitoba will have one of the highest proportions of seniors of any other province in Canada, so it is something that Manitoba is well aware of.

It is something that we in our party have been very, very aware of in our pursuit of being in contact with seniors organizations, meetings, in phone calls and in personal visitations with a lot of seniors associations and groups so that there is a feedback as to which type of direction we feel that the government should be going. I believe that a lot of times the government has listened to a very active portion of our population in trying to get meaningful changes through legislation and directions that they f eel they should be going. There is always room for improvement.

We have always indicated that there should be more aware- ness for seniors groups and some of the hardships that they endure, and I think that with the Council on Aging and the representations that they bring forth to the minister is something that they should heed. So, with those short words, Mr. Acting Speaker, I recommend this bill go on for passage. An Honourable Member: Question. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid): The question before the House is shall Bill 8 pass. Some Honourable Members: Pass. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid): It is agreed. Thank you. Bill 8 is passed.

June 16, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3691 Bill 22–The Water Protection Act The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid): The next bill for consideration is Bill 22, The Water Protection Act. Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), that Bill 22, The Water Protection Act;

Loi sur la protection des eaux, reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development and subsequently amended, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid): It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Energy, Science and Technology, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that Bill 22, The Water Protection Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development and subsequently amended, be concurred in and now read for a third time and passed. Any speakers to Bill 22? Mr.

Jack Penner (Emerson): I want to start off by saying congratulations to and thank you to the Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton) for the co-operation that he has demonstrated in bringing this Bill 22, a very difficult bill, I believe on his perspective, to a point where there was actually agreement between the minister and the opposition members to ensure that what we would finally come out with at the end was a better bill to put before the people of Manitoba to deal with an issue that is important to all of us, and that is clean water. All of us are dependent on clear, clean and safe water.

We all know that. I think all citizens of Manitoba accept that responsibility to ensure that will happen. I think some of the amendments put forward today and previously during the debate on this bill will clearly indicate that some of the processes that have been established now to achieve those goals will be better achievable with the bill the way it is drafted today.

I want to, however, say also to the minister and the government that not only do individual members of society have the responsibility, it is my view that governments have a significant responsibility that, if and when we start talking about them, the cleaning up of water bodies such as Lake Winnipeg, or our rivers, our lakes and our streams, if we are serious about cleaning them up, then government must take the responsibility serious and ensure that programs and incentives are put in place that will achieve those goals.

I found, and I have said this once before in this House, I found it very interesting that during the process that we had initiated, the Legislators' Forum with our American friends from south of the border and Manitoba, legislators from all those three juris- dictions south in Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, that we came to one conclusion, and that was the interjurisdictional responsibility of ensuring those waters. However, Minnesota also made a presentation at that forum, and they clearly indicated the difference between us and them.

They used the incentive program, and we used a stick in our legislation. I want to specifically give significance to one of the clauses in this bill that the minister has brought forward that indicates exactly that. That is in clause 7(2) of this bill, it says, "If a serious water shortage is declared, the minister may take any action, make any regulation or issue any order," and I think that is the key word, "'any' order that in his or her opinion is necessary." * (13:45) I think therein lies some of the problems with the mentality that we as legislators bring, and I include myself, sometimes to this place.

This is a place that can be used as a very authoritative place. However, this can also be a place where we put our arms around the members of our society, work co- operatively in conjunction with them to achieve the final goal. That is in larg e part done by adequate consultation, by proper negotiations and discussions on a broad, broad basis. I believe that this government has demonstrated time and time again that their real objective is not to embrace but in fact to lord over, as this clause in this bill says.

I think that is unfortunate because I believe that the process that the previous Conservative administration had was, in my view, far more effec- tive when we set out the initial initiative on land and water strategy. The negotiated or the consultative process that was established then by doing numerous discussions and meetings across the province to achieve a policy paper, first of all, then, later on,

3692 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2005 programs and directives and suggestions that were made to achieve a final go al were far, far more supported and I believe acceptable to the general public. I want to say to the minister that we do have a task in front of us. Many of our urban communities have a very difficult process that lies ahead. We now allow them to dump their waste into lagoons. Mr. Speaker, 90 percent of them or maybe even all of them are earthen lagoons that we have really not spent a great deal of time monitoring, and those that need monitoring maybe we should spend a bit more time at.

I want to also suggest to the minister that those urban communities that do not have the capacity to even store in earthen lagoons must find different ways and have found different ways to get rid of their sewage, and then very often we see that float directly into rivers and streams and be disposed of that way.

I think it is high time that, if we as government members, and the minister and his government are serious of achieving the final end to cleaning up Lake Winnipeg, the minister must engage discussions with those urban communities to find ways to put in place programs that can be supported from a broad-based social perspective. I believe that we must sit down with our federal government and impress upon them that they also have a responsibility to contribute substantially to those ends and to ensure that none of our raw sewage will enter any lakes, rivers or streams.

In order to achieve that, I challenge this government to work closely with their urban counterparts to ensure that programs can be developed and that support mechanisms can be put in place to finally get us to a point where we as human beings will keep our effluent out of the system. I want to say a little bit about the livestock industry because this has been a significant impedi- ment to some areas of th e province. I have been accused from time to time as being very supportive of the hog industry. I have always said this to whatever public forum I have spoken at. I recognize one thing.

We are the farthest away from any port, deep water port, to get us into an export position of any province in Canada. We have only one alternative when you cannot afford to ship the grain, the feed grains into expor table positions. The only option we have then is to try and feed it at home, utilize it at home. * (13:50) I think there is a tremendous opportunity here.

That opportunity is here because we can, if we try hard enough, develop mechanisms that we have already largely put in place, but further develop them to encourage livestock production in this province in an economically friendly and environmentally safe manner. It will take ourselves and other legislators to develop those kinds of programs in co-operation with those members of society. I believe that today there is not one livestock operation that has an earthen lagoon that would ever be allowed to dump any of its material into a stream or river.

We would be appalled if that ever happened, yet we do not hesitate to allow that to happen to our own effluent, our human excrement. I think it is time we took a look at both and maybe utilize the process, one from another, to find a better way of doing things. I think this legislation is a step in the right direction. I think we should ask the minister today, before he gives Royal Assent to this legisla- tion, to table in this House the regulations that are required to go with this in order to make this functional.

So I ask the minister today, give serious consideration and take those regulations out for public consultation, that you co-opt those who are going to have to enact these, co-opt those communities, those individuals and all of society to bring this into an operable piece of legislation that will serve us well in the long term. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I want to put a few words on th e record with regard to Bill 22. First of all, this is an important bill. Looking after our water and maintaining the quality of water in Manitoba is an extraordinarily important area.

We in the Liberal caucus will support this bill, but I want to make several points. First of all, some of the measures here, I believe, will be quite important in improving the water quality. I have been calling personally for water quality standards for quite some time and we are finally going to have them in place. It is past time and it is good that this is happening. One of the amendments that I put forward, which was to include a farmer on the water council, has been accepted in the final version of this bill. We are going to make sure that that happens. I am pleased that the minister,

June 16, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3693 after a lot of back and forth, did actually listen to some of the things that were said from this side of the House, so I would like to compliment that. But I would say, on the other hand, that the process by which this got here was one of the most cumbersome that we have seen in recent times with an extraor- dinary number of report stage amendments. However, that being said, I think there were a few missed opportunities.

I put forward another amendment to have no net loss of wetlands as a goal and clearly the government and the minister have rejected the goal of no net loss of wetlands. In not accepting the amendment, we are going to have, I suspect, continued loss of wetlands as we have had in the last number of years under this administration and the previous administrations.

Here was an opportunity to at least send a clear signal in terms of no net loss of wetlands province-wide, and this government has decided that it was not ready to send this important signal. * (13:55) I am concerned about certain elements of the approach that is taken here, which, I believe, will likely turn out to be overly bureaucratic in the way that they are put together.

I think that the elements of the bill which set up the extent of bureaucracies which we are likely to have and the number of committee meetings and all these sorts of things as a result of this may well delay important actions instead of actually getting on with the job quickly. I think that there could have been better ways that a number of these elements were actually handled.

Clearly, in today's world, there are limits to growth in many areas, and this is certainly one of them, when we are talking about the hog industry, our environmental limits, limits to growth of munici- palities and cities, and it is very important that we are paying a lot of attention to and making sure we are absolutely on top of the environment. I think that when it comes to hog operations there is clearly an ongoing debate in this area.

I personally think that we need a lot more data right now before we can actually assign what level the problems with the water are due to hog operations compared with other areas. Certainly, areas like municipal effluent have to be cleaned up, as the member from Emerson has said. The sources of phosphorus, as an example, are multiple and studies over the last several years in the Deerwood project on South Tobacco Creek, they are not quite as simple as we have sometimes described.

But, that being said, the goal here clearly has to be to reduce the phosphorus concentrations going into Lake Winnipeg, which means reducing the amount of phosphorus getting into the waterways, and what we have to do irrespective of the sources. We have to be in a better position from understanding where the sources are coming from.

It may be that there are not hog lagoons which have emptied into watersheds or into waterways, but on the other hand there certainly have been allegations and, particularly when there has been wet weather or floods, there have been concerns that there may have been some hog lagoons which have overflowed. But the point here is not to cast blame on what has happened, but to make sure that, from here forward, we are really on top of making sure that we have very high quality water in our rivers and streams and in Lake Winnipeg.

In that sense, setting the targets and making sure that there are adequate measurement and monitoring of those standards is clearly very, very important and something that we support strongly. Mr. Speaker, we support this legislation. We will wait to see how it works. We think that there are some problem areas, but we do think that there is a significant step forward here and so that is why we support it. Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Deputy Chair, I just wanted to put a few words on the record in regard to Bill 22 as deputy critic for water in the province.

The critic, the member from Emerson and the minister, have done yeoman's work, I believe, in bringing this act a little more clearly, as a number of amendments that have been brought forward over the time is probably historic in regard to those issues but, hopefully, this bill will do what the minister and the government have brought it forward to do, and that is provide clean water and opportunities for Manitobans as well as industries in this province.

I just want to say that bringing watershed management zones together and bringing people together, if that is exactly what happens in watershed planning, to help bring people together, I hope that is what this bill accomplishes is bringing people together to work together in regional areas to provide a more responsible use of water and a more

3694 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2005 responsible control of water, if that is the proper terminology. But I want to say that the timing of the regulations around a bill like this is most important, because I think the regulations that come about because of a bill like this are what the minister heard loud and clear from many farm organizations and individual organizations, not necessarily all farm organizations, when the committee hearings were held on this bill way back in September last fall. * (14:00) Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I th ink that the minister needs to take heed in regard to the regulations coming forward. I know there are a number of persons involved in developments across the province of Manitoba, and I know later today we will be dealing with The Planning Act, Bill 33. There are a number of persons wanting to develop projects in Manitoba.

I think we need to make sure that we give them a better direction if they knew what kind of signals were going to be there from the regulations that the government has in mind, the minister has in mind, in regard to the use of water and the other areas of management around water in the province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, this bill can be used to enhance urban-rural relationships. There is no doubt about that.

I have worked all my life in regard to trying to make a more public accountability process so that urban and rural citizens understand the issues that each other has over the last couple of decades that I have been involved as an elected politician here in the Legislature as well as a farm leader in other areas of Manitoba issues on the Prairies. I think that, at a time when we have got record numbers of boil water orders in many of our rural communities in Manitoba, a bill like this has to be used at an opportunity to fix some of those concerns.

One of the concerns that I have is with a $7-billion to $8-billion shortfall in infrastructure in the province right now, about half of that only being in the areas of roads and highways, that the other sector of it falls a great deal into the area that this minister is responsible for, and that is in regard to how he can effectively bring forward a plan to work with developing a good deal of the infrastructure that is required to do away with those well water orders.

I know that the minister has been dealing with many municipalities in regard to waterfication programs in the province, and I encourage him to continue to do that. In fact, I will speak to him privately about one that I will say publicly now, in Wallace Municipality, that has been going forward. I encourage him to be able to use with the Canada- Manitoba Infrastructure Program to move forward on that, but it is just one of those in the province. So, Mr.

Speaker, with those comments, I would encourage, I guess, the minister to bring forward those regulations so that we can more clearly see and be able to respond in making sure that water is protected and that the young people that were in the gallery here earlier today, the young students that are the future of Manitoba, will not have to worry about these kinds of concerns in regard to the use of water because we have a real opportunity in developing this province to do it right the first time, as I have said many times in this Legislature.

With those few remarks, I would like to ju st put those on the record and close my comments. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid): Are there any other speakers to Bill 22? Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid): The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 22, The Water Protection Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Bill 29–The Municipal Councils and School Boards Elections Act The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid): Next bill is Bill 29, The Municipal Councils and School Boards Elections Act. Hon.

Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): Mr. Acting Speaker, I know that these trains are moving on time today, the express train version. Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology (Mr. Chomiak), that Bill 29, The Municipal Councils and School Boards Elections Act, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.

June 16, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3695 Motion presented. Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would just like to put a few words in regard to Bill 29, The Municipal Councils and School Boards Elections Act, that has been brought forward by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Smith) in regard to the process of elections across the province of Manito ba.

Of course, this bill is modernizing the terminology of the act that was there before, and as I have stated before, this bill has been dealt with in 2000-2001 in the local Elections Amendment Act that came forward at that time around the ratepayers and the ability to vote and a number of those areas. This particular bill, I think, has a couple of areas that were noted by people in the committees that came forward and that is in the balloting.

Apart from having ballots, candidates listed in rotating order and random order, they were concerned that we were eliminating the ability of the senior election officer, in this particular case, who was appointed by the jurisdiction where the vote will take place, to no longer be listed alphabetically. That is a concern that people in Manitoba have that would have been another good amendment to have had in the bill, and I think that that one not being there is a concern.

It simplifies the situation with regard to senior executive officers being appointed by the authority that is going to hold the election, whether it is school board or municipal council. Of course, those duties are just to supervise and give direction to the election process and ensure fairness of the election officials. The senior executive officer has the ability, once appointed and hired, to go ahead and appoint the rest of the staff that they feel necessary in regard to clarifying the vote. That person, as well, is supposed to maintain a voters list between elections and be responsible for that area.

There are some areas, death of candidates, clarifying the fact that they do not have to redo the ballots of someone if someone is taken and is not able to be on the ballot. The name does not have to be taken off. It can be posted in the voting locations that that individual is no longer eligible for the ballot, and the ballot is allowed to uphold and the election go forward. So, Mr. Speaker, with those few comments, I would speak to this bill and urge that we go forward. I will leave my comments at that and listen to others if there are any other comments on this particular bill at this time. Hon.

Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, after reviewing this legislation and seeing it through committee, we are ready to support this legislation. There were some concerns raised by my colleague from Inkster with regard to the possibility that the bill might provide unnecessary difficulties for people who were school trustees and running provincially, but my understanding is that that has been clarified and that it should not propose problems in the way that it was initially a concern. I am pleased to see that, and with those commen ts we are ready to see this move forward and be passed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid): Any other speakers to Bill 29? Seeing no speakers, is the House ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid): The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 29, The Municipal Councils and School Boards Elections Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Bill 31–The Condominium Amendment Act Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education (Ms.

Mc Gifford), that Bill 31, The Condominium Amendment Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed. Motion presented. * (14:10) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid): Any speakers to Bill 31?

3696 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2005 Seeing no speakers, is the House ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid): The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 31, The Condominium Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Bill 34–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid): The next bill for consideration is Bill 34, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act. Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): Mr.

Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education (Ms. McGifford), that Bill 34, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed. Motion presented. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid): Agreed? Any speakers to Bill 34? Seeing no speakers, is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid): The question before the House in concurrence and third reading of Bill 34, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Bill 35–The Capital Region Partnership Act The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid): The next bill for consideration is Bill 35, The Capital Region Partnership Act. Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education (Ms. McGifford), that The Capital Region Partnership Act, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed. Motion presented. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid): Any speakers? Mr.

Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would just like to put a few words on the record in regard to Bill 35, The Capital Region Partnership Act. I would just like to say as well that, while this bill is a piece of legislation that is coming forward that puts it under regulation, the 13 municipalities, the town of Stonewall, Selkirk and the City of Winnipeg are all being put into one particular, into this bill, in an effort to, I guess, more clearly define in the government's view how these jurisdictions will interact with one another.

I have to say that there has been a whole host of studies done on the Capital Region program before, and this government has started all over again with some of that process instead of implementing what has been done. They have tried to reinvent the wheel with it. One of the positives that has come out of the interactions between these groups in the past is that they have voluntarily been working together over the last six to eight years in an effort to come to a consensus on sharing municipal infrastructure that they have, on sharing more of those areas.

My colleague from Emerson says even as far as 15 years, and he is very right on that. I have certainly had the opportunity since I was elected in '99 to be at some of the presentations that have been held by these municipal jurisdictions. I have not been at one where they have not asked for a clearer definition on behalf of the province as to how they are going to play a role in this as well.

The reason I say that is because the circumstances around the city of Winnipeg with being some 60 percent of Manitoba's population in itself, never mind the 13 municipalities, the city of Selkirk and Stonewall takes in a huge part of the population of Manitoba. Therefore, it is very important that these regions be able to co-operate and work together. They have been able to do that voluntarily in the last number of years, as I said, maybe a decade and a half, since there was more infrastructure sharing and work in those areas.

June 16, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3697 Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to say that as this bill has come forward to basically provide power for these people to have some jurisdictional responsi- bility and perhaps, if you will, make it a more formal process. The part that is lacking in this bill is the fact that the municipal jurisdictions are not getting any clear direction from the minister in regard to how the Government of Manitoba is going to be involved with them. Mr.

Speaker, the bill talks about how all of these jurisdictions must do things with the Province and how the minister, or rather, pardon me, how the jurisdictions may do things with the Province, but the Province does not have an onus, I guess, if you will, to go the other way and work more closely with them. The thing that is lacking on behalf of the jurisdictions that are involved in this bill is that the Province has not given any clear direction as to how they will co-operate with the jurisdiction when issues of infrastructure, particularly in the sharing of costs and other areas, come forward.

So all of the information can go, if you will, toward the Province, but the minister still does not have to act, if he feels so inclined, in regard to a number of those areas. So, Mr. Speaker, with thos e few words, I would urge, because of course this is looking at co- operation amongst these areas, that we move this bill forward and deal with it. Hopefully, the councils and the Province of Manitoba will be able to work very closely together with this bill. That would certainly, hopefully, be the intent and the outcome of it.

Once the bill is passed by this government, we look very much forward to the actions of the minister and his government in regard to how they do co-operate with this Capital Region area. Thank you. So, Mr. Speaker, we brought forward a number of amendments on this bill right in the committee meeting. The government did not pass any of them. I felt that they were not listening to the municipalities that brought forward the concerns that day. Of course, Mr. Forfar, the chairman of the municipal jurisdiction area, Capital Region group, made a good presentation in regard to some of these jurisdictions.

We brought forward many of the amendments that he had talked about at that time, and I am somewhat surprised and shocked that the minister did not take more heed in regard to what was being said at that time. Given the fact that a bill like this is coming forward to deal with issues like land-use planning, like infrastructure development, like environmental protection, like water quality and supply, and we just passed Bill 22, Mr.

Speaker, dealing with water quality, those are important issues, this is most important because of the d ecision that the minister made to not take the Waverley West development to a municipal board, which is a land use infrastructure development project to be slated for southwest Manitoba. You know, in many cases, I have to be fair, you would not normally take those, perhaps, to a municipal board.

But, when you are the largest proponent and have the most to gain from the sale of the land that you own, you would take that forward to a municipal board hearing just to provide clear optics that there was no conflict of interest in this kind of a project. It could have been dealt with very quickly at that level, I am sure, and moved forward because, as I understand it , there are still concerns, even though that hearing was not held around this particular bill. Introduction of Guests The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Reid): I might just take a moment, for members' info rmation here, we have with us this afternoon in my loge to my right the former Minister of Labour, Ms. Rebecca Barrett, and we would like to welcome the former minister here. * * * Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, having a better working partnership in the Capital Region is certainly a desirable and very important objective. We have seen all too often in the past that the relationship has been adversarial or one-sided.

Clearly, the goal of a Capital Region partnership is where the problems are in the details of how this is handled. * (14:20) I would like to salute Don Forfar, who is the chair of the Mayors and Reeves of the Capital Region, for his presentation at the committee stage, his thoughtful insights into some of the changes that should be made. I think it is too bad that the government did not listen more carefully to the wise words of Mr. Forfar, who has had a lot of experience back and forth in working in the Capital Region area.

I suspect that, had his words been listened to a little bit more carefully and more of what he said had been

3698 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2005 incorporated into this legislation, it is likely that it would have worked better. I would like to pay tribute to the other reeves and their councils in the Capital Region. I know they have been working very hard on behalf of their respective people, and I think that what we would hope could emerge from this effort is a situation where people, in whatever municipality in the Capital Region, feel that they are being fairly treated.

It is, certainly, all too often in the past, people in the area of Springfield, for example, have felt that they have not been fairly treated by the way things have been approached. The objective here must be to have a better balance and a fairer approach. Certainly, the provincial government has not adequately addressed many of the issues and concerns in the past. We can only hope that this will provide a venue to start to do that in a better way.

I think that it is too bad that Reeve Forfar was not listened to a little bit better, and I think that there are some areas here which are, in fact, somewhat problematic, and that is, for example, that for this Capital Region Pa rtnership to be effective there must be a significant role and some leadership from the provincial government. The provincial government, through the use of incentives, providing opportunities and working together with all the people in the region, can play a very important role in making sure that people are treated fairly.

There is not, in this legislation, a commitment, I would suggest, that is adequate to make sure that people are treated fairly by the provin cial government. There is an assumption by this government that they seem to know what is best for people instead of having a more grass-roots responsiveness and understanding of how you can promote the people to work together in productive ways that will contribute to the benefit of all of us. It was really an encouraging event that we had.

We spent a day on discussing various issues that affected the urban community, the City of Winnipeg, and the rural municipalities surrounding the city of Winnipeg. We even discussed the establishment of a green belt around the city of Winnipeg. I think many of us that have been here a while recognize the importance of those kinds of discussions. That is how the Capital Region Partnership was really established. I think there is a great opportunity to recognize and compliment those leaders that were there.

One of them was Bill Norrie, the mayor of the city of Winnipeg, and he was always a great supporter of meeting with the rural counterparts and having those kinds of discussions and debates. Mr. Speaker, we are going to support this legislation, but we certainly have some reservations as to whether it will function as well as it might, given that the changes were not incorporated. We have some reservations that, unless there is a little bit better and more leadership from the provincial government than we have seen to date from this government, the results will not be as positive as we would hope. Mr.

Jack Penner (Emerson): I just want to put a few comments on the record regarding The Capital Region Partnership Act. I just want to say that I believe it was back in 1990 when the Honourable Mr. Jim Ernst was the Minister of Urban Affairs and I had the privilege of serving as Minister of Rural Development, which was Municipal Affairs at that time rolled into it, of having, I believe, one of th e first co-ordinated efforts to bring the City of Winnipeg administration together with the surrounding municipalities.

One thing I want to say is that until now this has always been a sort of a voluntary kind of attempt and not a legislated, mandated kind of process, but something that the City of Winnipeg administration and the rural administrations thought was necessary to get them to come to a realization of each other's difficulties, supports and infrastructure kind of mech- anisms that were required to achieve what all of them really wanted to do, and that was to better their communities. So I want to say that this is a departure from where the previous government was.

This is more of a formalization that we have seen from before, and I think sometimes voluntary efforts have a lot to do with the betterment of communities. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid): Any other speakers on Bill 35? Seeing no further speakers, is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid): The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 35, The Capital Region Partnership Act.

June 16, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3699 Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Bill 36–The Courts Administration Improvement Act The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid): The next bill for consideration before the House is Bill 36, The Courts Administration Improvement Act. Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): I move, seconded by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. La thlin), that Bill 36, The Courts Administration Improvement Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed. Motion presented.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid): Any speakers to the bill? Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, I just want to put just a ve ry few words on the record regarding this particular legislation. We have had the opportunity in second reading and in committee to put comments on the record regarding it.

Certainly, I think it is important just to leave on the record concerns about the operation in the courts in terms of how this government has put resources or the lack of resources that are in the court system and the resulting facts that we have, accused criminals who are released on bail , who are released on recognizance, who go forward and commit other crimes in our communities. Mr. Speaker in the Chair Those are the concerns, I think, that I echo on behalf of all Manitobans.

I would implore the government when it looks at changes to the court system that it also ensure s the resources to ensure that those people who need to be brought to justice have justice put upon them. With those few words, Mr. Speaker, we look forward to debating of the legislation. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before us is concurrence and third reading of Bill 36, The Courts Administration Improvement Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Bill 37–The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act Hon.

Steve Ashton (Deputy Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. La thlin), that Bill 37, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed. Motion presented. * (14:30) Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): It is my pleasure just to put a few wo rds in regard to Bill 37, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act.

This bill simply allows all of the other municipalities to vary the percentage of assessed value for prescribed classes of assessable property for the purposes of determining portion value, the same as the City of Winnipeg can do with the bill that the government passed last December, Mr. Speaker. So thank you very much. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is Bill 37, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] * * * Mr.

Speaker: As previously agreed, the hour being 2:30, we will now move on to Routine Proceedings. Now would honourable members wish to table their petitions? Order.

3700 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2005 Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if we could have agreement in the House to recess for a few minutes. The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Murray) is on his way back from a funeral, and if we could allow for five minutes or so to allow him to get back from the funeral. Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House for–the honourable Deputy Government House Leader? Mr. Ashton: I wonder, Mr.

Speaker, if we could continue to deal with the bills by agreement, by leave, and then at a time that is appropriate then we can go–well, speak of the devil. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the co- operation of the House, and thank members for that, but I guess now that the Opposition Leader is here we can withdraw that request. Mr. Speaker: Okay. The request has been withdrawn. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Mr. Speaker: Now we will move on to Routine Proceedings, and this is an opportunity for members to table their petitions, as previously agreed.

PETITIONS Ambulance Service Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): I table my petition as read. I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: In May 2004, 46-year-old Peter Krahn suffered a heart attack while exercising in East St. Paul and was pronounced dead just under an hour later after being transported to the Concordia Hospital in Winnipeg. Reports show that it took nearly 18 minutes for an ambulance to arrive for Mr. Krahn. The cost of diabetes to the Manitoba government in 2005 will be approximately $214.4 million.

Each day The Interlake Regional Health Authority claims that 21 minutes is an acceptable emergency response time,

whereas the City of Winnipeg uses a benchmark of 4 minutes. Ambulance coverage for East St. Paul is provided from Selkirk, which is almost 25 kilometres away. The municipalities of East St. Paul and West St. Paul combined have over 12 000 residents. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to consider providing East St. Paul with local ambulance service which would service both East and West St. Paul.

To request the provincial government to consider improving the way that ambulance service is supplied to all Manitobans by utilizing technologies such as GPS in conjunction with a Medical Transportation Co-ordination Centre (MTCC) which will ensure that patients receive the nearest ambulance in the least amount of time. To request the provincial government to consider ensuring that appropriate funding is provided to maintain superior respon se times and sustainable services. Signed by Patti Hammond, Tom Hammond, Bob Hammond and others. Coverage of Insulin Pumps Mr.

Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): I would like to table my petition as read as well. I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: Insulin pumps cost over $6,500.

June 16, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3701 16 Manitobans are diagnosed with the disease compared to the national average of 11 new cases daily. Good blood sugar control reduces or eliminates kidney failure by 50 percent, blindness by 76 percent, nerve damage by 60 percent, cardiac disease by 35 percent and even amputations. Diabetes is an epidemic in our province and will become an unprecedented drain on our struggling health care system if we do not take action now.

The benefit of having an insulin pump is it allows the person living with this life-altering disease to obtain good control of their blood sugar and become much healthier, complication-free individuals. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Premier (Mr. Doer) of Manitoba to consider covering the cost of insulin pumps that are prescribed by an endocrinologist or medical doctor under the Manitoba Health Insurance Plan. Signed by Shirley Fehr, Candace Klassen, Jake Wiebe and others. Teachers' Pension Plan Pension Adjustment Account Mr.

Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): I would like to table my petition as read as well. I wish to present the following petition. The background to this petition is as follows: After contributing to the Teachers' Pension Plan Adjustment Account (PAA) which funds the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) since 1977 until the year of our retirement from the profession of teaching, we find ourselves facing the future with little hope of a meaningful COLA, and with the resulting severe loss of purchasing power.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to consider funding the PAA to ensure that we receive a reasonable COLA, and that any loss of purchasing power we will face will be minor. Signed by Joyce Cawston, Alice Olive, Walter Cheslock and others. Crocus Investment Fund Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to table my petition as read. To the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The background to this petition is as follows: The Manitoba Government was made aware of serious problems involving the Crocus Fund back in 2001.

As a direct result of the government ignoring the red flags back in 2001, over 33 000 Crocus investors lost over $60 million. Manitoba's provincial auditor stated "We believe the department was aware of the red flags at Crocus and failed to follow up on those in a timely fashion." The relationship between some union leaders, the Premier (Mr. Doer) and the NDP seems to be the primary reason as for why the government ignored the red flags.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to consider the need to seek clarification on why the government did not act on fixing the Crocus Fund back in 2001. Signed by Bihana Contreras, Jermane Sarinas, Roslina Bulingot and others. Fort Garry Hotel Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table my petition as read. I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The background of this petition is as follows:

3702 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2005 In 1987 the City of Winnipeg seized the Fort Garry Hotel from its owner, Harvard Investments Limited, a family-owned Manitoba corporation, in what has been characterized as a miscarriage of justice. Due to deliberate actions of the City of Winnipeg, errors by the Municipal Board of Manitoba and a lack of clarity in provincial legislation, Harvard was denied the due process and natural justice that are fundamental to the property tax assessment and appeal process in Manitoba.

As a result, the company was unfairly burdened with a grossly excessive assessment and tax bill that in turn precipitated a tax sale and mortgage foreclosure, effectively bankrupted the company and caused Harvard's shareholders to be dispossessed of their business and property. The background to this petition was outlined more fully in a grievance presented to this Assembly by the honourable Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan) on May 18, 2005. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade (Mr.

Smith) to consider conducting a review of the circumstances outlined and to consider making a recommendation for redress to the Government of Manitoba. Signed by Lawrence Prout, Anne Duncan and Alec Macaulay. Mr. Speaker: All petitions that have been tabled are deemed to have been read. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): I would like to table the following: the Report Pursuant to

section 63(4) of The Financial Administration Act Relating to Supplementary Loan and Guarantee Authority for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2005, as well as The Civil Service Superannuation Board Annual Report of 2004. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (M inister of Justice and Attorney General): I am pleased to table the Thirty- fourth Annual Report of the Manitoba Law Reform Commission. Introduction of Guests Mr.

Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us Joel Simard from Lorette, who is the guest of the honourable Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. ORAL QUESTIONS Crocus Investment Fund Public Inquiry Request Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, The Manitoba Evidence Act provides, and I will read this out: Where the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council deems it expedient to cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter within the jurisdiction of the Legislature connecting with or affecting the good government of the province or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof, the conduct of any provincial institution, any matter which in his opinion is of sufficient public importance to justify an inquiry, he may appoint one or more commissioners to make the inquiry and to report thereon. Mr.

Speaker, the Premier said yesterday, "I am not opposed to inquiries when it is in the public interest." Well, 34 000 Manitobans have lost over half of their retirement investment in this Crocus scandal and they want and deserve to know the truth and what happened, yet this NDP government is intent on doing all it can to avoid the truth and cover up the facts. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier finally live up to his words and call for an independent public inquiry into this Crocus scandal? Will he do that today? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, members opposite, you know, when they talk about the public interest, if ever there was an issue in the public interest that was worthy of a public inquiry and consistent with the criteria stated by the member opposite, it was the sale of the Manitoba Telephone System after the '95 provincial election. You want to talk about fleecing. Selling the telephone system through Wellington West corporation at $13 a share has fleeced the Manitoba taxpayers of $2 billion.

June 16, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3703 That is the fleecing that has taken place, and the only winners were the brokers and friends of the Conservative Party. Mr. Murray: This Premier can try to avoid the fact that under his watch 34 000 Manitobans were fleeced of over $60 million. He might try and hide from it, but they will not allow it, Manitobans will not allow it. Mr. Speaker, this NDP Premier is the self- described ethics commissioner for the NDP party and the NDP government. Mr.

Speaker, I ask him to recognize the critical importance of maintaining honesty, integrity and respect for the office of th e Premier. Not only do the 34 000 Crocus shareholders and all Manitobans deserve to know the truth, the whole truth about this Crocus scandal, but it is also fundamentally important that the position of Premier, the office of Premier, be beyond reproach. Mr. Speaker, I ask again. Will this self-described NDP ethics commissioner do the right thing and call for a public independent inquiry today? Mr.

Doer: Maybe the member is not aware of the fact and maybe he did not pay attention when we voted on the issue, but we do have an ethics commissioner. His name is Mr. Bill Norrie. The events have long passed the quote, Mr. Speaker, because this government has brought in an ethics commissioner. His name is Mr. Norrie. He was agreed to by all parties, and if the member opposite has forgotten about it, I would remind him. He agreed to Mr. Norrie. * (14:40) Mr. Murray: Well, Mr.

Speaker, if anybody needs to be reminded, it is this Premier who stood in front of Manitobans and said, "I am the ethics commissioner for my part y. I am the ethics commissioner for the government." Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Well, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier asks questions he should call a public inquiry and get the answers. The point simply is that Crocus unitholders were told that a class action lawsuit will be held within a few weeks, a lawsuit that, according to the lawyers, will be hundreds of pages and demand an enormous amount of money.

It is expected that this NDP government will be named as defendants in the lawsuit. Mr. Speaker, Manitoba taxpayers need to know why this NDP government ignored all of the red flags, internal, external. Manitoba taxpayers want and deserve answers to the numerous questions that this NDP government refuses to answer. I ask the Premier, the self-described ethics commissioner for his party, and holding the highest office in this province, if he has nothing to hide will he do the right thing and call for an independent public inquiry on this Crocus scandal. Mr. Doer: Well, it is interesting, Mr.

Speaker, that the Auditor General's report has a number of concerns that it has raised that go right back to the original date of the creation of the Crocus Investment Fund. It identifies the fact that all the staff was hired from the inception of the fund. Do you see members opposite concerned about the five former Cabinet ministers that hired James Umlah? Do you see them raising any questions about that? No, you do not. You know– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, we have taken responsibility for the e-mail between the officials, but have members opposite taken responsibility for the fact that Wellington West was hired as the lead brokerage firm, that it testified to the valuations of all the stocks on the Crocus file and had a fiduciary responsibility? Why have you not asked about the conflict of interest about Wellington West, or did David Filmon phone you again? Crocus Investment Fund Information Tabling Request Mr.

Speaker, this government has proved that they are incapable of prov iding any credible answers that explain their inaction on the collapse of the Crocus Fund. Public servants raised flags years ago that should have led to a thorough review of Crocus by this government. Because of the government's close ties to the labour movement, they turned a blind eye to the warnings that were given to them. I would ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) today if he will do the right thing, if he will

3704 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2005 table the memos that were referred to in the Auditor General's report. Will he start to clear the air today? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, and again we have taken responsibility for the e-mail between officials, but why have members opposite not taken, on the one hand they criticize the issue of the management of Crocus Fund and on the other hand they know that there is a memorandum of agreement signed between Eric Stefanson and the former government and the Manitoba Federation of Labour giving complete control to the Manitoba Federation of Labour, signed in 1992. In fact, the members opposite, the five former Cabinet ministers over there brag that no NDP government had ever brought that in. Look back at the legislation.

We are fixing it up. We are taking responsibility. Public Inquiry Request Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Well, thank you, Minister. Actually, Mr. Speaker, I guess now we know who the higher authority is that is trying to whitewash this. If the Premier was interested in fixing this problem, he should have been interested in 2001 when the red flag s were raised . He should have been monitoring the fund there. The Auditor General clearly indicates that his report leaves many questions that are unanswered.

The Auditor General does not have the authority to force this Premier or this government to explain to the public how it could be that they failed to act, how it could be the legislation that was started by Ms. Mihychuk vanished overnight. The Auditor General does not have the authority to force government to indicate why they ignored the red flags. A public inquiry would be a benefit to the unitholders. It would help them understand what went so terribly wrong. Does anybody on that side of the House have the courage to call one? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): As I say, Mr.

Speaker, if I was going to call a public inquiry in the public interest, I would take a look at the $75 million within two months the brokers got for the sale of the Manitoba Telephone System. I would take a look at the $2-billion asset sale that was given away by members opposite. I would take a look at the fact the Manitoba Telephone rates went up 68 percent. That is in the public interest. But when we came into office, Mr. Speaker– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: But, Mr. Speaker, we certainly– [interjection] Well, the member opposite hired James Umlah.

I guess she is very proud of herself. Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Member for River East. Mrs. Mitchelson: Thanks, Mr. Speaker, and it is interesting that the Premier– Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this the question or– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. If members are rising on a point of order, could they please identify that because sometimes rotations of questions is one question, one sup. Sometimes it is one question, two sups.

So if anybody was up on points of order, please identify that to me so that I can deal with it appropriately. The honourable Member for River East, you were up on a point of order. Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I was up on a point of order, and I made a significantly important point. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable First Minister, on the same point of order?

June 16, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3705 Mr. Doer: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know a dispute over the facts is not a point of order, but I think the minister confirms that she was on duty when James Umlah was hired, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We certainly have taken responsibility for the e-mail between officials. What has not happened in this Legislature is the number of criticisms that were made prior to 1999, none of the five Cabinet ministers sitting on the other side have taken responsibility.

The difference between that side and this side is we have taken responsibility. Nobody over there has taken responsibility. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Member for River East, it is not a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. * * * Mr. Speaker: The honourable First Minister had the floor. Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, and I would point out that then-Finance Minister Clayton Manness said, and I quote, "Let us take our best business minds and heads within our community and rather than entrust somebody within the civil service and rather than entrust the political interference that sometimes can squirrel around decisions made, let us have some trust in community leaders, business leaders, to make the righ t decisions. They are the people who are skilled." Hansard, March 18, 1993. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

It is my understanding that, in Question Period, the opposition is allowed to ask the government about matters that are under that government's responsibility. Unfortunately, the Premier cannot answer questions that he is asked about his incompe- tence and his government's incompetence and, so, therefore, he deflects those issues onto a past admini- stration. All we are asking for is for him to answer for the actions of his government.

That is what Question Period is about, and if, in fact, he wants to bring in the past administration that could be done through a public inquiry which he has every opportunity to call. Mr. Loewen: Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this is a Premier who has his feet so firmly grounded in the past that he cannot see the present and has no vision for the future. This is a Premier who has no empathy for the individuals who have lost their retirement savings, who have lost over $60 million. He has no empathy for the taxpayers who have lost over $100 million.

If he or any of the members opposite had been at the shareholders' meeting last night they would have heard clearly the pleas from the unitholders, one who said, and I quote, "We need a public inquiry to turn over every rock until we find all the evildoers." I would ask this Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) if he has the courage to admit to the need for a public inquiry to turn over all rocks to find all the evildoers. * (14:50) Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, in his last response the Premier has I would point out on page 99– Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Mr.

Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order? Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, just very briefly, that is simply a dispute on the facts. I just do not think the opposition likes to hear the answers. Mr. Speaker: Order. On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, it is not a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. * * * Mr. Speaker: The honourable First Minister, you have 18 seconds left for your comment. Mr.

Doer: I refer the member opposite to page 99 of the report. Crocus Investment Fund Manitoba Securities Commission Review

3706 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2005 accepted responsibility. I ask the Premier now to accept the blame. The Premier and the Finance Minister have both stated that the Manitoba Securities Commission will investigate the Crocus scandal. The Securities Commission knew that Crocus broke Securities' rules three times over the last four years and they handled all three infractions internally and never disclosed them to the public. I ask the Minister of Finance how can you expect the Securities Commission to investigate the Crocus scandal when it knew about the red flags but it did not do its job. Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the Auditor's report did a

section on the Securities Commission. They commended them for their continuous disclosure, practices that they have entered into. They identi fied the three occasions when the commission told the fund that they should not do certain things. They told them they cannot do spot checks, that they have to do suitability checks on every trade. They told them that with respect to envelope stuffers that that was no longer allowed even though the previous government permitted it and facilitated it with letters from the minister.

They told them they could not do that and they also warned them about saying the fund cannot say, "make a difference or earn a profit when there is no guarantee of a profit." Members opposite know that and they are distorting th e facts as they do every single day in this Legislature. Mr. Hawranik: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has stated that the Securities Commission was a critical control feature of the Crocus Fund, yet it dropped the ball three times over the last four years. It did not deal with the red flags in an appropriate manner.

It cannot be trusted to deal with the investi- gation into the Crocus scandal. So I ask the Minister of Finance why is the Securities Commission investigating the Crocus scandal when in fact it should be investigating itself and it should be investigating this Minister of Finance, his role in this mess. Mrs. Bonnie Mitche lson (River East): Mr. Speaker, Crocus unitholders have been left hanging out to dry and pay and pay and pay; pay bills, pay legal fees, pay severance packages. They are asking questions and getting no answers. The old board ignored the best interests of the unitholders.

What assurance can this government give us that the new board is putting the unitholders first? Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General reviewed the Securities Commission's behaviour and practices and made comments on how those can be improved while at the same time commending them for their continuous disclo sure process. The member opposite knows full well that the Manitoba Securities Commission is a quasi-judicial body that operates at arm's length from the government and has the powers of the Court of Queen's Bench with respect to their investigations.

They have stated those allega- tions on the Web site. They have posted them. They are going to do public hearings on them. They are going to investigate into them and they can investigate anybody they want with respect to the allegations they have posted. The member opposite knows that. Once again, he is twisting the facts. Public Inquiry Request Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, in 2002 the Securities Commission was placed under the watch of this Finance Minister. The role of the Securities Commission is now to investigate the directors of Crocus.

The only one who is not being investigated is the Minister of Finance. I ask the Minister of Finance how can the Securities Commission get to the bottom of this Crocus scandal when it is the minister who should be investigated, the very person who is responsible for the Securities Commission. Call a public inquiry. Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the member likes to make allegations. He knows full well that the Auditor General had complete discretion, unfettered discretion to investi- gate anything they wished to.

He knows that the police investigation is completely independent and has the ability to investigate anything they wish to. Members opposite should co-operate with all the investigations that are underway and table the secret agreements they themselves have entered into. Crocus Investment Fund Protection for Unitholders Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, it is well established during the last few weeks that the members opposite tried to enhance

June 16, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3707 their status by ripping down the status of others. This new board is a group of respected individuals in the community that have taken their time and a certain degree of risk by volunteering to be members of this board. They are acting in the interests of share- holders as well as the public interest by managing the affairs of this labour-sponsored venture capital fund. They deserve the respect and the support of all members of this Legislature for the duties they have undertaken. Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, it is an astoun ding story.

The members opposite when they were government put in place an independent organization that was under the sponsorship of the Manitoba Federation of Labour. They are the ones that appoint the board members under the rules the members opposite established. They have done that for many years. They have done that again, and members opposite are now complaining about the power they gave the Manitoba Federation of Labour to appoint these members. Mr. Speaker: Order.

Before I recognize the honourable member, I just want to inform all honourable members that the rules of Question Period are any electronic devices should be turned off and not be used during Question Period. Political Involvement of Board Members Mrs. Bonnie Mitche lson (River East): Mr. Speaker, I guess the Minister of Finance should have been at the unitholders' meeting last night. He would have realized that it is not the opposition that is raising the issues, it was the unitholders themselves that feel betrayed by this government. Mr. Speaker, the new chair of the Crocus board, Mr.

Van Hall, is an NDP political appointment as vice-chair to the Manitoba Lotteries Commission, and he has contributed over $2,000 to the NDP party. Independent–[interjection] Mr. Speaker: Order. Mrs. Mitchelson: The new vice-chair of the Crocus board, Darlene Dziewit, has been a key player in the NDP central campaign team and is president of the Manitoba Federation of Labour who sends two automatic delegates to the annual convention of this NDP party. She has also contributed over $11,000 to this NDP party. How can the unitholders trust this new board?

Who are they beho lden to, their political masters or the unitholders? Stand up and indicate to them who they report to. * (15:00) Mr. Doer: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the members that we have appointed to the board have never contributed to our party. The three members that the Tories appointed all had contributed as civil servants to the Conservative Party of Manitoba. I would point out while the Tories were giving an alleged conflict- There is only one board member that this government has appointed currently sitting on that board and that is Mr.

Harold Buchwald, a man with great respect in this co mmunity, great competence, and a great ability to contribute to the solutions of this problem. Appointment of a Receiver Manager Mrs. Bonnie Mitche lson (River East): Mr. Speaker, the vice-chair an d the chair of the new Crocus board have a direct pipeline to the Premier's office. Mr. Speaker, will the government today indicate clearly that they will not indemnify the board at the end of June and that they will allow someone without a conflict of interest, an independent experienced investment team, to manage the affairs of Crocus on behalf of the unitholders?

Will they stand up today and ensure that the board, the chair and the vice- chair, who have a direct pipeline to the Premier's office, are not the ones that are managing the affairs on behalf of the unitholders? The unitholders feel betrayed. Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, the original government legislation signed into the memorandum of agreement that was reached by the former minister when she was in Cabinet, signed by former Finance Minister Eric Stefanson, gave those same individuals the authority under the sponsorship, under the federal government act that the member opposite is now complaining about. The only– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order.

3708 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2005 of-interest position to Wellington West, documented on page 99 of the report, that the Tories received $41,000 from Wellington West, a point documented in this report. Crocus Investment Fund Public Inquiry Request Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, if the Premier had any concern about the views of the unitholders and the fact that they want nothing to do with the current board, he or one of his ministers would have been at the shareholders' meeting last night. It is too bad they were not. Mr.

Speaker, an important issue is that, as a result of the Crocus scandal, much-needed venture capital markets are in serious danger of drying up in Manitoba. Capital moves freely to markets that are stable and well regulated. As a result of the Crocus scandal, which is attracting national media attention, Manitoba does not give the appearance of having a capital market that is well regulated, not something this Premier should take any pride in. A public inquiry is needed to clear the air.

It is needed to clear the air quickly and to determine where the fault lies so that we can get things back to normal here so we can attract capital once again. I would ask the Finance Minister if he does not agree that we need to clear the air with a public inquiry and clear it quickly. Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, private capital investment has increased by 8.1 percent in 2004. Private investment in Manitoba has increased by more than $1 billion in the last five years. We have seen a $10-billion growth in this economy since we have come to office, a growth of more than 31 percent.

We have more jobs. We have more disposable income. We have higher salaries. We have higher business profits than at any time in the nineties when the members opposite were in government. If you look at the evidence, this government has been better for the economy of Manitoba than the previous government ever was. The Finance Minister has turned a blind eye to this Crocus scandal for the last four years. He could have monitored. He could have done his job. He could have prevented it. I would ask him now to do the last thing possible. Call a public inquiry. Make sure it happens quickly.

Clear the air and let us get business back to normal. Mr. Loewen: Well, Mr. Speaker, I bet the unitholders in the Crocus Fund wish they could hand off their losses as easily as this minister stands in this House and hands off questions. If he was wanting to tell the whole truth, he would tell us how Saskatchewan's GDP has grown by $11 billion. We are only $1 billion behind, but the issue is the Crocus Fund.

As a result of this Crocus scandal, not only will capital dry up if the air is not cleared, entrepreneurs in this province are going to have a great deal of difficulty finding competent individuals to sit on their boards as a result of the lawsuits that are going to arise out of this government's mismanagement and failure to monitor the Crocus Fund.

For the sake of future entrepreneurs who will rely on this type of advice to build jobs, to help this province grow and to create opportunity, I would ask the Minister of Finance if he would not agree that the best thing to do is to call a public inquiry and clear the air. Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is I am delighted he has identified the growth in the economy in Saskatchewan. It is its fourth term as an NDP government. The government of Manitoba, the government of Saskatchewan are growing their economies.

The Conservative members of the government of Saskatchewan, most of them are still trying to get out of jail. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, only a cold-hearted minister, someone so callous as not to concern himself with the fact that 34 000 Manitobans have lost a good deal of their retirement savings, only a cold-hearted government would treat this situation with such disdain. This is a scandal. Manitobans have lost over $100 million. The Auditor General has indicated that questions remain unanswered. The Securities Commission has let shareholders down. Capital markets are drying up.

Entrepreneurs are going to be unable to attract advice for fear of lawsuits. All this adds up to the need for a public inquiry to clear the air. It adds up for the need to clear the air and clear it quickly. Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): As I have said before, we have taken responsibility for the e-mail that officials exchanged, Mr. Speaker. We have taken responsibility for the conflict in the legislation

June 16, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3709 between monitoring and promotion in the Industry Department. I want to ask will members opposite take responsibility for the fact that Crocus investors lost up to $35 million in a co-investment with the Conservative government in Winnport, Westsun and Isobord. Why are they not asking about those issues, Mr. Speaker? Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order? Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

I think you were not that long ago cautioning the First Minister that this is Question Period where he is supposed to be providing answers, not asking questions. Now, I know he is backed into a corner on this issue, and he is finding it difficult to respond to the questions that are posed on a very, very serious matter. This is a serious issue. We have been trying to get answers from the government and, backed into a corner, the only thing the Premier can do is try to ask us to answer questions for him. It is for him to answer the questions that have been posed by members of this opposition. * (15:10) Mr.

Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Again, Mr. Speaker, it appears to be an argument about the facts. He says it is a point of order. I think it is a point of discomfort for the opposition, the content of the answer. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, I was listening very, very carefully, and what I heard the First Minister comment was, "Why are they not." He never asked a question. He said, "Why are they not." I heard that very, very clearly.

On the point of order raised, the honourable Official Opposition House Leader does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. Crocus Investment Fund Public Inquiry Request Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear, as we watch what is happening with this Crocus scandal that, when we as the opposition bring questions into the Legislature, we know that this issue rests very closely with this Premier because of the close relationship that the labour leaders in this province have: Mr. Olfert, Mr. Hilliard, Mr.

Kostyra and the Premier, who was one of the most recognized labour leaders in the province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, as we get closer to trying to get this Premier to do the right thing, it is very clear that his approach is when in doubt, shout. That is what he is trying to do with this process. Mr. Speaker, it is very, very clear that there were red flags that were brought forward under this Premier's watch in 2001 and 2002. Those red flags, we have asked them to be tabled in this House. They are trying to cover it up. They will not bring it forward.

My question to the Premier, who holds the highest political office in the province of Manitoba, if he has nothing to hide, if he is afraid of nothing, then he should do the right thing and call for a public inquiry unless he is trying to hide something and cover something up. Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I want to quote back from the Hansard in 1992. Now we have again taken responsibility for the e-mail between officials.

We have taken responsibility for the legislation that was amended in '97 to deal with the conflict between monitoring and the conflict of promotion in the Industry Department, but I would point out, Mr. Speaker, then-Premier Gary Filmon, no New Democratic government, brought it in. We brought it in because it made good sense to work co- operatively with labour. And then we go on to say Minister Stefanson signed a memo of agreement with the fund, requiring, quote, labour control of the board of directors. It stated control of the fund shall always, always be vested in the Manitoba Federation of Labour.

We have taken responsibility where we have

3710 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2005 been pointed out in the report. Why do we not have some collective responsibility in this Legislature? Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, the issue about this Crocus scandal clearly is all about what the Auditor General has pointed out that this government has tried to cover up. Clearly, in 2001 and 2002, there were memos that the Audito r General identified that were brought forward to this government. We know the relationship about the labour leaders in the province of Manitoba: Mr. Olfert, Mr. Hilliard, Mr.

Kostyra and the former Premier, who is well known as a labour organizer in the province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, that relationship allowed for spending to go on at Crocus that nobody was paying attention to because of that cozy relationship. The tacit approval of Crocus was approved by a higher authority in this government, and I ask the Premier, who has the ability to do the right thing, he holds the highest office in the province of Manitoba. It should be above reproach, and it should have all of the integrity.

I believe that, unless he has something to hide, he would do the right thing, stand today, clear the air and call for a public independent inquiry, or is he trying to hide something? Mr. Doer: The member raises two points in his question, Mr. Speaker. One is the issue of the board representatives, and I would point out that in 1992, the fund requiring labour control, it stated control of the fund shall always be vested in the Manitoba Federation of Labour. Point No. 2, the member opposite talks about management.

The Auditor General clearly documents that the senior officers of the fund were hired at the inception of the fund which was in '92 and '93. Mr. Speaker, we have ta ken responsibility for an e-mail between an official in one department and an official in another de partment. The members opposite should take responsibility for the fact that five of them were in Cabinet when Mr. Umlah was hired and when Mr. Umlah was promoted. Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, Point No. 1 is in 2001 this government had a red flag that they ignored, and they are trying to cover it up.

Point No. 2, in 2002 another red flag was raised with this NDP government, and they are trying to cover that up. Point No. 3, this Premier's former NDP Cabinet minister, Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk, has asked to go before a public inquiry so the truth will come out. Point No. 4, 34 000 Manitobans have been fleeced by $60 million under this Premier's watch. If he has nothing to hide, he should stand today and call for a public inquiry. Do the right thing. Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker, the Auditor General, in his 200-page report, on page 138 identifies the Manitoba Science and Technology Fund was capitalized in 1999 utilizing various funds in the provincial government. I have the press release for the former members of Cabinet on that criticism that was made by the Auditor General. June 29, 1999, Mr. Merv Tweed announces a new Crocus Investment Fund of $10 million. Not only that, this will be led, and the new president of this fund is none other than, CEO of this fund will be Mr. James Umlah. Five former Cabinet ministers promoted Mr. Umlah. Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Mr.

Speaker: The honourable Member for River East, on a point of order. Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, but the Premier should put factual information on the record. It was the board of Crocus, controlled by the Manitoba Federation of Labour, that hired James Umlah. So they had control over management of James Umlah, and they failed. Mr. Speaker: The honourable First Minister, on the same point of order? Order. Points of order are very serious matters. I need to hear every word that is spoken. The honourable First Minister, on the same point of order? Mr.

Doer: Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker. You know that disputes over the facts are not a point of order, but I would point out in the June 29, 1999, press release, it was one Merv Tweed who promoted Mr. Umlah to CEO of the new Manitoba Science and Technology venture capital fund. I believe the member opposite was in Cabinet on that date. Mr. Speaker: Order. On the point of order raised by the honourable Member for River East, she does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. * * *

June 16, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3711 Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Before I ask my question, just on a point of order. I would ask for leave because– Mr. Speaker: Order. * (15:20) Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for River Heights, on a point of order? On a point of order. Mr. Gerrard: I would ask for leave that I can ask both my question and the two supplementaries if we are a couple of minutes short of time. Mr.

Speaker: Is there leave for the honourable member to complete his question if we run out of time for Question Period? [Agreed] Crocus Investment Fund Public Inquiry Request Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, for many years there has been a lot of concern about the shortage of venture capital for Manitoba firms, particularly small- and medium-sized businesses. This, of course, was one of the reasons why Crocus was established in the first place, but thanks to poor oversight by the NDP government the Crocus option has turned to a disaster. Mr.

Speaker, it is vital that we learn from the bad mistakes made and we ensure we have a much better approach to venture capital for Manitoba firms in the future. I, for one, want to build the businesses in this province, and it is vital that we have a public inquiry in order to find out everything that went wrong and to build for the future. Will the Premier call a public inquiry? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the member opposite was involved in the press conferences, a federal minister, when both he and Mr.

Filmon claimed that they were going to turn straw into gold at the Isobord plant. So he certainly knows of what he speaks. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, there have been new initiatives on venture capital and capital in Manitoba. In fact, in the fall of 2004, the Manitoba Superannuation Fund, the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, Workers Compensation, I think Teachers' Pension Plan, if I am not mistaken, all put money into the new Richardson Capital fund which is located in Manitoba. This actually predated the Auditor General's report and the suspension of trade on the shares.

It is quite a bit different than the announcement that was made in June of 1999. Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, let me correct the Premier. It was Gary Filmon who was spinning then straw into gold. It was his quote. It was never my quote. He was almost as good at spinning as this Premier, but this Premier certainly developed it into an art. Look, we need to learn from the big mistakes that were made in the past. If nothing is done, we are going to have problems with venture capital having a bad name in Manitoba. It will hurt Manitoba businesses.

It is difficult to understand why this Premier is hesitating to call a public inquiry. Is he stonewalling? Is he trying to cover something up? Is the Premier trying to cover things up? Why does he not call a public inquiry now and make sure that Manitobans have the truth, can get at what happened and build for the future? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, it appear s the member is correct. It was the former Premier that said that this is like a modern-day Rumpelstiltskin at the new Isobord plant that will spin wheat straw into a wealth of jobs in Manitoba. I believe this was part of the $35-million loss that took place.

But then, of course, Dr. Jon Gerrard went on to announce a $12 million– Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind all honourable members when making reference to other members in the House to please do it by ministers by their portfolios, other members by their constituency. Mr. Doer: The Member for River Heights. I was just quoting from the press release, the $12-million investment. I remember the member opposite criticized us on September 7, 2000, for putting too much emphasis on rate of return and asked us to interfere directly into the management of the Crocus Fund.

If we had taken his advice this government would be before the Securities Commission. Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier had been watching more closely, all these problems would not have happened with the severity that they have had

3712 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2005 at Crocus. The reality is that the Premier is hesitating to call a public inquiry. Is the Premier reluctant to learn from his mistakes? Is the Premier against having advice on a better way to support business in this province? Is the Premier against growing Manitoba businesses? Is the Premier against growing Manitoba? As long as the Premier stalls on a public inquiry, so long will the Premier delay on learning from our mistakes and buildi ng for the future. Is the Premier against exposing government negligence?

We need to have the best practices in this province. We need to build for the future. When will the Premier call a public inquiry? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that the member opposite said that we should interfere in Crocus Investment Fund decisions for VAW Systems which he criticized us for having too much emphasis on rate of return. Now he speaks with a different view. I want to apologize to the member opposite from River Heights. He did say that the Crocus Investment and federal investment in 1996 and 1997 in the Isobord plant was a real value-added investment. Well, Mr.

Speaker, we have taken responsibility for e-mails, I wonder whether he will take responsibility for Isobord. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to members' statements, I just want to introduce a couple of guests we have in the public gallery. We have Bev Lacasse and KateLynn McManus who are from the 10th Transcona Scout group and their Scout leaders. They are the guests of the honourable Member for Radisson (Mr. Jha). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. * * * Mr.

Speaker: I would also like to advise the House that today's Order Paper is in error. There are three bills that are missing from the Order Paper that should be listed on the Order Paper for concurrence and third reading. Those bills are Bill 17, The Regional Health Authorities Amendment and Manitoba Evidence Amendment Act; Bill 21, The Oil and Gas Amendment and Oil and Gas Production Tax Amendment Act; and Bill 30, The Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation Act.

I want to bring this to the attention of members to ensure that they are aware of this error and to be advised that these bills are eligible for concurrence and third reading today. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Scouting Activities Mr. Bidhu Jha (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues in this House to join me in recognizing the outstanding efforts of Scouts and Scout leaders throughout Manitoba. Though many years have passed since I had the pleasure of being a Scout myself, I know the excitement and the thrill of the young people who today take

part in organized scouting activities. This past Tuesday, June 14, I had the oppor- tunity to attend the 10th Transcona Scout group barbeque. I want to thank all my young hosts and their leader, Bev Lacasse, for their warm hospitality. Over the years, scouting has changed and will continue to change and evolve. Still, though, members of the scouting movement, regardless of age, regardless of gender, regardless of their loca- tion, recognize and live up to the ethos of service and giving that makes them better citizens and leads them into opportunities for lifelong learning and lifelong friendships.

Today I wish to recognize those young people who have committed themselves to exploring and learning and serving their community through their participation as scouts. I ask that my colleagues in this Chamber join me in congratulating scouts across this province and in particular those in the 10th Transcona Scout group. Let us wish them all a scouting experience filled with excitement and with wonder. Mr. Speaker, I also invite you and all the honourable members to join in thanking those individuals, past and present, who have made the time and taken the challenge to become scouting leaders.

Time invested in the community, especially working with the young, is never wasted. * (15:30) Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of the imminent end of this session, I will take the opportunity to

June 16, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3713 wish you and all honourable colleagues safe travels and a wonderful summer and joyous holiday and hard work. Thank you. Village of Glenboro Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): It does give me great pleasure to rise in the House today, both as MLA for Turtle Mountain and as a citizen of Glenboro, to recognize the village of Glenboro's 125th birthday celebration coming up on the July long weekend. The first settlers to the Glenboro area were Jonas Christie and James Duncan in 1879.

The enactment of the homestead act by the federal government in 1880 attracted many more settlers who claimed and homesteaded the land in the area. News that the Canadian Pacific Railway was coming in 1886 prompted Christie and Duncan to offer sections of their land to form a townsite. Duncan named the village Glenboro, which is derived from the Scottish term "Borough of the Glen." The Queens Hotel, the first building established in Glenboro, dates back to 1881 and still stands today. Well before being elected, I had an abiding respect for Dennis Lloyd. In the year since, that respect has only deepened.

I am proud to be part of a government that has led the way in acknowledging and responding to the special demands firefighters face, and I am proud to be a friend of Dennis Lloyd. This time of celebration will allow us to reflect on our past and make plans for the future. Birthday celebrations includ e fireworks, a parade, social evenings, a fair and rodeo and much more. Please feel free to visit the Web site, glenboro.mb.ca, for more details of the festivities. I extend a warm welcome to everyone to attend the events planned to celebrate Glenboro's 125th birthday. Mr. Dennis Lloyd Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (St.

James): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Winnipeg's finest firefighters, a St. James constituent and a man I am privileged to call friend, Mr. Dennis Lloyd. Today, I wish to recognize Dennis as an esteemed leader and a legend among Canada's firefighters. Six years ago, after 41 years of service, Dennis retired as a Winnipeg Fire Department battalion chief having served along the way as firefighter, lieutenant, ca ptain, district chief and finally to battalion chief. Early on, Dennis recognized he had a contribution to make to his union.

To stay true to his convictions and his passion, he turned down countless promotions above the rank of battalion chief. His dedication and passion earned Dennis the devoted respect of his peers. He has served as trustee of IAFF Winnipeg Local 867, vice-president of the Winnipeg local, president of the United Firefighters of Winnipeg, IAFF Canadian trustee and trustee emeritus of the International Association of Firefighters. His was a remarkable career. He was instru- mental in consolidating many smaller departments into Winnipeg's one merged department of 900 firefighters.

He was the driving force behind today's City of Winnipeg Fire Paramedic Service. Mr. Speaker, I invite you and all honourable members to join me in thanking the heroic and determined firefighters across Manitoba. Moreover, I ask you to join me in recognizing Dennis Lloyd and his peers for their

part in making us better legislators. Thank you. Loewen Corporation Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): I rise today to pay tribute to the Loewen corporation, who this weekend will be celebrating their 100th anniversary in the community of Steinbach. In 1905, led by C.T. Loewen, a first-generation Canadian who had learned his sawyer skills from his immigrant father, he began a millwork business in the community of Steinbach.

Although the Great Depression was difficult on a number of different businesses, he managed to continue his company on by finding a niche market during those times and ensuring that there was survival of the corporation. The Loewen story is known throughout Manitoba and glowingly throughout the world as a success story. Certainly, over the last number of years as they have developed a reputation for quality windows in Manitoba and, of course, in North

3714 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2005 America and now around the world, they have continued to show that a family-run generational business can succeed when there is entrepreneurship, when there is a dedication to values of a company, values of a community. I know that the employees at Loewen, at the C.T. Loewen Building Centre and at Loewen Windows would testify to the good treatment that they have and the great corporation that is provided so that they can have careers built. Many, many employees begin their work at the Loewens', either at C.T.

Loewen Building Centre or at Loewen Windows and continue on throughout their entire lives in those corporations. The Loewens also believe in giving money back to the community through the Loewen Foundation and literally hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars have flowed back to a number of good causes throughout Manitoba and around the world because of the generosity of the Loewens. I do want to commend the Loewen family for being great corporate citizens here in Manitoba, certainly in the community of Steinbach and, really, throughout North America.

We appreciate all that they do in terms of creating jobs and wealth in our province and ensuring that they give back to the community through all those good causes. With those words, we would like to wish the C.T. Loewen Foundation and the corporation a successful 100th anniversary. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Northern Manitoba Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, I rise today with pride in order to speak of the resilience and the rekindling of the northern spirit.

For many years, northern Manitoba fought for its rightful place in the sun, and I am proud to be part of a government that not only recognizes the potential of the North but also has committed to rebuilding the spirit of the North. The Tories scoffed at a University College of the North, but the dream is becoming a reality under this government. Enrolment in northern nursing courses has doubled. Much needed dialysis machines are now a fact in some northern communities.

This government's investment in Telehealth will tremendously improve h ealth care services in northern communities such as Flin Flon and Snow Lake. Mr. John Loewen (Deput y Opposition House Leader): I wonder if we could have the indulgence of the House. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Murray) is going to be going on a grievance today, but he has been called out by the media in the hallway to do a scrum, so I am wondering if we could ask leave of the House just to take a little break Our commitment has not stopped there.

For instance, our roads and airports, so neglected, if not downright ignored under the Tory administration have since been upgraded through better funding. We have signed new revenue sharing and training partnerships with First Nations for future Hydro development. We have established a $10-million fund for pre-project Hydro training that will benefit all northerners and restore core funding to Aboriginal organizations that had been cut under the Tories.

Alternative economic initiatives have been fostered by the investments of the provincial and federal governments via the Northern Forest Diversification Centre in The Pas under the seasoned leadership of Dave Buck. Non-timber boreal products are becoming more and more important to Manitoba, whether they are developed through the Diversification Centre or by individual entrepreneurs. Most recently, I was thrilled to learn of and to sample a particularly northern product that so clearly expresses the adventurous spirit and the self-reliance of the North, birch sap wine. I invite you, Mr.

Speaker, and my colleagues in this Chamber to join me in congratulating northern residents Doug and Linda Eryou on their contribution to the development of birch sap products. I look forward to the day I can invite you all to join me in raising a glass of their fine birch sap wine in a toast to their success as vintners. Moreover, let us toast them for their starring role in the fort hcoming German-produced documentary that highlights the Eyrous' unique birch wine. The North is on the map. Stay tuned. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Fort Whyte, on a point of order?

June 16, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3715 so that he can do the scrum with the media and then come back and do the grievance. Hon. Steve Ashton (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I was going to suggest that, perhaps, to accommodate the Leader of the Opposition, we could proceed to Government Business and perhaps debate some of the third readings that are on the Order Paper. Then we, by leave, could return to grievances when it would be convenient for the Leader of the Opposition. Mr.

Speaker: Is it the agreement of the House to set aside grievances for the time being, deal with some bills and then we will revert to grievances at the return of the Leader of the Official Opposition? [Agreed] ORDERS OF THE DAY (Continued) GOVERNMENT BUSINESS (Continued) House Business Hon. Steve Ashton (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, could you please call the third readings in order? Could you please call Bill 17, by leave, 21 and 30? That was the agreement? Okay, so I will do it in that order. Third time lucky, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I probably should have taken a break after all.

I believe there has been an agreed- upon order which would now proceed to 38, 39, 41, 42 and 43, and followed by 5, 33, 48, 51 and 16, followed by Bill 50. I would suggest we call 17, 21 and 30, and then receive the leave of the House afterward. We will probably get into grievances by then, and we will call the remaining bills following grievances. So could you please call 17, 21 and 30? * (15:40) CONCURRENCE AND THIRD READINGS (Continued) Bill 17–The Regional Health Authorities Amendment and Manitoba Evidence Amendment Act Hon. Steve Ashton (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Northern Affair s (Mr. Lathlin), that Bill 17, The Regional Health Authorities Amendment and Manitoba Evidence Amendment Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development and subsequently amended, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed. Motion presented. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, we will support this bill. I think that it is important that we have a procedure for having reports of medical errors or critical incidents. I want to thank the Minister of Health (Mr.

Sale) for agreeing to support the amendment which we put forward, which allowed for reports to come from individuals as well as from health professionals. I think this will be hopefully a step forward in being able to understand better where processes go wrong within the medical system and to correct them and improve on the quality of care. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 17, The Regional Health Authorities Amendment and Manitoba Evidence Amendment Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] * * * Mr. Ashton: I was wondering if, by leave, we could revert to grievances. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS (Continued) GRIEVANCES Mr. Speaker: As previously agreed, we will now revert to grievances. Are there any grievances? Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a grievance. It is unfortunate that, when you think about where Manitoba fits in the national media scale these days, when you are talking to national organizations, whether it is the Chamber of Commerce or business organizations, the two

3716 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2005 issues that Manitoba is very well known for are, No. 1, the fact that under this NDP government, they are going to force non- unionized workers to pay union dues in the floodway expansion; the other issue, of course, is the fact that under this NDP government the Crocus scandal has caused 34 000 Manitobans to be fleeced of some $60 million. So, Mr. Speaker, what is the result of this cozy relationship that we see between this Premier (Mr. Doer) and the labour leaders in Manitoba? The sad fact is that Manitobans lost money.

It does not seem to register on this current government. Everybody knows about that relationship at the highest level, and now with the Auditor General's report coming in, in 2001, everybody knows that, when industry reps in the department were questioned whether Crocus's long-term plans matched the government's original policy purpose on providing tax credits, the Crocus authorities said that they had already cleared their plans with those in a higher authority. Mr. Daryl Reid, Acting Speaker, in the Chair Mr.

Speaker, it is very obvious with this NDP government that the relationship between the labour leadership in the province of Manitoba is very, very close. I cite Mr. Peter Olfert, Mr. Rob Hilliard, Mr. Eugene Kostyra, who works in the Premier's office, and the current Premier (Mr. Doer) himself who was a well-known union organizer for years. There are some 25 years of labour leadership just in those four names that I mentioned. Mr. Speaker, it is clear with that close relationship with the labour leaders that the Crocus Fund had the tacit support of this NDP government.

There is no question that that relationship allowed for decisions that were made that were poor decisions because of that close relationship. It allowed the fact that the Crocus Fund, because of that relationship with the labour leadership, it allowed for the Crocus Fund to spend flagrantly, and as I say, they were allowed to make decisions on business outside what would be considered solid business practice. That has been highlighted time and time again in the Auditor General's report.

The NDP government in this Crocus scandal is totally and completely culpable because of the result of these personal relationships. They existed, Mr. Deputy Chair, at the highest level in this government. We know that that labour leadership relationship was at the highest level, and the one and only balance put in place to ensure that this Crocus Fund would be run in a business-like fashion, the one and only piece that was put in place was thwarted because the NDP have a relationship with the labour leaders on the Crocus Fund.

Now the other labour-sponsored fund, ENSIS, they were able to do it, but Crocus somehow failed, Mr. Speaker. What happened is when they failed to meet the deadline, this NDP government stepped in and made sure that everything was okay and looked after. Mr. Deputy Chair, therein lies another serious problem as to why $60 million went missing for 34 000 Manitobans because this NDP government turned their back on serious issues like the fact that Crocus could not report according to the legislation. An Honourable Member: Well, who would that be? Mr. Murray: Well, Mr.

Speaker, that begs the question: Who would that higher authority in this NDP government be? I go back to the relationship between Mr. Olfert, Mr. H illiard, Mr. Kostyra and the current Premier (Mr. Doer), who was a labour leader in this province for many years. Mr. Speaker, Crocus has to make reports every year, as stated in the Audi tor General's report. They have to make reports every year showing that the proceeds from the sale of Crocus shares had been properly invested in qualified businesses. Promptly invested, I should say, in qualified businesses.

Well, again, as the Auditor General points out, Crocus failed to do that. They failed to achieve those guidelines. * (15:50) Mr. Speaker, the Department of Industry has a representative on the board of Crocus. That representative sits on the investment committee. Crocus took

part in the Premier's Economic Advisory Committee, by the way of Mr. Kreiner, who was the CEO of Crocus. He sat on the Premier's advisory economic committee. I believe that Mr. Kostyra is also on that Economic Advisory Committee, and I believe that Mr. Olfert, if I am not mistaken, is the co-chair of that advisory committee. So, Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat unusual that this government would try to say that they had no

June 16, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3717 knowledge of anything going on at Crocus when you realize that all of these dots connect to this NDP government. Where do they connect? They connect to, as the Auditor General points out, to a higher authority. Well, I have already pointed out what happened in 2001, already pointed out the fact that in 2002, red flags in a memo came to the Finance Department. So now we have a red flag in 2001. We have a red flag in 2002, in the form of a memo, and what happens? This NDP government turns their back on those red flags.

Now they are trying to cover up the fact that somehow they do not want to release those, simply because they believe that somehow a civil servant, a civil servant by the way that did their job by bringing these issues forward to the minister in the depart ment, did their job, Mr. Speaker. We are getting this very lame excuse from this minister that somehow they cannot release these memos for fear that there will be some compromise with the civil servant. Well, as I repeat, that civil servant did their job and should be congratulated.

In order to make these memos public, all this minister has to do is simply black out the names of those civil servants. It is the content of the memo that is highly charged, Mr. Speaker, because that raises the question about what it is that this NDP government knew and why it is that they turned a blind eye to something that was very, very important. Mr. Speaker, we also know that on November 19, according to the Auditor General's report, November 19, 2002, that Mr. Kreiner met with the Premier of Manitoba to discuss this superfund concept.

Well, I find it very interesting when this Premier stands up and indicates that they had no knowledge of what was going on at Crocus, that somehow there was no relationship. Well, Mr. Deputy Chair, we have already talked about the labour leadership. We have already talked about the fact that some of those labour leaders were on the Premier's Economic Advisory Council. Now we know, according to the Auditor General, that Mr.

Kreiner, the former CEO of Crocus, actually came in and had a meeting with this Premier to talk about a superfund, a fund that would have TRAF and Workers Compensation and other pension funds as part of the Crocus fund, and at that point in 2002, there had been two red flags raised about issues at Crocus. We also know, Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Industry, Minister Mihychuk, in 2003, had draft legislation that would have dealt with the monitoring and the controls of Crocus.

In an interview that she did, she publicly stated, ve ry clearly, that there were lots of issues that were coming forward about Crocus. So she, as a minister, took them very seriously and was starting to draft legislation that would have dealt with controls on how to deal with Crocus. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the higher authority or who it was–when they replaced the Minister of Industry with the new member from Brandon West, who took over the portfolio of Minister of Industry–the form er minister states very clearly that she does not know what happened to that legislation that she was drafting.

Somehow it got quashed. It went into that black hole that somehow some of these other memos have somehow tried to be put into. That is one of the reasons that this government, not only from the opposition, but from media outlets and members of the public are stating clearly it is time to do the right thing and call for a public inquiry. In fact, I thought it was very interesting in that interview that it was the former Minister of Industry, Ms.

Mihychuk, when she talked about the fact that she had draft legislation that was dealing with the controls on Crocus, that she is saying very clearly she would welcome the opportunity to clear the air, to come clean, to ensure that the truth be known. She is prepared to stand before a public inquiry and tell exactly what was happening because there is a cloud hanging over this, Mr. Speaker, and it is a very dark cloud. It is a dark cloud for Manitobans because they were fleeced o

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-3-65b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 3rd hansardpdf 65b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2df14173068ea8ebe4d4b24129c7a5679d03bfba

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