Manitoba Hansard — 4 July 2001 (Sitting 57, 37th Legislature, 2nd Session)

37-2-57

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session- Thirty-Seventh Legislature of the. Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LI No. 57- 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, July 4, 2001 ISSN 0542-5492

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

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

Rose Seine River Russell Selkirk Concordia Charleswood Pembina Lakeside Portage Ia Prairie Wolseley River Heights Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon St. James The Pas St. Norbert La Verendrye Fort Whyte St. Johns Arthur- Virden Elmwood Burrows Lord Roberts Minto River East Kirkfield Park Interlake Emerson Steinbach Morris Lac du Bonnet Transcona South dale Rupertsland Carman Assiniboia Fort Rouge Wellington Rossmere Springfield St. Boniface Fort Garry Brandon West Tuxedo Dauphin-Rob lin Turtle Mountain Swan River Political Affiliation N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C.

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

3465 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, July 4, 2001 The House met at 1: 30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Kenaston Underpass Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Jamie Kitchen, Graham Peterson, Chantal Girard and others, praying that the Premier of Manitoba (Mr. Doer) consider reversing his decision to not support construction of an underpass at Kenaston and Wilkes. Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Matt Williams, J. Sokol, L.

Noseworthy and others, praying that the Premier of Manitoba consider reversing his decision to not support construc tion of an underpass at Kenaston and Wilkes. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Kenaston Underpass Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Loewen), I have reviewed the petition and it complies with the rules and practices of the House.

Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [Agreed] Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT the intersection at Wilkes and Kenaston has grown to become the largest unseparated crossing in Canada; and THAT the volume of traffic for this railroad crossing is twelve times the acceptable limit as set out by Transport Canada; and THAT vehicles which have to wait for trains at this intersection burn up approximately $1. 4 million in fuel, pollute the environment with over 8 tons of emissions and cause approx imately $7.3 million in motorist delays every year.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Premier of Manitoba consider reversing his decision to not support construction of an underpass at Kenaston and Wilkes. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger), I have reviewed the petition and it complies with the rules and practices of the House.

Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [Agreed] Madam Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT the intersection at Wilkes and Kenaston has grown to become the largest unseparated crossing in Canada; and THAT the volume of traffic for this railroad crossing is twelve times the acceptable limit as set out by Transport Canada; and THAT vehicles which have to wait for trains at this intersection burn up approximately $1. 4 million in fuel, pollute the environment with over 8 tons of emissions and cause approximately $7.3 million in motorist delays every year.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Premier of Manitoba consider reversing his decision to not support construction of an underpass at Kenaston and Wilkes. * (1 3:35) 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

3466 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 2001 with us this afternoon John Kimbell, founder and chair of the National Aboriginal Achievement Awards, and also Peter Jensen, director for corporate development, National Aboriginal Achievement Awards. They are the guests of the honourable Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs (Mr. Robinson). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Health Sciences Centre Waiting Room Death Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, I think all members in the House extend their deepest sympathies to Marie Rogalsky and her entire family for the recent loss of her husband, Herman, that took place this weekend. Mr. Rogalsky passed away in a Health Sciences Centre waiting room while he was waiting for an ultrasound test. Mr. Speaker, after being told the wait would be two to three hours, it was reported that Mrs. Rogalsky left the hospital, returning about an hour later to find her husband, and I quote: He was dead, blue, black in the face.

This Premier promised Manitobans that he would fix health care in six months and that patients would not be treated in hospital hall ways. Yet, in a year and a half under his watch, three people have died in waiting rooms and in emergency room hallways. What does this Premier have to say with his broken promises to the Rogalsky family and their children? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I, too, would offer our condolences to the Rogalsky family on the loss of Herman at the hospital over the weekend. I think it is very important that we not play politics with a tragedy like this.

We know that the individual was seen at the Seven Oaks Hospital within an hour by a doctor in the triage area. We also know that shortly thereafter at the Health Sciences Centre the death took place. It is certainly very important for us to deal with this situation and the tragedy through facts. We certainly will expect the Chief Medical Examiner to review this situation and the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority to find out what happened and if there is anything that could have taken place that would have prevented this very, very unfortunate death. Mr. Murray: Well, Mr.

Speaker, there is truth in what the Premier said. Mrs. Rogalsky first did go to Seven Oaks General Hospital but then had to go to the Health Sciences Centre for the ultrasound test. Because there was no ambulance available, Mrs. Rogalsky had to drive her husband, who was suffering in pain from a blood clot, from Seven Oaks to the Health Sciences Centre for that test. I should remind the Premier that during the months of March the wait for an ultrasound test has gone from 13 weeks, 14 weeks in April and now 15 weeks in May. Mrs.

Rogalsky believes her husband would be alive today if the test had been done immediately. In this article, she is quoted as saying: Now I do not have a husband just because they said it was a two- or three-hour wait. He is gone, he is totally gone and I do not have a husband anymore. Mrs. Rogalsky believes her husband would be alive today if the test had been done immediately. This Premier promised Manitobans like the Rogalsky family that he would slash waiting lists and fix health care. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Rogalsky family and all Manitobans, why has he broken his promise? * (13 :40) Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker, again dealing with the political statements, politics should not play any

part in this discussion. There were no patients in the hallways and the waiting lists that we were talking about and the ultrasound equipment locations had not changed between the two administrations.

July 4, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3467 Mr. Speaker, every day nurses, doctors, technicians save hundreds of lives in Winnipeg emergency wards and emergency wards across the province. There was a triage decision made at the Seven Oaks Hospital. I am not in this House equipped to, nor would I suggest the Leader of the Opposition is equipped to second guess that medical decision. I think the Chief Medical Examiner of Manitoba is equipped to deal with the circumstances of the unfortunate death, the circumstances that took place, and whether any changes or any change could have made a difference.

I will rely on medical advice and facts to determine from the Chief Medical Examiner, and I will await his recommendations because I think Manitobans will want to know the facts and will want to know them from medical experts. Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, it was Mrs. Rogalsky who found her husband lying dead on a couch in a waiting room. After alerting hospital staff about her husband, she then picked up the phone and called her son who arrived at the hospital from Tyndall Park in 10 minutes, that is 5 minutes before emergency personnel.

Can the Premier explain to this family why it took emergency personnel in a hospital 5 minutes longer to get to Mr. Rogalsky than it took his son who lives in Tyndall Park? Can he explain to Mrs. Rogalsky why she does not have a husband anymore? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the Chief Medical Examiner will be reviewing everything dealing with this case, the original triage decision, the situation dealing with the diagnosis at the original hospital that took place within an hour.

We will be reviewing the decision and avail ability of ambulances, who made that decision and were there ambulances available, the decision to have the individual third on the list for ultrasound. There were two ultrasounds that were completed within the period of time that Mr. Rogalsky was awaiting that ultrasound. Again, I am not going to second guess the medical priorities that were established and the whole issue of the response after Mrs.

Rogalsky found her husband and some of the issues that have been raised and brought to my attention, which I have no plausible explanation to on the issue of follow-up with the family after the incident. All these issues must be examined and reviewed by medical experts independent of the decisions made at Seven Oaks and the decisions made at the Health Sciences Centre. All matters will be examined in the public interest. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a new question. Health Sciences Centre Waiting Room Death Mr.

Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): On a new question, Mr. Speaker. In February of 2000 John Lecoy died in the Health Sciences Centre emergency room. He was never seen by a doctor. Eight months later, in October, Robert Collicott died in the same emergency room while he was waiting for care. He, too, had not been seen by a doctor. These deaths were the first in an emergency room hallway in Manitoba since 1983. Now Herman Rogalsky has also died while waiting for care. * (13:45) The Premier did not fix health care in six months as he promised.

He did not act following the first death that occurr ed under his watch. He did not act following the second death that occurred under his watch. Is he going to act now that there has been a third death? How many Manitobans have to die before this Premier takes action? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): I caution the Leader of the Opposition in terms of some of the facts that he has stated. Particularly in matters of this kind, I think to go for the political hit does not serve the public on this kind of matter.

With respect to the Lecoy and the Collicott matters, the Collicott matter was reviewed by the Chief Medical Examiner . Mr. Collicott was triaged by the triage nurse. Three recommendations concerning emergency rooms: that is, an extra triage nurse at Health Sciences Centre; a possible ambulance diversion when the emergency room is crowded; and the imposition of a central bed registry, something that has been promised since 1992, were all recommendations, Mr. Speaker, that came out of those particular matters dealing with emergency rooms.

3468 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 2001 Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, the Premier (Mr. Doer) completely misled Manitobans during the last election. He promised to fix health care in six months. He promised to slash waiting lists. He promised to hire more full-time nurses. On all counts he has failed to deliver. He has no credibility. With this third completely unaccept able death in the last year and a half, he should be mortified at what his broken promises have done to health care in our province. Mr. Speaker, November of last year, nurses stated that nothing had changed in the ER since the first death.

They were hopeful after the second death that perhaps something, something would happen. Unbelievably, they have now seen a third death. Mr. Speaker, why? Why did this Premier not take some action? Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is not accurate. If he is going to raise matters of this kind, I would suggest that he be accurate in this House. First off- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Chomiak: First off, Mr.

Speaker, the incident that occurred, the very unfortunate incident that occurred on the weekend occurred while the individual was awaiting an ultrasound test at the Health Sciences Centre, and that is being reviewed. The issues surrounding that have been reviewed. He was awaiting an ultra sound test, after having been triaged to Seven Oaks Hospital.

With respect to the changes at the emergency room, I met with the emergency nurses myself several months ago to talk about the changes that had been put in place, including the addition of a triage nurse, the diversion policy with respect to the changes there, as well as the imposition of a central bed registry, because I met with the nurses myself to discuss those issues and discuss how they were working out and how we would deal with those issues. Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, in November of last year nurses warned this Government that failure to act would lead to more deaths.

One nurse said, and I quote: I can guarantee 100 percent death is going to happen again. This Premier ignored their warnings and he has broken his election promise, three complete ly unacceptable deaths in a year and a half. How many more warnings does this Premier need before he is going to take action? What does he say to those people who are afraid, and what does he do to take action before more people die waiting for him to make some plans? Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, again, the member ought to be careful in his statements.

I am precluded from indicating some of the factors concerning some of the events. concerning the exact cause of deaths, for example, of Mr. Collicott, but the member ought to be cautious in terms of the blanket statements he is throwing out. Mr. Speaker, when we came into office, we realized that human resources was a major problem. We are now training more doctors than at any time in the past decade. We are now educating more nurses than any time in the past decade.

We have now put in a program for X-ray technicians and lab technicians. * (13:50) We have expanded the ultrasound class for the first time to deal with the human resources. The Canadian Institute for Health Information indicated Manitoba has done more on the hallway situation than any other jurisdiction in the country. In fact, Ontario took the Manitoba plan to deal with hallway medicine and copied it. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Mr. Murray: Mr.

Speaker, Beauchesne's 417: Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate. All we are getting from this minister is empty promises, and we know they are all broken.

July 4, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3469 Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, on the same point of order. Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's question. The member had indicated inaccurately that we had not done a number of initiatives since we came to office. I was just pointing out to the member the number of initiatives that we have undertaken since we came to office. Mr. Speaker: Order.

On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, I would like to remind all honourable ministers of Beauchesne's Citation 417: Answers to questions should deal with the matter raised. * * * Mr. Speaker: Next question. Health Sciences Centre Waiting Room Death Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): As a wife and mother, I was very disturbed today to hear that Herman Rogalsky died alone in a hospital waiting room.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health: Is that the way families are supposed to find their husbands and their children are supposed to find their fathers when they put their loved one in his care? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): As I indicated, the circumstances surrounding this situation are very tragic and our hearts go out to the families. If I were the Rogalsky family, I would be very upset as well and concerned, and that is why we are going to do follow-up on all these matters. Mrs.

Driedger: I would like to ask this minister what he has to say to Herman Rogalsky's wife, Marie, to his children, his grandchildren and his foster children who no longer have a father, a husband, a grandfather because his health care system failed this family? Mr. Chomiak: I have already indicated that if I were the family of Mr. Rogalsky I would be very upset and concerned. I would expect that the health system would respond by examining all the circumstances, and that is what we intend to do. Mrs. Driedger: I would like to ask the Minister of Health what he has to say to Mrs.

Rogalsky, who today said: It is the health system that needs revamping. They need to take care of their patients. We have doctors and nurses flying out to the United States leaving our province and leaving the people to die. No good health care. We do not have a good health care system, and it is going to get worse and worse as time goes by. What does he have to say to Mrs. Rogalsky and others who are watching his health care system fail Manitobans? Mr. Chomiak: As I indicated in my previous responses that is why we are doing follow-up.

My belief on all these matters is every time there is a problem or difficulty that comes to our attention we ought to examine it, and we ought to learn from it so that we can ensure that those kinds of things do not happen again. That was part of the entire issue around the 12 baby deaths at the Health Sciences Centre, and an inquest and a follow-up report that indicated a number of follow-ups in the system had to be undertaken.

That is why we were so committed to that, and that is why we try to follow-up on every one of these issues to make sure that every time something unfortunate happens, out of that misfortune perhaps come some improvements to the system. That is probably the only satisfaction we can give to people who have had an unfortunate incident in the health care system. *( 13:55) Health Care System Election Promises Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): We have heard the Premier (Mr. Doer) today, in answers to questions, talk about not playing politics with this kind of an issue.

I would like to ask the Premier why he played politics and misled Manitobans during the last election campaign when he said that all Manitobans had to do was elect him and he would fix our health care system within six months?

3470 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 2001 Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I think it has been pretty evident that there have been more activities and more initi atives in the past 18 or 19 months of this Government than occurred over the past decade. For example, we increased, for the first time, the number of doctors that are being educated after the cuts of 1992. We have doubled the enrolment of nurses so we can get back and retain some of the nurses we have, after the programs had been cut in 1996 and '97.

We, for the first time, reinstated the X-ray lab program after the lab program had been completely eliminated by the previous government. We are increasing the ultrasound class so we can have additional ultrasound operators. We put in a specific plan on November 22, 1999, to deal with the issue of hallway medicine and we got an 80% reduction and a recognition across the country as having done the best in the country. For the first time, we are the third-lowest waiting list for hip and knee replacements in the country. Point of Order Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Opposition House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, Beauchesne's 417: Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and not provoke debate. I do not need an entire list of broken promises from this minister. If he wants to list off that there have been three more deaths than since 1983, Mr. Speaker, 1983 was the last time, and that was under their watch as well. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, on the same point of order. Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, just because members make a statement does not mean we have to stand up and agree with it.

If in fact the statement was wrong and the question was wrong, as it was, it is incumbent upon me to provide the member with the accurate facts as to the statement she made. She was wrong with what she said, and I was simply outlining the appropriate response. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for River East, on the same point of order. Mrs.

Mitchelson: We have from a Minister of Health who, during the election campaign, said they were going to fix hallway medicine within six months after being elected, and again on January 7 of 2000, the Minister of Health was quoted in the paper as saying he is still on target. Says the Minister of Health: Hall medicine to end in six months. That is what we were elected on. That was a commitment we made, and it is going to happen. Mr. Speaker, he was dead wrong. The facts prove that today. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, I listened to the question very carefully and I was listening to the answer very carefully. The honourable member does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. *** Mrs. Mitchelson: We hear very often from this Government- Some Honourable Members: Question. Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, this Govern ment is great at playing the blame game. They like to blame triage nurses, blame- Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Hon.

Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Amid the heckles from members opposite, the member opposite does not have a question. Mr. Speaker, would you please ask her, since this is a supplementary question, to please put a succinct question?

July 4, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3471 Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for River East, on the same point of order. Mrs. Mitchelson: This is a very serious issue. We have a Government that has misled Manitobans, has been very dishonest with Manitobans. I think it is important that we have the ability to question them on their integrity and on their honesty and ask the questions on how Manitobans can trust them when they have broken promise after promise. * (14:00) Mr.

Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Government House Leader, I would like to take this opportunity to remind all honourable members that Beauchesne's Citation 409(2) advises that a supplementary question should not require a

preamble. * * * Mr. Speaker: I would ask the honourable member to please put her question. Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Why do this Premier (Mr. Doer) and this Minister of Health continue to blame the triage nurses, to blame the health care system, to blame the former government for all the problems within the health care system, and why do they not take some leadership and some ownership and live up to the commitments that they made to Manitobans? Why did they give Manitobans false hope? Mr. Chomiak: Mr.

Speaker, I think if the member would have listened to my responses to the earlier questions, she would have heard quite clearly. The member would be hard pressed, even under their

interpretation of some of the issues, to indicate that we blamed anyone. I said we would review. I said if I were the family we would be concerned, and I said we will do follow-up and review all the issues. Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Health is: Why have we seen three Manitobans die under his watch, the first deaths while waiting for treatment since 1983? Why have we seen, and why do we continue to see deterioration of our health care system under his watch? Mr. Chomiak: Mr.

Speaker, I am not sure if the member is aware of several incidents that occurred when people left the ERs when they were government and died after having left the ER because they could not get in. In fact, there was an inquest to that effect. Just let me point out, quote: We have the shortest medical waits, October 12, Winnipeg Free Press; Medical treatment fastest in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, our Winnipeg Sun; Manitoba develops six-month ER cure, Toronto Globe and Mail; Empty hallways, Winnipeg Free Press, December 21, 2000. Health Care System Government Action Mr.

Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): The Government did promise to fix everything in six months with $15 million. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to quote what Mrs. Rogalsky said about our health care system. She said: It is the health system that needs revamping. They need to take care of their patients. We do not have a good health care system, and it is going to get worse and worse as time goes by. I want to ask this Premier (Mr. Doer): When will he drop his ideological games in health care, buying clinics that the public did not need to buy, trying to create phantoms to attack in health care?

When will he start minding his knitting and dedicate his attention to this most important issue, the saving of our health care system, which is in stress all across the country? When will he stop playing the big roller with the arena and get down to doing what Manitobans elected him to do? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated if I was the Rogalsky family, and I, as Health Minister, I would be very upset with the situation. I would ask for follow-up and that will take place. With respect to what the member states, I fail to understand why members do not

3472 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 200I acknowledge that we have increased the medical class, so we will have more doctors. We have increased the nursing class, so we will have more nurses. We have increased the X-ray class, so we will have more X-ray technicians. We are increasing the ultrasound class, so we will have more individuals providing ultrasound.

In addition to that, during the hallway medicine initiative, half of the resources went into community-based programs, including expanded oncology, expanded home intra venous, II percent to community health centres in Winnipeg this budgetary year, 8 percent to personal care homes, resources put into com munity and other options, as well as an expansion of community access centres, which is the way that health care is supposed to develop and supposed to go, in addition to trying to rebuild the infrastructure. Mr. Praznik: Mr.

Speaker, if the member wants to bring out lists and play who has the longest lists, I have a long one of my successes in health care, too. I want to ask the Premier (Mr. Doer): Why will he not acknowledge that the Manitoba health care system, just like the system right across the country whatever party is in government, is under stress that it cannot handle by normal means? When will he acknowledge that the answer means a very thorough rethink of our health care system and not the kind of quick-fix ideological debate that he is trying to put forward as a solution?

When will he mind his knitting and look after health care for Manitobans like the Rogalskys? Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that we recently had a Sinclair report that examined the I2 baby deaths at the Health Sciences Centre during the mid-'90s with some significant recommendations which we are in the process of implementing. We recently had a nursing task force that went out to deal with nursing conditions and had a whole series of recommendations which we are implementingto improve the working conditions for nurses.

We also had nurses tell us we need more nurses, so we are training more nurses. We had doctors tell us we need more doctors. We are training more doctors. We had doctors in rural northern Manitoba saying we need to be retained in rural northern Manitoba, so we put in place a series of incentives to keep doctors in rural northern Manitoba. We also opened more beds, and I will tell you if we had the human resources, which we hope to have in another year or two, we would open far more beds. Mr. Praznik: I want to again address my question to the Premier who is in charge of this Government.

I want to ask the Premier why he will not acknowledge that the debate around health care is a larger debate about saving our health care system than just putting a little more money in it, as he has done, or just tinkering. It is a major debate that he is running away from. I want to ask this Premier: What does he say to Mrs. Rogalsky when she says to all of us in this Legislature to start thinking about people's lives? I want to ask him that question. Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): There are a number of issues that were raised by the former Minister of Health.

Every introduction and every initiative we have taken is taking a long-term and short-term issue with changing and saving lives. I want to say again in this House that hundreds of Manitobans are seen by doctors, nurses, technicians and lives are saved every day in our health care system. I want to give credit in this time of concern to the front-line medical people that make good decisions on behalf of people and patients every day they work on behalf of Manitobans throughout our health care system.

I also want to say to the Rogalsky family that every concern that has been raised by you and others that we have identified in our initial review of this case will be examined inde pendent of Government, independent of the two facilities, by the Chief Medical Examiner. The public has a right to the answer to a number of questions that have arisen out of this case and the public will get those answers from an independent source. * (14:10) Electromagnetic Fields Health Concerns Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister responsible

July 4, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3473 for Manitoba Hydro: In assessing the relation ship between power frequency magnetic fields and childhood cancer, one moves from individual studies to pooled analysis to author itative reviews. Late last week an authoritative review by the International Agency for Cancer Research produced its report.

They concluded that pooled analysis from a number of well-conducted studies show a fairly consistent statistical association between childhood leu kemia and power frequency residential magnetic field strengths above 0.4 microTesla with an approximate twofold increase in risk of childhood leukemia.

At the very least the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro should now, on the basis of this review, undertake a survey to measure to see whether any Manitoba residences are close enough in proximity to power lines that they would be in the range where they would be experiencing a power frequency magnetic field of0.4 microTesla or above. Will the minister undertake such a survey and notify those homes of the results of this report if they are within that range of high voltage power lines? Hon.

Greg Selinger (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): I will have the Clean Environment Com mission and, of course, our officials review the research that he has indicated and correlate it with the levels of EMF exposure of magnetic fields that are in Manitoba. If there are any concerns that arise as a result of that, I will report it back to the Legislature. Mr. Gerrard: I think it is very important that Manitobans know whether there are exposed homes.

Will you undertake as a minister to make sure that Manitobans know whether their homes are close enough to power lines to be in the range of this exposure to power frequency magnetic fields? Mr. Selinger: As I indicated in my first response, we will take a look at the research and the level of exposure and see if there are any concerns. Of course, we will report it back to the member and anybody else who is interested. Mr. Gerrard: My supplementary: Is the minister indicating that he is not willing to undertake such a survey and inform Manitobans where there may be a risk? Mr.

Selinger: I indicated very clearly, in my first two responses, we will review the research. We will see if the research indicates any risk with respect to Manitobans. If there is any exposure or any risk with respect to any Manitoban, I will be happy to report that back to any member of the Legislature or any member of the public. Health Care System Government Action Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the outset that I am not blaming the Premier (Mr. Doer) or the Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) personally for the death of Mr.

Rogalsky, but we have to heed the words of the people who have experienced disasters in our health care system. We have a person here who is a living example of why we should change the way we do things in the health care system. This woman, who has a bad heart, was forced to drive her husband to a health care facility because of lack of ambulances. Now if there is different information, then it needs to be corrected, but the issue here is that we have a mess in the health care system because this Government has not- Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, would you please direct the member's attention to the rules of this House. A question should have one carefully phrased sentence as a

preamble. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Russell, on the same point of order. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect for the House leader, on the same point of order, I started my question by ensuring that it was not the Premier nor the Minister of Health who we were blaming personally. That, of course, extended my

preamble. I apologize for that. I am ready to put my questions.

3474 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 2001 Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has apologized for that. That should take care of the matter. *** Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Russell, please put your question. Mr. Derkach: Mr.

Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to stop the political rhetoric of going through the list of things that he has done as minister, and whether he is prepared to seriously address this kind of issue in our health care system, because he has been warned by the nurses in our province, he has been warned by other professionals that we need to change the approach to health care in Manitoba. Is he prepared to listen to these people and embark on a change in the delivery of health care services in this province? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr.

Speaker, that is what we have been doing since the day we were elected to office. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether he can for one moment lay his political rhetoric aside and really contem plate the tragedy that occurs day in and day out because of ideology that we are not prepared to change in looking at how we can revamp the health care system in this province. Is he prepared to lay his ideology aside and look at the issues and address them as they need to be addressed in this province? Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, first off, we always start from the patient's perspective.

That is why for 10 years there was no PACT, no community-based mental health program. We were the first government to implement a community-based mental health program. That is why we doubled the money to emergency services. That is why there are more ambulances on the streets of the city of Winnipeg, that we had an agreement with last year, despite I 0 years of constant struggles back and forth. That is why we reversed the previous decision to stop training nurses and go back to the diploma course.

That is why we stopped the previous decision that had the cancellation or the reduction of doctors, and we put in place expanded doctors. That is why there are more resources going to the community-based programs. That is why we put in place those programs on a daily basis to try to respond to needs. Mr. Speaker, we are not perfect, but we are continuing to work at it every day. Mr. Derkach: Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my question of the Premier (Mr. Doer). Since his minister is not prepared to lay aside his political rhetoric, will the Premier take this matter under serious consideration?

He has already said that he will provide information and there will be an inquest into this death, but will he assure Manitobans and Mrs. Rogalsky that he will take some action to ensure that there are no more deaths in our waiting rooms and in our hallways as we have experienced in the last year and a half? Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I cannot promise no more deaths across the health care system. What I can promise is we will provide the resources to people in the system. What I can promise is that we will respond to their concerns, the concerns of patients, nurses and doctors.

We will respond to their needs, we will try to meet their needs, and try to develop the programs and the systems that ensure that we can have the best and a better health care system every single day. I cannot promise perfection, but I can promise that we are listening. We have put in place and we will continue to put in place both the programs and the resources necessary to give the people who work in the system the tools to provide the best patient care they can. Diagnostic Testing Waiting Lists Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, a constituent of mine, Mr.

Ed Merriam, has been told he will be waiting for up to nine months to receive an echocardiogram that his doctor says he needs now. This is not just about Ed, but about all those who are on the waiting list for six, seven and eight months. What does it take? Does this constituent of mine, Mr. Merriam, have to die alone in a

July 4, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3475 hospital waiting room before he gets this Premier's and this minister's attention? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, so often members have brought individual cases to this House that have been very, very inaccurate. If the member would provide me with the details I would be quite happy to follow up on that particular matter. Mr. Schuler: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituent, Ed Merriam, does he have to wait until his family walks in and finds him dead before that waiting list is reduced?

It is not just about him, it is about the people who are waiting six, seven, eight and nine months and maybe more. Do the families have to wait for that moment to come when they die in the waiting room to get this minister's attention? Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the specific machines that do that work, I think we were reduced to three. We have now put in place capital to purchase eight, I believe, eight angio gram machines to provide that kind of service. I believe, if that is correct, we have, I think, doubled the number of machines that we are going to have in Winnipeg. * (14:20) Mr.

Schuler: I ask this minister, on behalf of all of those who are waiting, how he responds to: He is gone, he is totally gone, and I do not have a husband anymore. We might as well add into there: We do not have a father anymore. How does the minister respond to this family and to Mr. Merriam's family and the nine-month waiting list, waiting for crucial medical help while this minister does nothing? Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated time and time again that when issues come to our attention we respond.

That is why we have increased the number of CAT scan machines in this province by eight, eight new CAT scans, and an additional MRI and another one on the way. On the angiogram machines, we have gone from I think a low of three to up to eight. On ultrasound it is a human resource problem, but we are increasing the ultrasound; last week, $9 million on new equipment; a $4-million linear accelerator at CancerCare Manitoba; prior to that, $32 million in new equipment, the greatest expansion of new equipment this prov ince has ever seen.

While it is not perfect, what we have to do is train the people to operate those machines, and we are doing that. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Ms. Cheryl Bayer Mr. Jack Reimer (Southdale): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to share with the members of this House the outstanding achievements and accomplishments of a recent high school graduate and one of our own pages. On Monday, June 21, I had the pleasure of attending College Beliveau graduation cere mony. The evening was one of recognition and celebration for all graduates.

I also had the special pleasure of presenting the Member ofthe Legislative Assembly Award to Cheryl Bayer, a bright young woman who has been serving as a page in our Legislative Assembly. Ms. Bayer's accomplishments are numerous and are certainly a tribute to her dedication and hard work. Along with the Member of the Legislature Assembly Award, Ms. Bayer also received the following honours: Excellence in French, Excellence in Pre-Calculus, Excellence in Advanced Calculus, Excellence in Biology, Excellence in Chemistry, the College Beliveau Student Council Scholarship, the St. Boniface St.

Vital Rotary Club Scholarship, Alumni Entrance Scholarship and the Governor General's Medal. Ms. Bayer also graduated on College Beliveau's honour roll. Mr. Speaker, this list of accomplishments is sure to grow as Ms. Bayer will undoubtedly continue to succeed in whatever she pursues in her future. She is an outstanding young woman who has demon strated her abilities and talents in her school, her

3476 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 2001 community and her workplace. Cheryl, on behalf of all members of this House, I congratulate you and wish you the best of luck and continued success. Thank you. Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to give congratulations to a talented young woman who is a constituent in Radisson constituency. We have all had hundreds of students in our province graduate from high schools this past month in our constituencies, and I would like to offer congrat ulations to all of them in their accomplishments.

However, I would like to draw attention of the Chamber to this very special graduate who all of you have grown to know. This young woman is Cheryl Bayer, one of our pages who has been assisting us as members in this House all year. She has graduated from the French immersion program at College Beliveau, in my constituency, and was awarded a number of prizes at the graduation ceremony, including the MLA A ward, to recognize her long list of achievements. Mr.

Speaker, at her graduation she received the Governor General's Medal, the Alumni Entrance Scholarship, the Rotary Club Scholarship and the College Beliveau Student Council Scholarship. She received the award of Excellence in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and French and maintained a grade point average of more than 90 percent. Cheryl was also awarded the Member of the Legislative Assembly A ward to recognize her contribution to the life of the school while maintaining this high academic standing. Cheryl does a lot more than achieve academically.

She plays the flute in the school band, participates in the debating club and was a key member of the College Beliveau Grad Committee. Her achievements are made all the more remarkable because of the time she has dedicated to her duties here at the Legislature which take her away from her school activities and time on a regular basis. I would like to encourage all members to join me in congratulating Cheryl on her gradu ation and wish her every success in the future. Strawberry Production Mr. David Faurschou (Portage Ia Prairie): Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to offer all honourable members of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly a small taste of Portage Ia Prairie. It has been a tradition for quite a number of years now for the Member for Portage Ia Prairie to bring a sample of the delectable strawberry crop, which has made the region of Portage Ia Prairie famous worldwide. The strawberries you have in front of you are courtesy of the great constituency of Portage Ia Prairie. Over the past two decades, strawberries have become a prominent crop in Portage Ia Prairie.

There are now dozens of strawberry farms in the region; approximately 70 acres are devoted to strawberry production. Nowhere else in the country is there an abundance of strawberries as there are in Portage Ia Prairie. As such, the city has earned the title Strawberry Capital of Canada. The label is well deserved as was evidenced in the Guinness Book of World Records, where Portage Ia Prairie is registered with a giant bowl of strawberries weighing in at 1511 kilograms. In Portage Ia Prairie we are proud of our economic diversity.

These strawberries represent the area's ever-increasing commitment to crop diversification. I also invite all members to visit Portage Ia Prairie and partake of the saskatoon crop which is coming in next week and the raspberry crop in a couple of weeks time. I am sure this will spur your appetite with the strawberries you have at your place here today. I hope all members enjoy this small taste of Portage Ia Prairie, and I encourage everyone to attend the Portage Ex this weekend, July 7 through 9, and sample some of our festivities in Portage Ia Prairie. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

High School Driver Education Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): This year Manitoba's High School Driver Education Program will celebrate its 35th anniversary. In 1966, driver education started under a branch of

July 4, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3477 the Department of Public Works which later became the Department of Highways and Trans portation. This program started as a pilot project with a budget of just over $56,000. The first instructor preparation course occurred the same year, training 35 instructors. During the first year of operation there were 27 Manitoba public high schools operating the program with 1400 students enrolled in the driver education training. From this modest start the demand for this program grew quickly and significantly.

By 1967, the number of instructors and students tripled to 4500 students and I 08 instructors. In 1987, Manitoba Public Insurance assumed responsibility for the High School Driver Education Program from the division of Driver and Vehicle Licencing. Today, Manitoba Public Insurance operates and funds a province wide High School Driver Education Program. Traditionally, MPI has hosted one or two summer high school driver education classes in Winnipeg and on occasion one class in Brandon during the summer.

This year there are additional driver training opportunities that were offered to every Mani toba major community high school. This year it is anticipated that there will be nearly 400 Manitoba high school students in 13 schools taking advantage of the summer program. In addition to the summer program, MPI also operates spring and fall sessions. Last year MPI hosted 463 courses in 156 schools, training some 14 500 students at a cost of over $2 million. The goal is to increase the number of trained students to over 15 000, a significant increase from a humble beginning.

The High School Driver Education Program is also offered in Fisher River, Long Plain, Cranberry Portage, Sagkeeng, Anishinabe and The Pas. Norway House may soon be added. As further interest is shown, additional courses will occur. I am sure that all members of the Legis lature, Mr. Speaker, join me in congratulating MPI and Driver and Vehicle Licencing for 35 years of a High School Driver Education Program service to our public, and may this valued service continue. * (14:30) Mr. Speaker: Order. Members' Statements, Wednesday, is-[interjection] That is fine. The honourable Member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns).

Independence Day (U.S.A.) Mr. Harry Enns (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, thank the honourable Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard). I know he, along with the Premier (Mr. Doer), and indeed all members, would join me in this timely statement. We wish our great neighbour to the south a very happy 225th birthday celebration on this their memorable day of July 4. It is something that we Canadians and, particularly, we Mani tobans should be cognizant of the fact that we have and enjoy continuing good relations with this great nation that really is and continues to be a beacon of light for mankind throughout the world.

It was a remarkable coming together of an evolution of political thought into creating that first day of independence on the part of the country that we know of as the United States of America that has flourished with all its faults, with all its difficulties, to the greatness that it still is today. I maintain that we are particularly fortunate that we are neighbours to them. Of course, some of us remember fondly the highlight of the summer social occasion when we did enjoy the presence of a Canadian consulate here in Winnipeg.

Their doors were thrown open, and all too often it was a pleasant day, and their yards, their gardens were thrown open to what was, in my opinion, the party of the summer for municipal officials, politicians, the business community and a whole number of Manitobans who appreciate just how important the United States is to us here in Manitoba. So, on behalf of all of us in the Chamber, happy birthday, Uncle Sam. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you canvass the

3478 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 200I House to see if there is leave to not see the clock until 8 p.m. this evening. Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to not see the clock till 8 p.m. this evening? [Agreed] Mr. Mackintosh: Pursuant to the rules, I believe it is an Opposition Day today, Mr. Speaker. OPPOSITION DAY MOTION Request for the Provincial Auditor To Examine and Audit the True North Entertainment Complex Limited Partnership Mr. Jack Reimer (Southdale): I move, seconded by the Member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed),

WHEREAS Manitobans desire an open, honest and accountable government; and

WHEREAS the Premier of Manitoba did state on May I 0, 200 I, on CBC-TV news that, "The VL T money is up to $I. 5 million a year" in the proposed ar ena project; and

WHEREAS the Premier of Manitoba, to date, refuses to acknowledge he made this commitment to Manitobans; and

WHEREAS on June 27, 2001, the Premier of Manitoba did state in the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba that, "We feel that the term sheet is very, very consistent with what we have said verbal ly."

WHEREAS on page 8 of the True North Entertainment Complex Limited Partnership and the Government of Canada, the Government of Manitoba, the City of Winnipeg Term Sheet it indicates that the True North L.P. will be allocated 75 percent of the first $2 million of annual gross revenues from the VL Ts; and

WHEREAS in the event that annual gross revenues exceed $2 million the revenue allocation formula may be adjusted downward to provide 20 percent of gross revenues to the True North L.P.; and

WHEREAS according to the criteria for VL T distribution, the coin in threshold for a single VL T in an establishment in the city of Winnipeg is $432; and

WHEREAS 50 VL Ts in the city of Winnipeg must, according to the criteria for VL T distribution, take in a minimum coin threshold of $7,88 4,000 per year to avoid redis tribution; and

WHEREAS according to page 8 of the Term Sheet, the Siteholder Agreement shall be 25 years; and

WHEREAS the True North L.P. may realize $2,676,800 annually in VL T revenues; and

WHEREAS these numbers directly contradict the Premier of Manitoba's statement that, "The VL T money is up to $1. 5 million a year "; and

WHEREAS Winnipeg Liberal MP Anita Neville was reported on June 24, 200I, in The Winnipeg Sun to have expressed an interest in seeing the project 's business plan; and

WHEREAS Ms. Neville further advised that the federal government's proposed $1 0-million contribution to the building was definitely not a done deal; and

WHEREAS the Provincial Auditor has publicly stated in The Winnipeg Sun on June 27, 200 I, that, "There seems to be a general concern about the project in the community ... We could add confirmation in our report to citizens"; and

WHEREAS under

Section 15(1) of The Provincial Auditor's Act, ". . . the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the member of the Executive Council charged with the administration of The Financial Administration Act, may, at any time, direct the Provincial Auditor to make an examination and audit of the accounts of any person, ... branch, commission, board , department or agency of the government, in any way receiving, paying, or accounting for, public moneys and report thereon to him, and the Provincial Auditor shall forthwith make the examination, audit and report as directed, if in his opinion the making of the examination, audit and report does not interfere with his primary responsibilit ies"; and

July 4, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3479

WHEREAS the True North Entertainment Complex Limited Partnership is, under the Term Sheet dated May 14, 2001, to be the recipient of a minimum $13 million from the Province of Manitoba; and THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this Legislative Assembly urge the Manitoba Government to consider requesting the Pro vincial Auditor to make an examination and audit of the True North Entertainment Complex Limit Partnership including all aspects of public moneys allocated to the project; and THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Legislative Assembly urge the Manitoba Government to consider providin g all necessary financial documentation related to the project including a business plan to the Provincial Auditor as soon as possible. Motion presented. Mr.

Speaker: So, before I recognize the honourable Member for Southdale, there were a few words that were altered, so I would just like to say that it will go down on record as tabled. Mr. Reimer: I wonder whether the alteratio n was between my reading and the lettering. Just pretzelizing it. Well, that happens. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to put a few words on the record in regard to this Opposition Day motion in the fact that one of the things that we are asking for is we were wanting this Premier (Mr.

Doer) and this Government to come out with some more accountability in regard to the exact true nature of the dispensation of the VL Ts in the term sheet that the minister and the First Minister (Mr. Doer) have referred to. Because in the terms of reference for the term sheet, it is very, very clear that it points out consistently that the VL T monies that are referred to are the gross revenu es of the VL Ts that ar e being distributed. Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair When I talk about or when I understan d gross revenues, I understand it being the dollars into the machines.

The allocation that is being put forth by the True North proposition, in fact, it says I believe it is five times, where you remark about annual gross revenues, that the amount of money that can be realized is a lot more than the $1. 5 million that the Premier has continually said is the maximum that will come back to the True North endeavours. * (1 4:40) I think these are some of the things that the Auditor General should take a look at, and in essence bring forth clarification to not only this House, but to the people of Manitoba, because they are asking the questions as to what amount of money is actually involved from the public purse.

I know the Premier (Mr. Doer) has said that it is a 70-30 split and the 30 percent being from the public purse. If you look at the $13 million that has been committed by the provincial government, plus the amount of money that is being committed by the Province in regard to the amount of money for the VL T distribution, the numbers just do not jibe because the VL Ts were taken from locations that were bringing in, I guess, at a minimum $432 per machine.

If you look at the amount of dollars that they could bring in under the minimum guidelines that are set up by the Lotteries distribution agreements, you are looking at, as was pointed out, 50 machines at $432 a m achine, we are looking at $7.8 million a year. If the Premier is saying that they are going to get a minimum of 1.5 and 20 percent of the remaining over the allocation, you are looking at almost $2.67 million of money that will be going to this private corporation for their financing for their project.

I guess if you extra polate that amount of money over 25 years, you are almost up to $67 million, plus the $13 million that they have already committed to. You are looking at $79.9 million that will be going to this complex of public money. Now this is a lot more money than what has been bandied around in regard to what the Premier (Mr. Doer) is talking about, this 70-30 split. It just does not make sense. It does not fit in, and the figures do not seem to jibe. Now the Premier is saying that these are some of the things that we worked out in the final agreement and everything, but, Mr.

Speaker, these types of things are dollars and cents that the taxpayers of Manitoba should be questioning.

3480 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 2001 We are not questioning the fact that there is going to be an arena or the possible location of the arena. Whether it is in that location or in some other place, we feel that we will support the arena. However, it is the accountability of where the dollars come from and the fact that the arena is being proposed. It is the mechanics behind it that this Government is getting involved with that is causing the problems, the mechanics of not being accountable to where the monies are coming from.

It is this type of hidden agenda that we see this Premier hiding behind in the fact that they are pushing for this arena, and the Auditor is the one who should be taking a final look at it. We are asking for this Premier and this Government to put it before the Provincial Auditor, let them go through the cost analysis and come back with a report to the Legislature. That is what we are looking for. There are too many unanswered questions as to whether the monies are trul y $1. 5 million, whether they are $26 million, whether there is a total commit ment by this Government of almost $80 million over 25 years.

These ar e some of the questions, I think, that have to be asked and answered, because not only is the site taking down a building that was on the verge of being declared a heritage building; now they are looking at a building that is going to be smaller than the original building that we have on Arena Road. It is this type of indecision that we feel that the Government is not giving an accurate picture of. There has to be the ability to make an informed decision when you are spending taxpayers' dollars. It is that type of decision that I think we are asking this Premier and this Government to come by.

It is a situation that I think a lot of people are questioning, and we on this side would put forth this type of motion. There are other areas that I think need looking at in regard to the whole distribution of the funding on this, and I believe that there are some of my other colleagues who are also wanting to put something on the record. So I will let some other people put some comments on the record, too. Thank you very much. Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it gives me pleasure to make some comments today and put my comments on the record.

The debate clearly is about the True North Project as a whole. The Opposition claims to support the project, but, in fact, it struggles valiantly to put together a case of blocking True North. Through Question Periods, Mr. Deputy Speaker, through comments they have made in the hallway to the media and other sources, on the one hand they are saying, yes, yes, we are in favour of revitalization; on the other hand, they raise all kinds of red herrings with regard to this particular issue with regard to True North. The case they make is a flimsy one. I have the greatest respect for the member for Fort Whyte (Mr.

Loewen), but he has argued that one of the investments in the project, the Crocus Fund, is illegal. He was refuted directly on this point by the principal of Crocus, and, regrettably, I have not heard any apologies or anything with regard to Crocus. It may not be necessary to do so. That is just one I would like to point out. Members opposite then tried to argue that the level of VL T revenues involved in the project was misrepresented.

In fact, the term sheet of the True North deal released in the House long before the matter was even raised by the Opposition states the VL T contribution accurately and also in detail. Most recently, members opposite have sought a reference to the Provincial Auditor, but here they are pushing against an open door. As the Auditor himself has stated, the terms of the deal are available, and he can review them at any time if he sees a problem. But at this point, he does not see any problems. Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this particular proj ect holds a lot for the future of Winnipeg and the downtown of the city.

Over and over, speakers on this side of the House have stated that Winnipeg needs something. It needs Red River community college downtown. It also needs the Ashdown Building, the former Ashdown Building, and Big 4 which is also being renovated, certainly as we speak.

July 4, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 348 1 Winnipeg, we see as having a glowing future, but we have to do something about it. We have to make movements in that direction. We cannot just hope that someone else will do it. We just cannot stand by and wonder who is going to do it or when is it going to happen. The public of Manitoba and citizens of Winnipeg want us, as a government, to certainly not only have pride in our city but to do something about it, to revitalize the downtown, and I know other speakers on this side of the House are certainly going to speak to that.

If the Opposition truly supports the True North Project, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let them join the government members in describing the new entertainment complex as one of a series of positive steps to revitalize Winnipeg's downtown. You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know the Opposition does not like True North. Why do they not come out and stand up and say that? If they do not want it, tell the people of Winnipeg, tell the people in Fort Whyte, tell people in Charleswood, tell people all over the city that they do not want True North. They do not want to revitalize the downtown; they do not care about Winnipeg.

Forget True North, and somebody else will do it. Somebody else will do it in 10 years or 20 years time. They would not do it. They could not do it. We are doing it, and we have got to believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We as a government said we do not have all the answers, and we do not. We do not profess to, but we are willing to try, and certainly to our best judgment, and time will prove us right that this was a good move for Winnipeg, a good move for Portage A venue and a good move for Manitoba.

It certainly is passing strange that these flimsy arguments that the Opposition uses, that these grab bag motions have been put forward by a caucus that claims to support True North. You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a project that we feel very close to because we know it will be successful and we know that, when you have the private sector willing to step up and be counted and the people of Manitoba note that with regard to cost overruns and have the community access, all of those important things that Manitobans feel dearly about, that they are going to be certainly included.

This is something that we as a government know that a lot of movement that we have made in the last year and a half have been very, very, progressive and forward thinking and we know that people of Manitoba see that as well and the people that we speak to. * (14:50) I think it is more important, when I go out to my constituency and I have an opportunity to speak to people at graduations and the young people that come up to me and comment to me about how forward-thinking, how visionary we are as a government, we are willing to move ahead, and there is truly a future for young people in Manitoba, they see that in our Government.

They see what we are doing and what we are trying to do. I know there are a lot of members on this side as well as members opposite that wish to comment on True North and the value of True North. I know, just in conclusion, governm ent members have argued that True North Project is worthy of the support of Manitobans. It is a modem showpiece facility open to all citizens. It is one element among several in the strategy of downtown revital ization. It is a symbol of commitment by the private sector of governments. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I would like to move an amendment, seconded by the Minister responsible for Advanced Education (Ms. McGifford), THAT the proposed motion be amended as fo llows: (

a) by deleting the third

WHEREAS clause; and (

b) by deleting everything aft er the sixth

WHEREAS clause and substituting the fo llowing:

WHEREAS all the accurate details of the True North Entertainment Complex proposal are contained in the Term Sheet provided to this Legislature; THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly support the Manitoba Government's decision to provide all financial

3482 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 2001 documentation, including the Term Sheet, to the Provincial Auditor should he decide to make an examination and audit of the True North Entertainment Complex; and THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba supports the True North Entertainment Complex proposal as set out in the Term Sheet. Motion presented. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The amendment is in order. Mr. Reimer: Since you have ruled the amendment in order, would it be appropriate for this side of the House to get a copy of that amendment? Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Clerk will provide a copy to the Opposition. Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): I am going to put a few words on the record in regard to the arena deal.

It is just typical of this Government in the way they handle and do things with everything in the public domain in Manitoba. Whenever they do not like a law that is in front of them that is stopping them from doing it, they change it. Whenever they do not like the law and they cannot change it, they break it. Whenever they make a public statement that holds them accountable for what they say, they deny it. Again an amendment to this resolution is just so typical of what they have done. They have a hidden agenda They have refused to supply all the information in regard to the deal for the public.

That is what people want. People are not opposed. I think everybody would agree that people are not opposed to looking at ideas of creating a downtown entertainment complex. What they are opposed to and what they are disappointed in with this Government is the deceitful, backdoor, underhanded, undermining way that they have brought it forward to the people of Manitoba. That is what they resent. They resent a Premier that says publicly on television that VL T revenue will be capped at $1. 5 million and then denies he says it, will not even stand up and admit he said it.

The Premier likes to lecture people on principles and on honesty and integrity, and yet he fails to have any of those so-called qualities that he speaks of. I am going to tell you a little story about rural Manitoba, where we have built many arenas and many curling facilities and many entertainment complexes.

We did not have to go through the hiding and the deceiving and the deception that this Government has gone through to deceive the people of Manitoba The story I am going to tell you is the story of two communities, one community where the council decided to move ahead without inform ing the public and telling them the details of the deal and holding back information and basically tearing that community apart because they felt that they were being deceived by their elected officials. The project went ahead, the debt mounted and added and added and added.

Eventually the council had to come public with their decisions that they made and that they were hiding from the public and admit that they had made mistakes and admit that they were not going to be able to recover the incomes and the revenues that they had projected. They had to come back to the community with their hat in hand to get it understood. It divided the commu nity, it split the community, not only in half, but into several fragmented groups. That is what this Government is going to do with this project. The second project, the council met with the R.M.s. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, all the surrounding organizations presented a package to them, told them what their costs were going to be, told them what the municipal, what the town, what the businesses' costs were going to be, and the community bought into it. They paid that facility off in a matter of months, because the people understood, they agreed with the principle, and they moved forward and worked with the council, and, unlike this Government, did not deceive people, did not lie to people, did not tell them to not worry. The Minister of Culture (Mr. Lemieux) brings forward a resolution.

Typical of all these things this Government does is say, do not worry, trust us, it is not that much, do not worry. You do not need to know the details. If you ask

July 4, 2001 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3483 for any details, God forbid you would be against the project. Well, the people of Manitoba are not against this project. I would suggest what they are against is an arrogant government that is hiding information from them and refusing to release the details of the deal. That will come back to bite you. I hope it does and I hope it will soon. The matter of the fact is that you have deceived the communities, you have misled the public, and then you denied that you have done it.

I think that that unfortunately is going to be the brand that is going to be on this Government for years to come and into the future. They do things through the backdoor, change the laws, break the laws, lie to people, deceive the public, basically whatever works. And you know what? Do not worry. If we do not like it we will deny we did it and we will deny we said it. * (15: 00) I would like to quote back to the Premier, and I am sure he will get a chance to stand up and deny it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or, no, maybe he will not deny it. He just will not say that he did not say it.

I guess that is the moral high ground that this Premier takes on issues when he is afraid to stand up and face accountability and face the public in Manitoba. He stated in 1999, talking about an arena project in Manitoba, he said open it up. Let us even have a ref erendum or a vote on what the public would see. Today he cowers in his office, hiding information, deceiving people, lying to Manitobans, making it so that they believe only what he wants them to believe and what he wants them to hear, and then when they hear it, denies that he says it. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, an example of this is a newspaper editorial, Sunday, June 24, where the

article reads: We saw the first rotten apple fall from the tree last week when we discovered the provincial government lied to us when they told us the True North group building the arena would get a maximum of $1. 5 million in VL T revenue per year. Now, the Premier goes up and says, well, I was discussing this issue and that issue and, boy, there was a million things in front of me, but I did have the wherewithal and the know-withal to interrupt the reporter and say, oh, no, but let me make that perfectly clear, we were capping that at $1. 5 million a year.

He actu ally interrupted the person doing the interview to drive that point home. Then he stands, no, pardon me, he sits in this Legislature and denies, no, not denies, excuse me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, refuses to admit that he said it. Talk about cowardly acts. We have another example where the same

article goes on to say: What is even more galling about this lie is that Premier Gary Doer's people, including Deputy Premier Jean Friesen, tried to tell us Thursday that neither Doer nor anyone else in the Government ever said that. Well, we know what the truth is, Mr. Deputy . Speaker, and we know what the lie is. We know where the truth comes from and we know where the lies come from. It is interesting that this amendment, I mean, smart politics, I guess, if that is what you want to call it, but slick politics is what I call it and what people in Manitoba call it.

This is a government in hiding and a govern ment that is afraid to face the public with the issues. They have backdoored so many things in their 18 months in office that they have just become accustomed to doing that. They are actually even starting to get arrogant about it We all know what happens when governments get arrogant. Mr. Deputy Speaker, all people want to know in Manitoba and all we want to know on this side of the House is the facts. Present the facts to the people.

Let the people decide whether it is a good deal or a bad deal for Manitobans, and then if the Government chooses, they still have the ability to move forward with the project. They do not have to listen to the people of Manitoba. If they present the facts to the people of Manitoba and the people decide they do not want it, this Government can still move ahead with this great project of theirs. If they are so confident and so comfortable, why are they hiding the facts from the people? Everybody in Manitoba is interested in knowing the facts and wanting to know the facts.

They do not want to be misled by the Premier

3484 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 2001 (Mr. Doer) who says one thing and then denies oh, again, I will have to say he did not deny that he said it, he just would not admit that he said it. I guess there is a difference, but in reality when the people are judging the Premier, they will judge his words on what he said and what is actually seen and what he does. Obviously, the two are not the same. That is how we are all judged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the resolution does, it should be taken to the Auditor.

Let him come back to the public with the public amount of commitment and let the people decide. I ask the Premier, what are you afraid of? Don. Gary Doer (Premier): There are lots of matters that I would like to send to the Auditor. but we believe in his office. I mentioned Isobord and why Manitoba was fifth down on the list of secured creditors, losing $25 million. I could go on and on and on about projects that Deloitte and Touche had to write off, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I guess collective amnesia is better than col lective responsibility for the members opposite. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, speaking to the amended resolution, we have always maintained and we continue to maintain that all the facts in the agreement that ultimately will be in any final signed contract are in the term sheet, the 29 or 30 conditions. We said at the time the story broke, when the story broke and after the story broke, that every detail would be in the term sheet, and we have tabled that in the House. I suggest to members opposite that the term sheet has been made available to them. It is fully factual.

It deals with the capital commitments that we are making out of the strategic infra structure program and the $3 million beyond that. It deals with many other items that are dealing with the operating. I said it before and I will say it again. We used the Assiniboia Downs racetrack, the Jockey Club agreement, as part of the model we used for the operating shortfalls, and most of my interview dealt with that, the 25 minutes notwithstanding the time that was on the tape. I always maintained and continue to maintain that the estimate for the VL T revenues is about $15 0 a day based on 310 days opening.

That would produce the revenues and the formula to produce an estimate of close to $1. 5 million. Mr. Speaker in the Chair I note, Mr. Speaker, when you are dealing with numbers, for example, the cost to the Government is quite a bit less than the value of the VL Ts, but I tried to give the public a set of numbers. The members opposite when they announced 150 VL Ts, they did not use the figure $5 million or $6 million for the Jockey Club. That was their right to do so. I used 50, and I estimated that, based on Lotteries Corporation numbers, to be $1. 5 million. I think that is fully disclosing the 50 VL Ts.

I went on further in the same interview to also inform reporters about the tax treatment because it was special on the property tax side for a limited portion of the agreement, and I thought that that was not being leaked in the media or released by the private investors or released at City Hall. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, this amended resolution deals with the big picture. This Legislature should be dealing with the big picture. First of all, the Auditor is entitled to all financial documents. We are not just providing documents to the Auditor on an ongoing basis.

We are strengthening the Auditor's act in this session ofthe Legislature. Members opposite did not give the Auditor accurate numbers that he could finally verify for their last two fiscal years in government. We are not only giving accurate numbers in Government totally, and in this specifically, but we are also strengthening the Auditor's act in this session of the Legislature.

Secondly, there are so many WHEREASes that are inaccurate that I would suggest, in terms of legal considerations, when there is a dispute between the numbers of coin-in as opposed to profit-out from the member from Niakwa, that members of this Legislature use the term sheet which is a legal document and has legal facts and figures in it as opposed to political rhetoric. Thirdly, on the big picture, it is time now to fish or cut bait. It is time for members opposite who are trying to play it a bit both ways to vote

July 4, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3485 for the new entertainment complex or vote against it. Have the courage of your convictions. You wanted to put a resolution on the floor, which quite frankly surprised me. With the crisis in agriculture, it surprised me that the gold dust twins would be putting a resolution on the floor to deal with the new entertainment centre. It is on the floor now, folks. Let us vote for the new entertainment centre. Let us vote for progress in downtown Winnipeg, and let us vote for progress for the province of Manitoba. Let us vote for the new entertainment complex.

Let us join together in a united voice for our future, Mr. Speaker. Now we are dealing with the big picture, and we can see which one of these people wants to nitpick this deal, which ones are for it and which ones are against it. Let us vote for it. Thank you very much. * (15:10 ) Mr.

John Loewen (Fort Whyte): It is an interesting experience to sit on this side of the House and listen to all the bumpf and bluster that comes from the Premier and his merry band of ministers that he leads around with a string through their nose from one project to another, but typical of this Government, they deal by misrepresenting the facts, by taking the details and twisting and turning in the wind with them until it is hard to separate the reality from their nightmare that they want to impose on the people of Manitoba.

You do not have to look any further than this amendment where, in one clause, the Opposition, led by the Premier, is saying that all the accurate details of the True North Enter tainment Complex proposal are contained in the term sheet while, in the very, very next clause with this amendment, they are asking for the Auditor to be given all financial documentation, including the term sheet. So what is it? Typically, they want it this way, and they want it that way, and they never know where they are going to land.

The real issue here is the same issue that has been before this House time and time and time with this Government, and that is about honesty when dealing the people of Manitoba, and it is about process.

In this case, the process has been usurped by the little triumvirate on the opposite side of the House, led by the Premier and Eugene Kostyra, his mandarin from days gone by, who have sat down with the mayor and concocted this little scheme to build an edifice to themselves and, at the same time, have avoided any type of transparency with the public, have avoided any input from the public and are just trying to ram this project through without due process and without respect for the laws or for the people of Manitoba, and that is a travesty.

This is not a discussion about whether or not we should have a new entertainment complex. We have said many times on this side of the House we believe that the citizens of Manitoba deserve a new entertainment complex. The one we have has served us well. Well, it served us well for a lot of years; maybe the last 1 0 or 15 we could argue that our arena has not served us well, but it has served the community, and it was built in a time when there was vision. That building has served us well, but its usefulness is quickly running out.

The question is: Can we have a revitalized downtown with a new arena complex and with an adaptive, restorative, well-thought-out re-use of a historical landmark that has been with this community for centuries? That is the question that we need to ask ourselves. That is the question that we need to put to the people of this province and the people of this city. If we do that and we take the appropriate time to go through a process, a public consultation, we as a commu nity will come up with the right answers.

We as a community will come up with the right solutions to solve the problems that are plaguing downtown Winnipeg. We will not solve these problems by building an arena. We will not solve these problems by tearing down a building that has both a historic and heritage value to this community. The saddest part of this whole argument is if we just took our time we could have them both and we could really do something wonderful for this community. But, oh, no, we are in a big rush. This is the same Premier (Mr.

Doer) and the same mayor who stood in the way of trying to build a new entertainment complex where the baseball park now rests and of trying to save a National Hockey League team in this province,

3486 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 200 1 the same two people who fought it tooth and nail all the way and, as a matter of fact, the same Premier who went down to defeat in the '95 election, and one of the primary reasons his party and he went down to defeat was his stance on not supporting the saving of the NHL franchise and the building of a new enter tainment complex. So now a few years later, what do we have? We have a Premier of the province who has to ram this project through without any public consultation. As a matter of fact, worse than that, he is trying to prevent any public consultation.

This I find to be incredible. How is he doing it? Well, he is supporting it through public infrastructure, through public funds into capital, and let the record stand true because the business plan, if anybody ever got a chance to look at it, would show clearly that there is $3 8.5 million in cash going into the up-front construction cost of this building, of public money, $38.5 million from the three levels of government. There is less than $25 million. We do not know exactly how much because nobody can see the business plan. The Premier signed a term sheet that keeps all this information confidential.

So he knows it and Eugene Kostyra knows it and the mayor knows it and maybe a few members in his Cabinet know it, but they are not telling because they know if they did tell, this whole thing would crumble under its own weight. That is what this Premier is afraid of. That is what this Government is afraid of. So we have $38.5 million from the three levels of government versus less than $25 million from the private sector.

We have $6 1. 5 million in debt, all of which is going to be supported through kickbacks from the public sector, through VL T revenue that will be over $2 million, from rebates and amusement tax and property tax from the City of Winnipeg that will amount to over $2 million. So there is no risk. He is right. There is no risk to anybody in this; as a matter of fact, exactly the opposite. He has taken all the risk off the private sector and given them cash to compensate for it. Why does he not just show us the business plan and let the Auditor tell the truth about that part of it?

This is the same Premier who in 19 95 said and I quote: And I would encourage all of us that care about hockey to put all the options on the table. Open it up. Let us even have a referendum or vote on what the public would see. Now, that was his position in 19 96. Oh, my, how the tables have turned. How the tables have turned. Now he will not even hear of a referendum. Oh, it costs too much money, he tells us. It costs too much money. [interjection] Well, the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Ashton) asks what I would say. Well, I will tell him what I would say.

I would say what I said then, that I and some volunteers stood together arm in arm and tried to save our NHL franchise and build a new entertainment complex. We did it in a very public way under very demanding public scrutiny. We produced a business plan. It is in the library and it was filed with the Government.

We went through a very open process, and I would encourage this Government to do the same, because what benefit, what benefit are we going to bring to this community by ripping down a structure that has historical value to this community on Portage A venue and placing over top of that site a building that is too big to be managed on that site, a building that has to be squeezed in? So it will not be a useful building. It will not have an extended life. It will not be something that this city can be proud of. The Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism-that is what we call him today.

We used to call him the Minister of Lotteries as well, and maybe tomorrow we will not be able to call him the Minister responsible for Heritage because after the resignation of his chair of his Heritage committee, who resigned for the exact reasons we are talking about today, which is the interference by the Government in the process, well respected in our community, forced into a corner where he had to resign in order to make his point because this minister and this Premier (Mr. Doer) were going to ram this project through. *( 1 5:20) Mr. Speaker, we looked very, very closely in 19 96 at the site.

We left the Convention Centre site because it was too small for a 16 000-seat arena. Well, look at the numbers, because the

July 4, 200 1 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3487 Eaton's site is smaller than the Convention Centre site by probably 25 percent, and yet, this Premier is going to jam a building-[ interjection] Yes, it will hold hockey. We will be able to be well known throughout Canada as having a rinky-dink building, squeezed into a site that was too small in our downtown, that has the risk of destroying downtown Winnipeg for the next 40 years. I remind the Premier, it was under his watch that the North Portage shopping centre was developed, so all of a sudden today he has come out with a big concern about The Bay.

Well, I would remind him it was under his watch that downtown was virtually destroyed by the con struction of the North Portage. Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member's time has expired. Hon. Jean Friesen (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this bill. It is interesting. Sorry, not a bill, it is on an amendment to the motion introduced by the Opposition. I do notice that the previous speaker to me had great difficulty in addressing the amendment, because the amendment, of course, calls for support for the True North Project.

Although previous speakers, from the other side of the House, have said that-indeed, I think the Member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) said that all Manitobans supported True North. I think the first speaker on this, the introducer of the motion, said that we should understand very clearly that the Opposition supports True North. I was surprised that the Member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Loewen) was not able to address that in his speech, because this amendment offers the Opposition the ability to clear up the misunderstandings that many Manitobans have about whether in fact they do support True North or not.

It is a very clear indication, and I anticipate that they will be voting for the amendment. So I was disappointed perhaps to not hear from the Member for Fort Whyte the reasons for which he might be supporting True North. In fact, what I heard was great opposition to the building, great opposition to the location, great opposition to the nature of public investment, great opposition to the nature of the private investment. Mr.

Speaker, it perhaps does not surprise us, those of us who have listened to the questions from the members of the Opposition over the previous number of weeks, but certainly it is a surprise given that they have gone to some lengths in this debate to indicate their support for True North. So I expect that, by rising to their feet on this amendment, they will be able to put the difficulties and the confusion that some people are feeling to rest. Mr. Speaker, the original motion that they brought perhaps also muddies the waters con siderably.

It does put a number of factual difficulties in the way of members of the House. I have said before that the Member for Fort Whyte has particular difficulties in ensuring the information he brings to this House is correct. All members have a responsibility to bring correct information to the House.

It is important in maintaining one's credi bility and it becomes important at times like this so that, for example, when the Member for Fort Whyte talks about Crocus funds and asks questions based upon what he believes to be the illegality of some elements of Crocus funds, then I think he has an obligation to correct the record when he does it, correct the record when he makes those inaccurate accusations, and possibly even others would anticipate that they were apologies, as well. The Member for Fort Whyte has also talked about the relationship between public- and private-sector numbers.

Now I noticed today he did put the correct numbers on the record, but in previous times he has had incorrect numbers and has not been at any pains to correct them or indeed to apologize for that information. It leads one to think, you know, that one of the new

definitions of oxymoron is Tory research, because they never seem to care, it seems to me, about accuracy or about correction or about getting the facts straight. This original motion certainly does that. Mr. Speaker, there is an element of bitterness, it seems to me, in the initiation of this debate. I think, as I listen to the Member for Fort Whyte talk about the election of '95 when he

3488 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 200 1 talked about the MEC deal, when he talked personally about the mayor and the Premier as standing in the way of the proposals that he had for the Winnipeg Jets and that the previous government had, there was not just an element of bitterness but a very strong, I think, very strong element of personal animosity. This is not just about a debate about facts that the Tory Party particularly wants to trump up, but it seems to be both bitter and personal. It seems to me that that is not called for in this particular debate.

Perhaps they should have dealt with some of the more general issues, particularly if this is to be a credible debate. The terms of this agreement, the terms are available and have been available for over a month. It seemed to me that, when the members of the Opposition raised issues about this, it had been at least a month since the term sheet had been tabled at City Council and tabled in this House.

Those terms have been public, the formulas and the caps on the formulas that the members have been particularly concerned about and misunderstood, perhaps, if I am to put the kindest representation on it, misunderstood in the beginning. I really have not heard any of their speeches deal with that term sheet. I have not actually heard them talk about the elements of that term sheet, the public document tabled publicly by this Government, tabled publicly by the mayor at City Council.

One would think that, if they were talking quite seriously about True North, they would want to examine that, they would want to look at the details, they would want to look at the elements of that that pertain to their arguments. I think the obvious difficulty is they cannot. It is public. It has not been done in secrecy in the way that elements of the MEC deal were. It does talk about specific numbers on paper, specific formulas on paper. Those are commit ments that have been made publicly by all the levels of government and the private investors, quite different, in fact, Mr.

Speaker, from the kinds of varying numbers, the wavering numbers that we had from the previous government and the MEC proponents, $90 million one day, $10 million before an election, $37 million on another day, quite varying numbers and almost seem to have been drawn out of thin air at various times to suit particular timing and political issues. So I think we are clear that this has been publicly and clearly announced, that the facts are there for everyone to examine, including the Auditor, as I suggested in this House in response to questions more recently.

I want, however, to also speak about the kinds of things that the Opposition has not spoken about. They are not talking about the revitalization of downtown Winnipeg. Nobody so far has raised that issue, and that does not surprise me because the previous government walked away from downtown Winnipeg. It walked away. It walked away from inner-city neighbourhoods. We came and looked at downtown Winnipeg. We saw the kinds of boarded-up store windows along there. We looked at the representation that that had, not just for Winnipeggers but for all Manitobans.

People who come to Winnipeg and to Manitoba, in part judge, and it is not perhaps necessarily fair, by the economic vitality of the province, in part, by downtown Winnipeg. So the kind of momentum, the kind of activity, the kind of hope that we are now seeing expressed about the revitalization of downtown Winnipeg is in part due to the True North Project. It is not by any means, and I would never ague for a single case, but there are other elements. There is context. It is the whole package.

The commitment of this Government, with public investment, to the revitalization of downtown Winnipeg that I think is leading to hope in a new generation of Manitobans. I say Manitobans, not just Winnipeg, because I believe this is important to all Manitobans. Let us look, for example, at the bringing down of several thousand students to Red River College in the Exchange District, the revitali zation of probably one of the most significant of historic buildings in the Exchange District. That is a very important move and one that, I think, is welcome by all Manitobans.

It will and has already generated other interests. Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair There is a momentum in the Exchange District because of that, whether it is in residen tial construction, whether it is in commercial

July 4, 200 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3489 activity, whether it is in the clustering of information technology industries, or indeed whether it is in the renovation of other historic buildings, the Ashdown warehouse, or the Big 4 consortium, for example, that the Government is a partner with in other groups. So I think the revitalization of downtown Winnipeg, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, in part through historic buildings, in part through commerce, in part through government leadership and the investment to the public sector, is something from which we have heard not a single word from the other side of this House. There are very good reasons why they should be embarrassed about downtown Winnipeg. * (15: 30) In this context as well, in the reconstruction of the neighbourhoods of downtown Winnipeg, it is not just commercial development, it is not just the chang es, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, or our support for Centre Venture, or our support for the Exchange District, our leadership in the develop ment of downtown Winnipeg. It is also the concern for the housing that surrounds that and for the neighbourhoods and communities that surrounds that. Through the Winnipeg Housing and Homelessness Initiative, through Neighbour hoods Alive !, we have begun to return hope to those communities. I think you will find that, in many areas of Winnipeg, the concern for revitalization, the concern for the hope of a new generation of Winnipeg is in part reflected in their support for True North. Mrs.

Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): I listened with interest to the Deputy Premier as she spoke very eloquently about her vision for revitalization of downtown and has placed all of her hope and all of her support behind one project, and that being the True North Project. Well, we heard from some very credible members of our community this morning, as a caucus, and it is really unfortunate that many of the ministers on the government side of the House would not meet with them. They sent their backbenchers.

They used their back benchers to sit and give a deaf ear to members of the community that had some very valid arguments and some very valid points to make about the revitalization of our downtown. They talked about the Eaton's building. The kinds of antics that we are hearing from the government side of the House are a slap in the face to individuals that have spent a lot of time and energy and effort researching and looking at issues surrounding what could happen downtown to make our downtown even better than what the True North Project is proposing.

They talked about being able to utilize the Eaton's building, and I am rather disheartened to hear the Deputy Premier talk about all of the other heritage buildings that are of such value in our city of Winnipeg and not mention a word about the Eaton's building and what significance it has. When the Heritage Council recommended to this Government that the Eaton's building was worthy of saving and should be designated, this Government turned their backs on the Heritage Council that they appointed, Bill Neville and some very credible individuals. They closed their ears and they said, thanks, but no thanks, Mr.

Deputy Speaker. We are hidebound and determined to move ahead and tear down the Eaton's building despite what you have to say. I say shame on the Government for taking that kind of approach. There was a presentation that was made this morning that had an individual that has chosen to live downtown in Winnipeg. I think that there are many that have made that choice and that decision. But were they asked? Were they consulted by this Government?

Were the plans for the redevel opment of the Eaton's building and the True North Project shared with those that have chosen to make downtown Winnipeg their community, asked whether this was a good plan or were there other options or alternatives that might enhance the community and draw other people to our downtown area like they were drawn to down town? They were not given that opportunity. As a matter of fact, the Minister for Family Services (Mr. Sale), who represents the area, would not give attention to his own constituents and give them the benefit of having provided some input into the project.

They have chosen a path to go down which I think is not well thought out. They are choosing

3490 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 200 1 a project that will build a new arena in an area, a new arena which will be smaller than the arena that presently exists in our city of Winnipeg. What thought has gone into this project? Have they looked at the traffic and the way the traffic will have to move downtown? Have they looked at pedestrian accessibility? I think that there has been research that has been done that tells us that there are many unanswered questions around this, not only on the financial side, because we have not seen a business plan.

We do not know how much public money is going into the facility. I mean, here you have a government that is saying to us: Trust us. We are telling you without a business plan how many millions of dollars we are putting into this. Just like they said: Trust us, elect us, and we will fix the health care system within six months after we are elected. Just elect us and we will do it. Mr. Deputy Speaker, how can Manitobans trust a party and a government that made those kinds of reckless promises during an election campaign, misled and used Manitobans and gave Manitobans false hope and a false sense of security?

How can they possibly trust this Government to give us the true facts on how much public money is going into this project and what other options were looked at? This is a government that says: Trust us, Manitobans, trust us. We as Government know better. We know what is best for you. The masses do not have any understanding or any knowledge. We know what is best for you. We will tell you. We will dictate to you what is in your best interest. Better still, we will use your tax dollars to deliver on those projects that we are talking about.

This is not a government that asks Manitobans, gives Manitobans choices or options. It is really telling when members of our community put in the time and the effort and the energy to research the background on the Eaton's building, to research other options and alter natives that might be more viable in our community and want just a listening ear, would like the Government to listen and to give them some reasons or help them understand why their suggestions or their options would not be viable.

Why would Manitobans and Winnipeggers not have an option to choose between different areas in our downtown that could be revitalized? Why could we not have both a new arena and a revitalized Eaton's building, as recommended by the Heritage Council, to be designated? Why could we not have both? Mr. Deputy Speaker, that would be a win-win for downtown and for the citizens of Manitoba.

But instead this Government has chosen one project and one plan without consulting the people that live down town, asking them what they might want, ignoring the Heritage Council, their own Heritage Council that recommended that the Eaton's building be designated, and without telling Manitobans what the real cost to the taxpayer is going to be. I think this has been a flawed process. Time will tell us exactly the kind of top-down, heavy handed attitude that this Government has taken in many areas. Manitobans will not be blind to the approach that Today's NDP has taken. Manitobans will be the losers.

Thank you. * (15: 40) Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Seine River): Mr. Deputy Speaker, first let me set the record straight. Our side of the House believes that there is need for a new arena in the downtown area that is driven by the private sector. I do not think anyone on this side of the House has ever said anything differently. Once again members on the other side of the House continue to perpetrate misinformation. In fact they are becoming masters at that. I remember when the members opposite were in the Opposition benches, in particular the Minister of Inter governmental Affairs (Ms. Friesen) and the Premier (Mr.

Doer), continually day in and day out espousing the need for community input, public meetings, public hearings on every single issue involving larger development in any area of the city. In fact the current Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who sat on The Forks board, continually, continually promoted public hearings in terms of any development in The Forks area, and justifiably so. That is all we are asking for. We are asking to have public input both on the site location and on the details regarding the project.

My constit uents for the most part support a new arena, but what they want to know is how much is it going

July 4, 200 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 349 1 to cost them. That is what we have been asking. We cannot get those answers. Taxpayers want to know exactly how much money, public money, taxpayers' dollars are going to go into this project, and, contrary to what the members on the other side continue to purport, the details and the business plan have never been brought forward. The details that are identified in the amendment, the member, my colleague from Fort Whyte (Mr. Loewen), alluded to it. This amendment is even confusing. In the first

WHEREAS clause, they say that all accurate details of the True North entertainment complex proposal are contained in the term sheet that has been provided. Then they go on in THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED and say that we as Opposition should support the Govern ment's decision to provide all financial documentation including the term sheet. So therefore, where is the rest of the information if it is not all contained in the term sheet as you said in this clause that you are asking to have inserted where we had clause 3? I mean, this is ridiculous.

Secondly, I was very disappointed to learn today that one of Winnipeg's well-known, well respected, extremely well -educated and well versed on the history of Winnipeg and the historic facets of Manitoba's history resigned from his position as chair of the Manitoba Heritage Council. [interjection] Yes, Bill Neville resigned because he was so disappointed with this Government's handling of the recommendations that went forth to the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism (Mr.

Lemieux), that this Government did not listen to the recommendations of a community-based group who are well versed and well renowned on the historic value of the downtown Eaton's location. As my colleague from River East indicated earlier, we did have a very, very interesting presentation this morning. There are alternate sites, and there will be problems with the current location identified. The new proposal for this arena does not even answer the needs of the community. The size of the proposed complex is questionable. Will it accommodate any more people than are accommodated currently for rock band concerts?

No. Will it address congestion downtown and parking problems? No. Will it attract people downtown 24 hours a day to help revitalize the downtown area? No. There are things that can be done with the current Eaton's building, and all that Manitobans are asking for is to look at all the options, consider all the possibilities, and there are many other locations that would accommodate this new arena. If we are going to do it, let us do it right. Many people are complaining about both the size of the proposed complex and the site location.

There are very serious concerns regarding parking and the flow of traffic after a major event in that complex. We are not against it. I just heard the minister of post-secondary education once again put misinformation on the record. We said we support a downtown arena. Get it right. We support a downtown arena and supported by the private sector. Point of Order Mrs. Dacquay: Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if you would mind calling the members on the opposite side of the House to order so that other members can hear my comments? Mr.

Deputy Speaker: I could hear interactions on both sides of the House. May I warn all the members of the House that the honourable Member for Seine River has the floor. *** Mrs. Dacquay: I thank the honourable Deputy Speaker. I have difficulty understanding why the Government is so opposed to having public input. It raises all sorts of questions with Manitobans. There is a need to ensure that the project is done properly and done so that Manitobans will be able to enjoy all of its amenities and that there will not be any impediments to the project.

This morning, as I indicated earlier, we had a very interesting presentation that indicated there are other alternate sites available and that there are other ideal projects that could be pursued in the redevelopment of a very historic Manitoba building. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

3492 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 200 1 Mr. Harold Gilleshammer (Minnedosa): I rise today to make my contribution to this discussion. I want to talk about heritage and pr?c.ess. Not long after the current Heritage Mtmster was fired from his previous portfolio, I had the opportunity to talk to him and tell him what a wonderful portfolio he had in culture and heritage, that this was a wonderful portfolio where he had the opportunity to work with the community on heritage and cultural issues. I think that he took that quite seriously.

I had hoped he would take it seriously, because I can tell you_ that while the heritage community and the hentage proponents in this province are small in number, they are amongst the most dedicated of Manitobans in trying to preserve our heritage. * (1 5: 50) I think the Minister of Culture (Mr. Lemieux) and the Government have made a ma jor mistake in not giving the committee on heritage an opportunity to present their views and to be heard and to enter into discussions with the Governm ent on a major project like this. Instead, the Government has steam-rollered over them.

Last week, I had the opportunity to ask some questions. The Minister responsible for Heritage claimed he knew nothing about a report. He knew nothing of the details. He mentioned that in Hansard on June 21. He said: I will receive it. I will be pleased to read that and see the report and see what they have to recommend. He had already been told by Donna Dul, the Heritage person within his department, what the recommendations were. Then, on June 28, he said: We heard about it shortly after the council's meeting.

So on the one day, on the 21s t and on the 25th, he denied hearing of it, denied any knowledge of that report and the contents. Then, last week on June 28, he said: We heard about it shortly after the council's meeting. I mean, this led my colleague from St. Norbert to rise and say he had deliberately misled this House. My honourable colleague withdrew those comments not because they were false but because they were unparliamentary. He has admitted in two excerpts in Hansard that he knew nothing about it, and then on the 28th he said: We heard about it shortly after the council's meeting.

Donna Dul phoned the minister's office. The minister claims. no. I did not talk to her, but he did have that information, and I think that this treatment of one of his staff, this treatment of people interested in heritage, is very, very unfortunate. Then today we find that the chairman of the Manitoba Heritage Council, Bill Neville, has resigned, saying he felt constrained in his duties. Now, members opposite understand the English language very well. He is saying that this Government was not prepared to enter discus sions, to take this report seriously, to look at the heritage significance of this building.

This is the ultimate that a chair of a government committee can do. The chair of the Manitoba Heritage Council says: I have resigned because I felt con strained in my duties. This means that the Government has made that decision to build an arena. They have fast tracked it. They have not had the discussions with the community, particularly with the heritage community. This has led the chair of the Manitoba Heritage Council to resign.

This is an extremely well-respected historian in our community, someone who served many govern ments on the Heritage Council, someone who has the respect of virtually all Manitobans and certainly of the heritage community. Here we have a government who says: No, we do not have the report. Then they say: We received the report and we made the decision the same day. Manitobans have reason to distrust this Government. Manitobans have reasons to say this Government does not care about the people they have appointed to boards and commissions in this province. He has resigned because he felt constrained.

He also goes on to say he is disappointed. I hope that the Premier and the Minister of Culture (Mr. Lemieux) and other Cabinet ministers take the time to look at the statements made during this debate, because this is a reflection on the Government and their view on heritage in this province. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a wonderful, wonderful province with a tremendous, rich

July 4, 200 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3493 history. The Heritage Council is an extension of Government which looks at the heritage buildings, looks at the historic sites, assists the Government greatly in reviewing the heritage of Manitoba. The Government could easily have received the report, could have examined the report, could have discussed the report and still done what they wanted to do. Yet they steam-roller over this Heritage Council. They talk about not receiving it. Then he finally admits he did receive it; he made the decision the same day to reject the report.

Well, Manitobans are a lot smarter than that. They understand exactly what this Government is doing and they understand why Mr. Bill Neville has had to resign, because he feels that he is constrained by this Government. This is a person who would bring information from the heritage community to this Government, give this minister and this Cabinet an opportunity to look at heritage buildings and heritage sites. Yes, governments cannot decide to save them all, but at least you can allow the process to take place.

At least listen to what these people appointed by you are telling you about heritage instead of making a decision, hiding a report, then bringing it forward, and then saying on the same day it is made public: We have made a decision, we are going to go ahead with this no matter what this report says. It is not only Bill Neville who is disappointed. Mr. Speaker in the Chair Many, many Manitobans are seeing that this Government was on a course. They made a decision and they were going to stick with that decision no matter what other people said.

And anybody who has raised a question about it is being accused of nitpicking. Nitpicking. We are talking about a major, major decision, the expenditure of many millions of public dollars as well as some private dollars. When people have the temerity to ask questions about it, the Premier and others say: Well, you are nitpicking. Manitobans have the right to have full disclosure. Manitobans have the right to believe that their heritage is being protected.

Manitobans have faith in the Heritage Council because the people on that Heritage Council are not just people off the street who happen to have an NDP membership, so they are appointed. These are people with a genuine interest in the history of this province. They understand how architecture and buildings are part of what Manitobans are. They need to have the ability to talk to their minister, to talk to the Government, to talk to Cabinet, to help to preserve part of this heritage.

But instead of that you have a minister who denies that he has ever seen the report, he denies that Donna Dul, his key employee in Heritage, brought that information to him, then later he admits, yes, I did know about it, although I did not see it. I mean, this kind of confusing dialogue by Government leads to Manitobans mistrusting you. There is a level of mistrust that happens when they feel that you are hiding things from them and when you are deliberately not taking the time to look at the recommendations brought forward by very learned heritage people in this province.

I can tell you it would not surprise me that other members of the Heritage Council also resign, except of course the ones who work for the provincial government who are there because of their duties with the Department of Heritage. But I can tell you, you have left them in a very, very difficult position. Mr. Neville has done the honourable thing. He is saying: I felt constrained in my duties. I can say to the minister, this is a very sad day for heritage in Manitoba. I can tell you that you brought it on yourself. The Heritage Council is a very valuable tool that a minister of heritage can use. Mr.

Speaker: Order. The honourable member's time has expired. Does the honourable member have leave to continue? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: Leave has been denied. Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): It is a sad day when we have to rise on speaking to decisions that are made by members opposite, decisions that are made within a vacuum. It is a sad day because it reflects on all of Manitoba. We have here a decision that was made by members opposite, the decision-making process made without collaboration with the community, without collaboration wit

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	37-2-57
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	37th 2nd hansardpdf 57.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	30293ea7c8c7cb3a35cef55a11891244195d168c

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