Manitoba Hansard — 8 June 2006 (Sitting 86B, 38th Legislature, 4th Session)

38-4-86b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session - Thirty-Eighth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LVII No. 86B - 1:30 p.m., Thursday, June 8, 2006

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

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

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

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

3133 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, June 8, 2006 The House met at 1:30 p.m. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PETITIONS Civil Service Employees–Neepawa Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: Eleven immediate positions with Manitoba Conservation Lands Branch, as of April 1, 2006, Crown Lands and Property Special Operating Agency, are being moved out of Neepawa. Removal of these positions will severely impact the local economy with potentially 33 adults and children leaving the community.

Removal of these positions will be detrimental to revitalizing the rural and surrounding communities of Neepawa. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to consider stopping the removal of these positions from our community, and to consider utilizing current technology, as an example, Land Management Services existing satellite sub-office in Dauphin, in order to maintain these positions in their existing location. Submitted on behalf of Dennis Birch, Ray Haines, Bill Nagle and many, many others. Mr.

Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House. Removal of Agriculture Positions from Minnedosa Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): I w i s h t o present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. These are the reasons for this petition: Nine positions with the Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives Crown Lands Branch are being moved out of Minnedosa. Removal of these positions will severely impact the local economy. Removal of these positions will be detrimental to revitalizing this rural agriculture community.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to consider stopping the removal of these positions from our community, and to consider utilizing current technology in order to maintain these positions in their existing location. This petition is signed by Byron Mason, Cheryl Marcino and Howard Trott. Civil Service Employees–Neepawa Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

These are the reasons for this petition: Eleven immediate positions with Manitoba Conservation Lands Branch, as of April 1, 2006, Crown Lands and Property Special Operating Agency, are being moved out of Neepawa. Removal of these positions will severely impact the local economy with potentially 33 adults and children leaving the community. Removal of these positions will be detrimental to revitalizing the rural and surrounding communities of Neepawa.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to consider stopping the removal of these positions from our community, and to consider utilizing current technology, i.e., Land Management Services existing satellite sub-office in Dauphin, in order to maintain these positions in their existing location. Signed John Dobreen, Kim Cochrane and Dorothy O'Donnell.

3134 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2006 Crocus Investment Fund Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The background to this petition is as follows: The government needs to uncover the whole truth as to what ultimately led to over 33,000 Crocus shareholders to lose tens of millions of dollars.

The provincial auditor's report, the Manitoba Securities Commission investigation, the RCMP investigation and the involvement of our courts, collectively, will not answer the questions that must be answered in regard to the Crocus Fund fiasco. Manitobans need to know why the government ignored the many warnings that could have saved the Crocus Investment Fund. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the Premier (Mr.

Doer) and his NDP government to co-operate in uncovering the truth in why the government did not act on what it knew and to consider calling a public inquiry on the Crocus Fund fiasco. This is signed by C. Mollard, D. Mollard, R. Mollard and many, many other fine Manitobans. * (13:35) OlyWest Hog Processing Plant Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

The background for this petition is as follows: The Manitoba government, along with the OlyWest consortium, promoted the development of a mega hog factory within the city of Winnipeg without proper consideration of rural alternatives for the site. Concerns arising from the hog factory include noxious odours, traffic and road impact, water supply, waste water treatment, decline in property values, cost to taxpayers and proximity to the city's clean drinking water aqueduct. Many Manitobans believe this decision represents poor judgment on behalf of the provincial government.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to immediately cancel its plans to support the construction of the OlyWest hog plant and rendering factory near any urban residential area. Signed by Alana Knowles, Charlene Barker, Colin Olson and many others. TABLING OF REPORTS Mr. Speaker: Order. I am pleased to table in the House the Reports of Members' expenses for the year ended March 31, 2006, in compliance with

section 38(1) of the Indemnities, Allowances and Retirement Benefits Regulations. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (M inister of Justice and Attorney General): I will table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review '06-07 Manitoba Justice. Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): I would like to table the following reports: Supplementary Information for Legislative Review, the '06-07 Departmental Expenditure Estimates for the Manitoba Civil Service Commission, Manitoba Enabling Appropriations and Manitoba Employee Pensions and Other Costs, as well as the '06-07 Revenue Estimates. Hon.

Rosann Wowchuk (Minis ter of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives 2006-2007 Departmental Estimates Expenditures. Hon. Scott Smith (Minist er of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review 2006-2007 Departmental Expenditure Estimates for Manitoba In tergovernmental Affairs and Trade. Hon. Eric Robinson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism): Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to table the 2006-2007 Departmental Expenditure Estimates for the Department of Culture, Heritage and Tourism. I am also tabling the 2006-2007 Departmental Expenditures Estimates for Manitoba Sport. Hon. Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review for the Departmental

June 8, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3135 Expenditures Estimates '06-07 Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth. Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Healthy Living): I would like to table the Supplementary Information for Legisl ative Review '06-07 Departmental Expenditures Estimates for Healthy Child Manitoba and for the Manitoba Seniors and Healthy Aging Secretariat. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Inkster, on a point of order? Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

I realize we have over 40 hours left of the Estimates time, but the government knows full well that we are not even going to be able to question the government on these reports because of its neglect in handling government business. Why is the government tabling these reports when they know full well– Mr. Speaker: Order. Points of order are to point out to the Speaker a breach of a rule or a departure from our Manitoba practices. That is not a point of order. Introduction of Guests Mr.

Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us from Niakwa Place School 107 Grades 7 and 8 students under the direction of Mrs. Kirsten Morris, Mrs. Darlene Flett, Mr. Brian Graeb, Mrs. Gisele Rohatynsky and Mrs. Lisa Bakos. Also included amongst the students is John Schwartz who is the son of Todd Schwartz, the Consul and Principal Officer of the United States Consulate in Winnipeg. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Southdale (Mr. Reimer). Also in the public gallery from J.R.

Walkof Elementary School we have 72 Grade 5 students under the direction of Mr. Gerald Letkeman. This school is located in th e constituen cy of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you all here today. ORAL QUESTIONS Health Care System Hallway Medicine Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Health. In 1999, in what is in all likelihood the most famous broken election promise in Manitoba history, the Premier (Mr. Doer) asked Manitobans to read my lips– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr.

Speaker: Order. * (13:40) Mr. McFadyen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In 1999, in what is probably the most famous broken promise in Manitoba political history, the Premier asked Manitobans to read his lips, that his government was going to end hallway medicine in six months with $15 million. Well, seven years and $1.5 billion later, we have a spectacle of the Premier indicating in this House earlier this week that ther e are zero patients in the hallways of hospitals in Manitoba, while his own minister's Web site tells a completely different story.

The minister's Web site indicates that, on average this year, there are seven patients waiting in the hallways as of 8 a.m. These are the department's skewed statistics. This is after the invisible ink that they use on the tallying machine in Winnipeg's hallways.

So, given the fact that his own department's statistics indicate an average of seven patients waiting in hallways in Winnipeg and given the fact that decent, honest Manitobans who have visited hospitals over the last week are reporting patients languishing in our hospitals' hallways, how can the minister say with any credibility that there are zero patients in Winnipeg hallways when the facts tell a completely different story? Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I think most Manitobans know that the most famous broken promise was the promise not to sell MTS.

I lined up at the back of this Legislature when that promise was broken by the twisted

interpretation of the rules of this House. That was the dark day of broken promises. Last year there were 5.7 people on average in hallways in Manitoba's six hospitals. That is less than one a day. The member is not reading the Web site

3136 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2006 correctly. That is a weekly number, it is not a yearly number. Many, many days of the year, there is no one in the hallway in most of our hospitals. The numbers, for example, for the last week in Concordia: Thursday, zero; Friday, zero ; Saturday, one; Sunday, zero; Monday, one; Tuesday, zero; Wednesday, zero; Thursday, zero. That is the real world out there. We have fewer than one on average. Yes, Mr. Speaker, ther e are people in the hallway during the busy periods.

They are on their way to a ward, they are on their way to be diagnosed, they are on their way to be treated. The nature of emergency medicine is it is very busy, but people do not live in the hallways anymore as they did when they were in government. Mr. McFadyen: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Premier was saying two days ago, zero patients in the hallways for all of Winnipeg. Now the minister is telling a different story. He is singling out one hospital using the phoney data-gathering techniques that were put in place by the spin machine opposite.

Given that three weeks ago at a Concordia fundraising dinner, an emergency room nurse who spends her time working in the hallways of the hospitals in Winnipeg indicated, and this was at a dinner that was attended by the Minister of Health and the Premier (Mr. Doer). She said at that dinner three weeks ago that on any given day there are six to 12 patients waiting in hallways in that hospital's ER. That is just one of seven hospitals in Winnipeg, Mr.

Speaker. * (13:45) So, given that the nurses are saying there are people in the hospitals, given that the minister's own stats are saying there are people in the hallways, Mr. Speaker, how can they maintain any semblance of credibility on this issue when the Premier continues to spin, when what we require is a government that is prepared to acknowledge th e facts, admit there are problems and spend their time and their energy serving Manitobans instead of serving lip service to this House? Mr. Sale: Mr.

Speaker, when the Premier stood in the House and made that comment, he was commenting absolutely correctly: Sunday, June 4, zero; Tuesday, June 6, zero. There was no one in the hallway on those days at 8 a.m. in the morning. I could go through our hospitals day after day after day and talk about zero, zero, zero– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of guests in the gallery, and we have the viewing public. They have taken their time to come and hear the questions and the answers. I need some co-operation from all the members. Mr. Sale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We put enormous resources into our emergency departments to recruit 47 more nurses, to have triage nurses in every department, to have re-assessment nurses in every department. We have served the patients of Manitoba to the very best of our ability. Yes, there are issues but, in 1998, the member who is now the head of the opposition, as chief secretary to Premier Filmon– Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr.

McFadyen: The minister's own statistics which we certainly are sceptical about, but even if we rely on the minister's own Web site statistics which show that the average number of patients languishing in hallways in hospitals went from four in 2004, to six in 2005, to seven in 2006, we have a problem that is getting worse, not better, in terms of hallway medicine in the city, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, we even question the methodology that they use to gather their stats, when we look back and we look at a quote from a senior ER nurse at Victoria General Hospital who said, and I quote: Rather than publishing the real stats, they are doing things to make it look good. I actually told my manager one morning that I would not lie for them. They wanted me to report no hallway patients even though there were six people in the hallway. This is a senior ER nurse at Victoria Hospital. So even if we accept the minister's statistics, which we are sceptical about, the problem is getting worse, not better.

When is the government going to get on to the job of honouring their commitments to Manitobans to fix hallway rather than spinning Manitobans with political glossy advertising campaigns? Mr. Sale: Well, Mr. Speaker, let us talk about spinning Manitobans for a moment.

In 1998, when the member, now the Leader of the Opposition, was principal secretary to Premier Filmon; in December of 1998, that government had a poll done and paid for by the Department of Health, public funds, paid for by the Department of Health, that asked the following question: Generally speaking, do you approve or disapprove of the job the Filmon government has done in the last year or so?

June 8, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3137 They put public money to ask political questions out of my department. So let us not have any lectures from them about how to fix the health care system. Health Care System Hallway Medicine Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, the Premier (Mr. Doer) has said that he will not call an election until he can check off more of his promises. Well, their biggest promise was to end hallway medicine in six months with $15 million. We know there still are patients in their hallways even according to their own Web site.

But, instead of telling the public that hallway medicine is alive and well, they try to paint a rosy picture by fudging the numbers. In Estimates, the Minister of Health said that he supported this way of counting hallway patients, that he had no problems with it. I would like to ask the Minister of Health: Why did he not mention this in a quarter-million dollar propaganda piece? Why did he not tell the public in his quarter-million dollar propaganda piece that hallway medicine is still alive and well– Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr.

Speaker, let us look at Grace Hospital for May and June of this year. This is a 30-day period: Tuesday, the 23rd of May has a zero against it; admitted patients in the hallway, zero. The last day that we have a record for is Thursday, the 8th of June, which is today. It has a zero, Mr. Speaker, and, in between, they are all zeros. Every single day for the last month, counting the same way over the last number of years, Grace Hospital, zero for 31 days. You know, Mr. Speaker, ex actly the same is true for the Health Sciences Centre.

For Victoria Hospital, it is true for the same period of time for the same 31 days. It is a serious issue and we will always work to have hallway numbers– Mr. Speaker: Order. * (13:50) Diagnostic Testing Wait Lists Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, those numbers do not represent accurate numbers of patients in hallways because those numbers are fudged. So the minister can stand there, but they are not true numbers. Another election promise was to cut MRI waits to eight weeks. MRI waits today average 11 weeks, worse than they were in 1999. I guess the Premier (Mr.

Doer) cannot check that one off from his list. So I would like to ask the Minister of Health: Why did he not mention in his quarter-million dollar propaganda piece that the waiting lists for MRIs have gone up? Why has he not been open with the public about those numbers? Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, counting in the same way that we did in the year 2000, we have the same methodology. When there is an empty treatment room, when there is no one in a treatment room, that room is available for a patient.

Many of the times when a patient is in the hallway in the afternoon, evening or du ring the night when they come in during the night, they are waiting to go to X- ray, they are waiting to go for ultrasound, they are waiting to go for some form of treatment or they are waiting for the results of a diagnostic test to know whether they should be discharged. The difference between now and 1998 is that they do not stay in the hallway for a week. They rarely stay for more than a night, Mr. Speaker. Very occasionally they are there until noon, but most of the time they are in a ward or they are back home.

They do not live in the hallway like they did when they were in government. Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister just answered the question. Patients are still in hallways. The problem is that he does not count all patients. He selectively counts patients and then fudges those numbers. Another election promise was to slash CT scan waits to two weeks. CT scan waits today average 12 weeks, almost triple what they were in 1999. I guess the Premier cannot check that one off either. So, Mr. Speaker, why did the minister not mention this in his quarter-million dollar propaganda piece?

Why did the minister say they were making progress in slashing diagnostic waits when, in fact, those numbers are going up? Why did this minister mislead in that area as well? Mr. Sale: We are one of the few provinces that publishes all of the wait times, and if the member would care to look, waiting times for magnetic resonance imaging have come down from over 20

3138 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2006 weeks down to 11 weeks. For stress MIBI tests, a dramatic reduction; for bone density tests, more than a 50 percent reduction; for heart surgery, a 66 percent reduction; for pediatric dentistry, over a 60 percent reduction. For hips and knees, we are seeing the waiting list coming down for the first time from 41 weeks down to 36 weeks, a thousand more hip and knee procedures this year than last year. We are not perfect but, boy, are we making more progress than was ever made during the 1990s. Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Charleswood, on a new question?

Mrs. Driedger: On a new question, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: On a new question. Healthcare System ER Physician Shortage Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): It is hard to believe this Minister of Health when there is so much misinformation put out there by him, Mr. Speaker. Our Winnipeg ERs are critically short of doctors. Patient safety is an issue. Yesterday, the Minister of Health said that he has no intention of closing any Winnipeg ERs. As a former nursing supervisor in an ER, this whole situation is very alarming to me.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health: Can he tell us how he is going to guarantee that patient care and patient safety will not be compromised with this critically acute shortage of ER doctors? Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): First of all, Mr. Speaker, patient safety is the responsibility of the whole system. It is the responsibility of the marvellous nurses, technici ans, physicians who care for our patients in a humane, compassionate and clinically excellent way when they show up in our ERs. That is where patient safety starts and that is where it needs to be maintained.

I have the commitment of our system that they work at that every day. We are not perfect. No system is, but patient safety and the care of our patients in ERs is our first job. It is the job we are focussed on. Every summer there are issues. Every summer when they were in government, there were issues. They went so far as to try to close Seven Oaks Hospital. There were diversions daily during the time they were in government and pile-ups in the ER like it was a traffic jam on 401 outside Toronto, Mr. Speaker. * (13:55) Mrs. Driedger: Mr.

Speaker, on Tuesday night, the Seven Oaks Hospital almost had to close its doors because of a lack of doctors. Dr. de Faria, the head of the Seven Oaks ER, yesterday said that this year it is a lot worse than it has ever been. I would like to ask the Minister of Health to tell us: Could this 2006 ER crisis have been avoided if he had not glossed over the 2004 ER crisis? Mr. Sale: No Health Minister that I know in this country glosses over ER crises. We discuss these crises every time we have a meeting. My colleague, the Energy Minister today, never glossed over a crisis when he was Health Minister.

He responded to every one of them like we all do. You sit down, you work with the Manitoba Medical Association, you work with the nurses, you work with the hospital administrators. You try and make sure that people use emergency services appr opriately, that they use Health Links and Info Santé, that they are aware of what their options are for critical care at Misericordia or at the Pan Am Clinic, which last year saw 24,000 patient visits in one year. We never gloss over crises. We work hard at them, and we do very well in managing them, Mr. Speaker. Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, they did gloss over it.

They cherry-picked the easy issues so they could then say they did something. They refused to call an external reviewer to come in and look at this information. Yesterday, Dr. de Faria said, and I quote, I am pretty worried because I think what is going to happen is that we are going to tire the remaining physicians out of the system . If that is the case, we are going to go from a crisis to a disaster to a catastrophe. I would like to ask the Minister of Health: How could he have so grossly mismanaged this issue?

How could they have dropped the ball so badly on something that now patients' lives could be in danger? Mr. Sale: As a former nurse, I would ask the member to think carefully about the amount of fearmongering that she is doing in this House today. All health issues are potentially full of risk. No one's health is without risk.

June 8, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3139 But, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that somehow the sky is falling day after day after day when day after day after day waiting lists are coming down; ERs are opening, reopening, staying open; new ambulances are in the system; new hosp itals are being built and are being enjoyed by many people in Manitoba. To suggest that somehow this system is in any sense less effective than it was when they were in government when we lost 117 doctors, 1,800 nurses, closed I think 500-and-something beds, the Misericordia Hospital, it will not wash.

Education System Grade 3 Diagnostic Assessment Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): In what I would suggest the third-most famous broken NDP election promise from 1999, the Grade 3 guarantee, my question is for the Minister of Education. Mr. Speaker, in April of 2002, the Department of Education released their Grade 3 assessments showing disappointing results. The then-minister, the current Member for Brandon East (Mr. Caldwell), to his credit, spoke very candidly, and he said, I quote: The results obviously point to a need to improve student outcomes.

It does show me we have work to do system-wide. That is the former Minister of Education, the current Member for Brandon East. Well, just recently, we have had new members come out of the Department of Education on Grade 3 diagnostic results, and in the mathematical category, where we have eight di fferent comparisons, the results have gotten not better, but worse. In four out of eight categories, the results have gotten worse, Mr. Speaker, in terms of student performance between 2001-02 and 2005-06.

When will the minister indicate to Manitobans that he is going to get serious about improving the levels of education for Manitoba's young people? When are they going to stop the spin? When are they going to get on with providing a high quality of education for Manitoba's young people? * (14:00) Hon. Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): I would like to thank the member opposite for finally expressing an interest in the Manitoba public education system. It has been a long time coming that we have had a question in this House. Now the member talked about math.

Well, let us talk about math. The resources necessary to properly fund and resource an education system in the province of Manitoba was not $1.6 million net as invested by members opposite over five years. We are investing more in our education system; $155 million more in the base. We have increased funding for professional development, more teachers, which is something members opposite cut out by virtue of a bill that allowed school divisions to lock teachers out for professional development purposes. We are resourcing the education system. We are basing our decisions on research.

That research is part of the assessment process that we are engaged in at this time, and that has been through stakeholder consultations, Mr. Speaker. Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, we have the evidence, four years on, and the results are getting worse and not better. The minister is talking about stakeholder consultations after seven years in government. Stakeholder consultations is the best he can come up with in response to numbers that show Manitoba students doing worse and not better after four years of effort or lack of effort on the part of this government.

Given that we have a situation today where only 57 percent of Manitoba Grade 3 students have met expectations when it comes to identifying and describing mathematical patterns, how can the minister suggest that 57 percent of students meeting expectations is acceptable? When is he going to start taking responsibility for fixing the education system in Manitoba? Mr. Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, the difference between our philosophy and the philosophy of the members opposite was they were intent on exit-level testing, s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s .

W h a t w e w a n t t o k n o w i s a t t h e front end, by having assessments at the beginning of the process, where we need to better resource the system, these are entry level assessments. They are done at the beginning of the year, and that is the research that we need to base our decisions on resources in curricular improvements. With respect to the success of the Manitoba education system, in 1998-99, there were 73.2 percent graduation rates under our government; '04- 05, the graduation rate is 83 percent. We are on the right track. We are properly resourcing education. We are working with our stakeholders.

We are making the system better.

3140 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2006 Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any pride to be taken in graduating more students by virtue of lowering standards in our school system. That is their approach. They have a different philosophy, and the minister is right about that. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. McFadyen: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. The minister is right. They do have a different philosophy.

It is the same philosophy they apply to their entire government which is do not ask, do not tell, do not know; if we just put our heads in the sand and we do not produce any numbers, then nobody can accuse us of doing a lousy job.

Well, given that only 55 percent of Grade 3 students met expectations when it comes to solving addition and subtraction story problems, 55 percent of Grade 3 students meeting expectations, the rest falling short of expectations, how can the minister stand up with a straight face and say they are doing a service to Manitoba students when only 55 percent are meeting expectations in this very important area? Mr. Bjornson: It is curious that the member opposite would say do not ask, do not tell. I mean, we did release a report that talks about the results of our efforts.

Our philosophy is to put the resources at the front end. Not only are we resourcing the curriculum appropriately by providing more resources for teachers, more professional develop- ment for teachers, these are all parts of that critical puzzle that improves the learning outcomes and we are committed to improving learning outcomes. Members opposite cannot stand in this House and tell me improving learning outcomes is going to be obtained by cutting funding to education, which they did in two out of five years. Freezing funding to education is not going to improve outcomes in the education system, Mr. Speaker.

Our commitment is to a quality system. We are seeing the results, and we will continue to work to make it better, unlike members opposite who kept cutting the system. Education System Grade 3 Diagnostic Assessment Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): I would suggest that the Minister of Education reads his results because they are not getting better. In fact, in many areas they are getting a lot worse. We are very, very concerned about our children in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, the 2006 results for the Grade 3 assessment in reading and numeracy show that there has not been an improvement in student outcomes.

In fact, in the 2006 report it states, and I quote: Students had the most difficulty with the recall of subtraction facts. These results are c onsistent with those found over the last four years. Four years later and two ministers of Education later, we are still seeing that 60 percent of Grade 3 students do not meet expectations when it comes to subtraction facts. I would like to ask the Minister of Education: If he knew there was work to be done four years ago, why has he not done anything? Hon. Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Mr.

Speaker, we have been working with the department to develop appropriate curriculum. We have been working with the department to provide appropriate resources. We have been working with teachers around professional development opportunities. The results are consistent with the results that we had four years ago. Members opposite need to understand that it requires investment, it requires commitment. It does not require simple math lessons of zero, zero, minus 2, zero, minus 2.2, Mr. Speaker. That was their math. Our math is funding at the rate of economic growth, providing the resources, pr oviding the supports.

Our system is getting better, and it is the hard work of the teachers in this province that is going to continue to improve that system. Mrs. Stefanson: They are working with the departments, they are having round table discussions, there are reviews taking place. It has been seven years and our children are no better off as a result of these tests. They show that our students are no better off today than they were when they took office. Shame on them. Mr. Speaker, I quote from the press release from the 1999 election campaign.

One of the promises made was that they guaranteed every child will be reading and writing in their Grade 3 year. Yet another broken promise. What we see in this report was that in their assess ments in 2002, only 60 percent of children were meeting expectations when it came to reading competency. Mr. Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, you know, we have had so many different initiatives underway right now that recognize the different obstacles to learning for students in the province of Manitoba.

June 8, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3141 We have introduced a new English as an Additional Language one because often we have new Canadians who have difficulties with learning competencies in an additional language of English. We have introduced a more effective children's initiative. We have introduced a Community Schools Initiative to build capacity. We have introduced the Aboriginal Education Action Plan, because we need to do a better job in improving outcomes for Aboriginal learners. These are all part of a collective effort to improve the outcomes. I must tell you, Mr.

Speaker, their $1.6-million net investment to the entire system does not compare to maybe one program that we have offered to try and improve outcomes. Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, 60 percent of Grade 3 students' reading competen cy in 2002, only 60 percent meet expectations; in 2006, only 60 percent meet expectations. Those are bad results. It goes to show that they are not me eting their guarantee they made to Manitobans in the 1999 election campaign, seven years later. I would like to ask the Minister of Education: Does he think that these are positive results? We sure do not, Mr. Speaker.

We are concerned about our children in Manitoba. We want them to succeed. Why do they not, and why will they not give them the tools that they need to succeed? Mr. Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, part of our K to S4 agenda for student success includes research, and the research gives us the tools we need to make the decisions that will serve our students better. Members opposite obviously were not worried about that because they talk about standardized testing as being the be-all and end-all in assessment for students. But, Mr.

Speake r, if they were to read some of the latest research about standardized testing then they would understand that formative assessment, classroom-based assessment, entry-level assessment is the appropriate direction to take to address students' learning needs. They locked teachers out of professional development. They cut funding. We are doing a job resourcing the education system, building commu- nity capacity, working w ith our stakeh olders. Our system is getting better. More students are graduating than ever before in this province. * (14:10) Red River Floodway Springfield Aquifer Mr.

Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Yesterday the Minister of Water Stewardship made several statements spinning this government's commitment to protecting water quality in Manitoba. However, we have seen no action when it comes to communities like the Rural Municipality of Springfield. Their drinking water is at risk because of this minister's billion-dollar floodway project. Mr. Speaker, why has the minister done nothing to protect the ongoing contamination here in Springfield's aquifer? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Steward- ship): Mr.

Speaker, we are not going to take lectures from members opposite who voted for The Water Protection Act and now are going around the province saying they would scrap it and the key recommendations or, I might add, who, in committee the other night, they voted against dealing with illegal drainage. You know, we have municipalities, we have conservation districts, the many producers across the province crying for help in terms of making sure we enforce our drainage regulations. They voted against that. Mr. Speaker, their approach is to go back to the 1990s in terms of water quality.

On issues like the floodway, we are moving forward. In fact, we have been working to protect Manitoba's water. I suggest they join us for a change instead of only criticizing. Mr. Cullen: Mr. Speaker, this minister's failures go on. The Clean Environment Commission's report on the floodway expansion recommended that waste water discharges into the floodway be monitored and controlled. The Springfield aquifer is at risk of contamination from raw sewage entering the floodway. Is this important component of the CEC report being addressed? Mr.

Ashton: I find it amazing that the members opposite are now quoting from the same Clean Environment Commission report that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen) completely ignored to reference last week in terms of the city of Winnipeg primary dikes. It is amazing. He tables letters from 2003, he tables the CEC document. What the CEC did do, Mr. Speaker, it dealt with the

3142 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2006 primary diking in the city of Winnipeg, recommendations 11(1), 11(2). I do not know where the Member for Turtle Mountain has been the last period of time, Mr. Speaker, but we changed the design of the floodway to ensure that we did not impact in terms of aquifers. I know they do not really support the floodway. I know the only thing they ar e concerned about is that one issue with the floodway, but we have been building the floodway expansion and protecting the aquifers. He should maybe take a lesson and read the CEC document fully. Mr. Cullen: Well, Mr.

Speaker, our leader has quoted from the report, so obviously he has read it. I am just wondering if the minister has read this report. Under the environmental licence granted the floodway expansion, a peer review team was to be in place by February of this year. This group was to be established to monitor ground water information and contamination during work on the floodway. It has been almost a year since the licence was issued and this peer review team has not even been established. Local residents are left without answers on the environmental implications of the floodway expansion.

Why is this minister ignoring the requirements of the environmental licence? Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, not only have I read the Clean Environment Commission document, I have it here. I can go through it in terms of detail. I can also perhaps invite the member opposite to recognize that one of the key things we did with the floodway, one of the reasons we put in more bridge w o r k i s w e h a v e g o n e w i d e r r a t h e r t h a n d e e p e r t o minimize the impacts in terms of the aquifers. We put in contingency funds also to ensure there will be compensation if there are any impacts.

That did not happen in the sixties, no fault to the Roblin administration. It was not considered in those days but we have been working on this. I suggest the member get his facts straight and, maybe not only read the report like I did, but find out what we have done since 2005 because we are dealing with the aquifer concerns in the R.M. of Springfield. Crocus Investment Fund Public Inquiry Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, as all of us are aware, it was the gross negligence of the government that ultimately led to over 33,000 Crocus shareholders to lose tens of millions of dollars.

I think it is important to recognize just how much money was allocated out through the Manitoba tax credits. Mr. Speaker, $36,630,000 was issued out through the Crocus Investment Fund in the form of Manitoba tax credits. This is a great deal of money. I am asking the Minister of Finance to acknowledge just how much money we are talking about as a direct result of government neglect. I ask the Minister of Finance: What is it going to take for this government to do the right thing and call a public inquiry? Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr.

Speaker, the information the member quotes is information I provided him on the amount of the tax credits from the Crocus Investment Fund. The member implies that the money was wasted. Many companies were financed through the Crocus Investment Fund, many jobs were created and retained in Manitoba. A great deal of economic activity has occurred and is still occurring by many of the investee companies in Manitoba. The membership recognized that labour- sponsored venture capital has played an important role in growing the Manitoba economy and still does play an important role in growing the Manitoba economy.

Those tax credits have contributed to growth in the Manitoba economy and the jobs that we benefit from today inside of Manitoba. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, what I recognize is $36,630,000 of Crocus Investment Fund, Manitoba tax credits, that is what I acknowledge. The venture capital is important to Manitobans for a lot of the reasons that the Minister of Finance has said. The only way in which we are going to have credible venture capital funds into the future is Manitobans have to know the truth as to why the government messed up.

My question to the Minister of Finance is: In order to salvage the future of venture capital funds,

June 8, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3143 we have to know the truth. Will he acknowledge the need for a public inquiry today? Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge all forms of government investment or tax breaks need to be accounted for, which is why we amended in 2001, The Auditor General Act of Manitoba and put specific clauses in his act that would allow him to pursue tax dollars into labour-sponsored venture capital funds. As a result of that legislative authority, he has pursued, through a 245-page report, an investigation into Crocus. All of the recommendations have been made to government.

We have followed up on through the vehicle of an implementation committee for the report that brought in people outside of government. All those recommendations have been brought forward in legislation last spring and again this year, Bill 51 or 52, whatever the number was last spring, and Bill 37 this year. We have followed through on all of those recommendations. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, $36 million put at risk because of government neglect. The whole concept of venture capital in the province of Manitoba put at risk because of government neglect. Mr.

Speaker, 33,000 Manitobans are going to suffer the consequence of government negligence in the tune of $60 million. If any of these issues are going to be resolved, a public inquiry is necessary in order to uncover all of the truth. When will this government do what is in the public's best interest and not in the best interest of their own political party and their personal relationships, the people who support them, the people who donate to them and the people who organize for their political party? It is time to stand up and do what is right for all Manitobans. Put Manitobans' interests first. Mr. Selinger: Mr.

Speaker, I am assuming there was a question there. I think the member was asking why are we not doing what is right for Manitobans and I will suggest to him the following. First and foremost, we banned corporate union donations. The largest recipient of political donations from the Crocus Fund was the Liberal Party. I know they are a little disappointed by being cut off from that source of finance, but in the interests of all Manitobans we banned corporate union donations. Secondly, those tax credits were made available to the investors, the individual Manitobans who invested in that fund.

They have taken those tax credit rebates and they have put them back into Manitoba's economy through the purchase of goods and services that they have made. Conservation Government Initiatives Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): My question is for the Minister of Conservation. Given the recent antics of members opposite, membership from the Flat Earth Society must be skyrocketing. Yesterday the Conservative Member for River East (Mrs.

Mitchelson) call ed for the withdrawal of our Bill 11, which will help citizens across this province reduce their energy bills, save on their energy consumption and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, their federal Conservative counterparts in Ottawa are ripping up climate change programs faster than they can be created. Fortunately for Manitobans, they have a very progressive government on environmental action. We have become an international leader on multiple fronts. I am wondering if the minister might be able to share any new news on this front with members of this Chamber. Hon.

Stan Struthers (Min ister of Conservation): Our government made a very clear commitment to list the woodland caribou as threatened under our act, and today, Mr. Speaker, we have done that. We also committed to including the people who actually live in the area, and we are doing that too. This is another step in our quest to protect the woodland caribou. In April, we released a strategy for conservation and recovery. Our budget this year, which members opposite for some strange reason voted against, was there to add two additional biologists to help us in this decision making.

Manitoba Hydro and Tembec have supported us in this, but most of all, treaty rights have not been infringed. Mr. Speaker: Order. Time for Oral Questions has expired.

3144 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2006 MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Building Manitoba for the Future Ms. Kerri Irvin-Ross (Fort Garry): In 2003, Manitoba voters looked at our government's track record. They recognized our successes. They also recognized our commitment to building Manitoba for the future. And what was that result? Manitobans re- elected our government with one of its biggest majorities in history. At this three-year anniversary, it is time we now take stock of the commitments made to Manitobans and the progress our government has made. We have continued to improve our health care system.

We have 1,300 more nurses practising than in 1999, over 200 more doctors and 150 more technologists. But we did not just hire more skilled professionals and technicians, we are giving them the tools they need to provide the best care, sooner closer to home. We have five more MRI machines than in 1999 and waits for MRI scans has gone down to 12 weeks from 21. This year 38,000 MRI scans will be performed in Manitoba, up from 6,400 in 1999. Wait times for cancer treatment, reduced to one week from six and a half weeks in 1998.

We have expanded and modernized 66 health care facilities including the Brandon Regional Health Centre, the Health Sciences Centre and the Selkirk Mental Health Centre. We have strengthened and diversified our economy. We are making it easier for younger people to stay in Manitoba. With new bursaries, scholarships, cutting-edge high-tech programs, as well, 1,400 more apprenticeships, our Premier has led the way in providing hope for our youth. We have made Manitoba an even more affordable place to live while ensuring our communities remain safe and secure. Mr. Speaker we funded 94 more new police officers.

The conclusion is clear. In 2003 Manitobans were right. They elected a government that lets its record speak for itself. Hallway Medicine Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): I am absolutely amazed that th e Premier (Mr. Doer) and the Minister of Health (Mr. Sale) can stand in their places and put the kind of information on the record that they have this past week over hallway medicine. Mr.

Speaker, the Premier, the Minister of Health, MLAs on the government side of the House and the opposition side of the House were at the Concordia Hospital fundraising dinner just a few short weeks ago when they talked about expansion of their emergency department, and a nurse from Concordia Hospital stood and spoke at that dinner and indicated that on any given day in the hallways of emergency at Concordia Hospital there were six to 12 patients, and it was time that they needed and required expansion.

Then we hear the Premier, after listening to that at Concordia Hospital, having the gall to stand in this House and go against what nurses are saying and indicate that the numbers are zero, zero, zero at Concordia Hospital. Who are Manitobans to believe, Mr. Speaker? Are they to believe the front-line nurses who have hands-on information or the spin that comes from this Minister of Health and this Premier? I say shame on them. How could they possibly live with themselves when they know full well that the real facts are extremely different from what they are saying in this Legislature. Mr.

Speaker, it is insulting to the professionals, to the front-line workers and those who work very hard to try to ensure patient safety. I would ask this government to stand up and tell the truth in this House, rather than standing up and putting that kind of information on the record that does a disservice to the nurses, to the doctors and to those who are working so hard on behalf of patients who need their care. Metropolitan Kiwanis Courts Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (St. James): Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the residents, volunteers and directors at Metropolitan Kiwanis Courts who attended Question Period last week and took

part in a tour and discussion at the Manitoba Legislature. Recreation director, Su e Tamblyn, along with volunteers, Jim and Laurine Einfel and Kiwanis Courts residents Joan McLeod, Cy Brooker, Nina Bailey, Marg Caux, Marjorie Taylor, Pauline Tomblin, Dorothea Miller, Joyce Frame, Mary Thompson and Pearl Haas all came down to witness politics in action and learn more about the political process. It was a great pleasure for me to host this group and provide a question-and-answer period to them prior to our own Question Period. I was thoroughly

June 8, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3145 impressed with their level of interest and enthusiasm for politics and felt it refreshing to see a group of seniors in the gallery in contrast to our more common tours of high school and junior high school students. I think this demonstrates that seniors continue to be active and engaged in our communities, full of ideas and insights that can contribute to public policy. The Metropolitan Kiwanis Courts is enriched housing for seniors that provides affordable housing along with recreational activities and services such as housekeeping and congregate meal programs.

Educators are also brought in to talk to residents about issues relating to health care, security and personal finances with high participation from residents. The Courts have been ahead of the curve for years in providing this type of housing environment which is a tribute to the dedication of its directors to provide dignified living for seniors. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the residents of the Metropolitan Kiwanis Courts for visiting our Legislature, many for the first time, and hope they continue to be politically active and engaged for many, many years. Thank you. Manitoba Air Show 2006 Mr.

David Faurschou (P ortage la Prairie): I rise today to inform the House of a spectacular event that took place in Portage la Prairie this past weekend. I feel very fortunate to have been able to attend the Manitoba Air Show 2006 to see first-hand an awe- inspiring display of aerial acrobatics that I will never forget, and I am sure others that witnessed it will not either.

Whether it was aerial acrobatics of pilots such as Bill Carter, Julie Clark, Kent and Warren Pietch or the death-defying stunts of the SkyHawks Parachute Demo Team, the power and speed of the CF-18 Hornet Demonstration Team or the amazing performance of Canada's Snowbirds, this air show had something for everyone who was interested in aeronautics, with more than 11,000 persons in attendance to bear witness to this awe-inspiring display.

All of the proceeds of Manitoba Air Show 2006 will go to non-profit organizations and local charities in Portage la Prairie, making this an even more important event for my constituency. Mr. Speaker, this year ma rked the return of the Manitoba Air Show to Southport Aerospace Centre for the first time in 10 years, and this return would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of more than 300 volunteers who made this event such a success.

I would like to particularly thank the efforts of Hayden Henwood who was the executive director of the Manitoba Air Show committee, Lieutenant Colonel Darryl Shyiak who acted as air operations boss for the day, as well as Ernie Shwaluk who directed the massive volunteer effort undertaken. I would also like to thank each of the over 50 sponsors that lent their support to the Manitoba Air Show. Mr. Speaker, I was very proud to see this event return to Portage la Prairie after a 10-year hiatus. I also look forward to the return of the show to Southport Aerospace Centre in the future.

I would like to encourage all my fellow members of the Legislative Assembly to atte nd next year's event that will truly be an awesome event. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Canadian Diabetes Association Reception Mr. Harry Schellenberg (Rossmere): Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to recently attend the reception hosted by the Canadian Diabetes Association informing members of the Legislature, civil servants and the public about the prevalence and cost of diabetes and ways to prevent the disease and better assist those afflicted with it. The reception was attended by many MLAs including the Minister of Health (Mr.

Sale) and the Minister of Healthy Living (Ms. Oswald). Thousands each year suffer from diabetes in Canada. The number of people affected by Type 2 diabetes, which can be prevented or delayed, is rising dramatically. Diabetes takes a heavy toll both on the individuals who suffer fro m it and on society at large. Adults with diabetes are twice as likely to die prematurely compared to persons without and incur medical costs that are two to three times higher than the person without it. It is estimated that diabetes costs the Canadian health care system $13.2 billion every year and the costs are rising. Mr.

Speaker, clearly, diabetes poses a major problem which is why the Canadian Diabetes Association should be commended for their work raising awareness, providing services and support to individuals affected by diabetes since 1953. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be part of a government that is addressing the problem. Recently, our government partnered with the federal government to introduce a new diabetes and Chronic Disease Prevention Initiative in Manitoba. This is a

3146 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2006 $6-million prevention initiative that will reduce chronic disease and bring down the cost to the health care system. Through the Department of Health, our government also has a Diabetes and Chronic Diseases Unit to co-ordinate prevention and control of diabetes. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Canadian Diabetes Association for their work to raise awareness about diabetes. I hope that through co-operation, we can one day achieve the elimination of this disease. Thank you. ORDERS OF THE DAY (Continued) GOVERNMENT BUSINESS House Business Hon.

Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Would you please call the following bills: 41, 33 and then if we can go to report stage. It is report stage day and if we could start with 21 and then 36, and then I think we will do the rest in order as they appear. Then we will be into the five o'clock questions. Mr. Speaker, would you also canvass the House to see if there is leave for the Estimates for Water Stewardship to be considered in 255 from, I think it is 4 till 5, from 4 till 5 while the House considers bills this afternoon? Mr.

Speaker: Is there leave for the Estimates of the Department of Water Stewardship to be considered in Room 255 this afternoon from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. while the House considers bills. Is there agreement? [Agreed] Mr. Mackintosh: Would you also canvass the House to determine if there is leave to move Agriculture to the Cham ber for Estimates for tomorrow, with the change to apply permanently, ahead of Transportation and Government Services? Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement to move Agriculture and Food ahead of Transportation and Government Services into the Chamber for tomorrow, and that change to be permanent?

Is there agreement? [Agreed] Mr. Mackintosh: On the final order of business, it is understood that we will go into Supply tomorrow, and, as I recall, I do not think that means we go into Supply today, but just to announce, then, that Supply begins tomorrow at 10 a.m. Mr. Speaker: Okay, tomorrow morning, we will go into Committee of Supply, and in the Chamber will be Agriculture and Food, and Room 254 will be Justice, and Room 255 will be Health for Committee of Supply. That is to start at 10 a.m., tomorrow. SECOND READINGS Hon.

Tim Sale (Minister of Health): I move, seconded by the honourable Attorney General (Mr. Mackintosh), that Bill 40, The Medical Amendment– sorry, Mr. Speaker, this is the wrong motion. It should be The Pharmaceutical Act. Mr. Speaker: While we are waiting, I just want to introduce the order of bills that we will be doing for the members that were jotting them down. We will start off with Bill 41 and 33. Then, we will do report stages of Bill 21 and 36, and then we will do the rest of the report stages in the order as they are listed. Okay? An Honourable Member: Bingo. Mr. Speaker: I heard a bingo. Okay, very good.

Bill 41–The Pharmaceutical Act Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): I apologize for my confusion on that bill. I move, seconded by the honourable Attorney Genera l (Mr. Mackintosh), that Bill 41, The Pharmaceutical Act;

Loi sur les pharmacies, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has been advised of the bill, and I would table the Lieutenant- Governor's message. Motion presented. Mr. Sale: Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill is a bill that is supported by all members of the House. I am looking forward to a brief debate, and I will be brief in my remarks.

We have worked very closely with the Pharmaceutical Association whose name will change under this act to the College of Pharmacists, who annually renew the licences of and provide supervision and professional development for over 1,150 pharmacists providing patient care in a wide variety of settings but, particularly, in our very complex acute care settings where pharmacists play an increasingly important role in areas of heart care and cancer care, where the drug regimens are extremely complex and extremely sensitive to particular patient needs.

June 8, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3147 Mr. Speaker, the act updates the complaint and discipline procedures modelled after the recently updated College of Physicians and Surgeons Act. It is the standard model for most professional bodies regulated by a college. Members, I think, already have found that the issues in the act are extremely similar to those in the other professional acts that have been recently updated.

In terms of changes that I think are important and that I hope members will all endorse, the scope of practice for pharmacists meeting certain qualifications and practising in particular settings will be expanded to include the prescribing of drugs and the ordering of diagnostic tests, drug and device selection, drug administration and drug regimen reviews within specific approved scopes of practice. The bill also allows pharmacists the authority for dependent and collaborative prescribing and for certain classes of pharmacists to have independent prescribing practice in certa in practice settings, Mr. Speaker.

We have the capacity and regulations to deal with the obvious problem in this regard, and that is the potential for self-dealing. We recognize and the pharmacists recognize that this is an issue, and there will be clear regulations in that regard. I would just note that the only jurisdiction in Canada that has advised that they will be considering expanding the scope of practice of pharmacists is Alberta.

This will be the first such expansion in Canada and, I believe, a very worthwhile move. * (14:40) Some of the other things the legislation will do is to improve access to health care in rural and northern communities by allowing pharmacy operations to include licensed offsite facilities as part of a pharmacy's practice. So, for example, in a northern nursing station, a

section of that station could be a pharmacy that would be under the supervision of a licensed pharmacist, and therefore make the whole process of making drugs available to residents of that community simpler and more timely. The act will also expand the pharmacist's role to include the ability to order a limited number of diagnostic tests, Mr. Speaker. There have been, of course, many changes in the health care system since this act was last updated, and pharmacists are increasingly a central part of the care team of most patients.

I, specifically, can say that in the last few years when I have had to get a prescription, I have appreciated the teaching and the very clear information that has been given to me by pharmacists about the medication that I have been prescribed. I hope that is the experience of all members, and, certainly, it is one that all Manitobans will value. Mr.

Speaker, the college will also have the authority, should it chose to do so, to establish a system of pharmacists' profiles similar to the physician profile system established by the College of Physicians and Surgeons to make available to Manitobans information about discipline matters that may have affected a particular pharmacist. There will also be the requirement of an annual report which is a new requirement, Mr. Speaker.

The minister will have the authority to designate in regulation practitioners who are authorized to sign prescriptions, recognizing that increasingly groups like optometrists and nurses are also people who have the capacity and the scope of practice to enable them to prescribe safely within their scope of practice. Statutory rights to prescribe drugs have been or will be expanded to include midwives, extended practice nurses, registered clinical assistants, optometrists and pharmacists who meet certain requirements and practice in certain settings, Mr. Speaker.

The complaints process has been substantially updated. We will require the college to have one third of the members publicly appointed, Mr. Speaker. So I think this act is worthy of rapid consideration by this House. It has been worked on very hard by the College of Pharmacists, if I may give them their new name. I want to thank, in particular, the Registrar, Ron Guse, who has worked very closely with the College of Physicians, the college of nurses and our staff to bring this act up to date and in line with current practices.

I endorse this act to the House, and I hope all members will give it speedy consideration. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I have some comments on Bill 41, The Pharmaceutical Act. First of all, I want to compliment those who have worked hard for I thi nk five or six years to be

3148 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2006 able to bring this forwar d. There is a substantial amount of effort that has gone into this, and it certainly I think is a pretty good step forward. I have a number of comments about the act, but certainly we are supportive of the principle of this act and we will look forward to the time when it goes to committee and has hearings.

Let me talk about, first of all, I think it is a good thing that there is a tr ansition to a College of Pharmacists, the establishment of a College of Pharmacists of Manitoba, even though we have had that in the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association. To call it a College of Pharmacists is certainly appropriate and desirable. So this is a good move. I have some concerns with various aspects of the act which I will go into detail.

First of all, I see the statement that the college must carry out its activities in the public interest, serving and protecting the public interest, that there is need for a broader statement here of the goals of the college and of what is in the public interest. We who are MLAs here have some pretty heated debates at times as to exactly what is in the public interest. I think it would have been smart to lay out some of these details. First of all, I would presume that pharmacists would have a goal of supplying to the public, when needed, high-quality phar maceutical products. So quality is an issue.

The pharmacist would have a goal: safety in terms of the provision and the providing of pharmaceutical products. We have a DPIN system and other ways of looking at safety: protecting people from interactions between different drugs that may be prescribed and so on. But certainly safety is an important issue.

I would suggest, particularly around the debate that we have been having recently, that access and an important statement with access, that the College of Pharmacists should have a role in ensuring an adequate number of pharmacists to serve the people in Manitoba, and that there should be a goal that people in Manitoba wherever they are should have access to pharmaceuticals.

I would suggest that one of the goals here would be to ensure lifelong learning, continuing education with regard to the practice of pharmacists in Manitoba, and clearly that would be an important component one would expect of the college just as other bodies of a similar nature try to ensure that people are up to date with the information they have. Second, I would comment on the registry, the profiles and the panel decisions.

What I see here is a bit of a problem because th ere is a tendency in the reporting of information and the gathering of information for the registry and the reporting in the profiles and the decisions of the panels to be focussed on negative. That is where there are problems in the system. I believe that there should be at least an equal focus on positive and commendable goals and achievements by pharmacists.

I think it is very important, when we are providing public profiles, when we are gathering information in registries, that we should look in a systematic way at the sort of information that would indicate that a pharmacist has indeed not just met a base standard but is following best practices: the ability to note awards, for example, for exemplary practices; the ability to note the pharmacist who has a business which is certified by ISO 9000 or other international certifications; the ability to note continuing education and achievements in continuing education which are also important to be recognized and a profile that a pharmacist clearly has kept up to date, is knowledgeable on the latest information with regard to drugs and other pharmaceutical products.

So I would suggest that this is an aspect that we need to look at. It does not apply necessarily only to pharmacists, but it certainly applies to pharmacists. I would suggest that decisions of the panel should be designed not only to look at problems but to look at where pharmacists can be commended for exemplary practices. It is important that we establish, build upon and promote best practices among pharmacists, and this surely should be a part of what is done under the College of Pharmacists. Let us not focus too much on the negatives and the problems.

Let us focus, at least equally, on ensuring that we have ways of recognizing, identifying best practices and promoting them and moving them forward. * (14:50) I would suggest that there is an area in this bill which looks at interchangeable products. I have some concerns about how this

section is indeed worded, and hope that there will be some suggestions which come forward in terms of improvements at the committee stage. Now, when we have inter- changeable products, the reality is that, in a pretty high proportion of cases, these products are indeed interchangeable, but, certainly in some cases, they are not interchangeable. That is to say they may have roughly the same effect, but you may have a patient or person who is allergic to one but not the other.

June 8, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3149 You may have somebody who has specific side effects on one, but not the other. You may have somebody who has drug resistance to one but not the other. You may have somebody who, for whatever reason, gets better benefit from one but not the other.

So I would suggest that there needs to be a way of looking at this and not where somebody is allergic to product A but not product B and product B happens to be more expensive, that under the formulary, under the pharmaceutical coverage, there will be limited coverage on a drug which is absolutely essential for somebody who is allergic to A and can tolerate product B. So I am concerned that this bill may limit coverage in a few instances where the, quote, "interchangeable product" is in fact not really interchangeable at all for that particular person.

So I think there needs to be clear, specified reasons under some circumstances and the ability for full coverage of products which are absolutely essential when an individual has unacceptable side effects or is allergic or has a particular problem with medication A but not medication B. I think that these provisions and the approach in terms of interchangeable products is generally good, but there needs to be some specific areas where I think this could be handled better than it is. Next, I want to talk a little bit about the provision of services in northern Manitoba.

There have been concerns in the way that dispensing and pharmacists have actually not been present in First Nations communities. You have had nurses providing, dispensing drugs. This looks as if there may be a step forward in starting to address this issue, but clearly there does have to be a much better approach to the provision of pharmaceutical services in isolated communities, particularly in northern Manitoba, and we are talking essentially with provision of pharmaceutical services at a distance. Clearly, this provides for the opportunity for offsite.

There are obviously questions about does offsite have to be in Manitoba or can it be elsewhere. Clearly there are and have been some issues about dispensing for individuals who are travelling, visiting Manitoba, and there have been, as we are all aware, some issues around Internet pharmacies.

I would hope that in the committee stage we would have presentations which would deal with some of the aspects of how this bill will address and help us move forward in the appropriate use of the Internet in terms of improving the quality of drugs and the availability of drugs to Manitobans and when and where the Internet, et cetera, is appropriate and how it can be used. So, with these words, Mr. Speaker, we have general support for this bill.

We believe that there are some areas which can be improved and need attention and that would be helped by some additional attention, but we certainly commend those who put a lot of effort over many years into this bill and hope that these areas can be addressed. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this opportunity to speak to Bill 41 at this time, primarily because I do see that there is merit for this bill going to committee. I have had the opportunity to talk to a couple of individuals that have expressed a great deal of concern in regard to the passage of Bill 41.

Quite frankly, I can understand and appreciate why it is that these individuals that are out there, I believe, that go beyond just the two people that I had talked to, want to see this legislation ultimately passed and become law. It has a very significant impact on our pharmacists in the province and, generally speaking, it is in principle very positive. So I can appreciate why it is that so many people that are out there would like to see Bill 41 pass. Having said that, Mr.

Speaker, I have had the opportunity to talk and try to explain in terms of what it is that is happening inside the Legislature, and why this bill is, in fact, at risk of not passing by June 13. I think that it is important, out of all the pieces of legislation that the government has attempted to get through the Legislature, this particular piece of legislation in terms of the processing of it is probably the most abusive in terms of our rules if the government expects that it has to pass.

The issue that we are debating here today is something that has been there for years, and if you talk to the stakeholders, what you will find, as the stakeholders will tell you, they have been working on this for years. They have been wanting the government to bring in legislation that would, in fact, enact it for a lengthy period of time now, and one has got to question in terms of why it is it took them so long. Mr.

Speaker, you recall in the last session, in fact, we passed legislation that dealt with dental hygienists, as an example, and there have been some other health care areas where we dealt with associations, scopes of practices and so forth, all of which had, in essence, the consensus of the House

3150 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2006 and went through the normal practices of the House in order to ultimately become the law in the province of Manitoba. Bill 41 is truly unique. On the one hand, we have a bill that would be of benefit for Manitobans. On the other hand, we have a government that is trying to abuse the rules of this Le gislature, Mr. Speaker. You know, for Bill 41 to have actually been passed, and you go to the agreement.

The one that I would suggest that you take a look at is point 5, and it states that all government bills introduced after April 13 and not given Royal Assent before the end of the Fourth Session of the Thirty-eighth Legislature are to be reinstated during the Fifth Session of the Thirty- eighth Legislature at the stage they are at when the Fourth Session is prorogued. Mr. Speaker, in essence what it is saying is that, if a bill is introduced after April 13, they are going to have to re-introduce the bill. It is going to have to start the process over again.

In fact, even if it is after that stage, the only real guarantee is that that bill in question would be continued in the following session which we do not know. That could be as early as June 14; it could be as late as, I suspect, late fall, in November. That is what would have happened if it would have been brought in after April 13. Mr. Speaker, this particular bill was introduced for the very first time on May 18. The government brings in this legislation and expects, then, that every member inside this Chamber is going to accommodate its sloppy handling of a very important issue.

Then, if the opposition members do not support the sloppy way in which this government is bringing forward this legislation, not the content, but the way in which they are processing it, well, then, we are against the pharmacists of our province. * (15:00) An Honourable Member: Shame. Mr. Lamoureux: I agree with the minister. It is a shameful way; it is a shameful way of handling the legislative affairs of this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, I would ultimately argue it is a very slippery slope.

If government believes that it can bring in legislation at the last minute, and then expect to see that legislation become law and, if it does not become law, then to put the blame on members of the opposition, that is a disservice to the principles of democracy in the province of Manitoba. So, you know, Mr. Speaker, we are in a bit of a dilemma here. We recognize that this bill which creates the College of Pharmacists of Manitoba, this bill that provides some tangible things for our province on merit and principle should become the law, that this bill should pass and it should have the support of all members.

Yet, on the other hand, you listen to the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gerrard). He raises a number of concerns, maybe some things that could even make the legislation a little bit better. We then go into committee stage which affords opportunity for people outside of this Legislature to participate and contribute to this particular bill. But what the government is doing is if you take a look at the whole legislative agenda, you look at the budgetary process, you have a Minister of Health (Mr.

Sale) who brings in a bill on May 18, given everything else that is happening in this session, and demands attention be given to this bill, and that this bill better pass, or else. The "or else" is that we are the ones that are going to be blamed because this bill did not become law. Well, Mr. Speaker, sham e on this government. This government has been sitting on this for years. They have been sitting on it for years.

To bring it in at this stage in the game, what I would ultimately argue is walk on the rights and roles and responsibilities that members of this opposition–If the government backbenchers do not care in terms of process, that is one thing, but, in opposition, my role is to as much as possible look into what is being debated inside this Chamber to try to make things a little bit better, to try and ensure that there is proper accountability. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health's bill is a good bill in principle, but it is not the only piece of legislation that is here.

In fact, it is not the only good piece of legislation that is going to have a wonderful, positive impact on Manitobans. There are numerous bills that are good for all Manitobans, that merit the attention of this Chamber and that should be passed. In virtually all, I believe it might even be all, I am not 100 percent sure, but I suspect that this particular bill, with the exception of the budget bills that are always brought in at the end, was introduced last. This is the last one from what I understand.

Mind you, one could never be surprised, or should never be surprised, but, May 18, it is the last one that comes in. And now they say we have to have it passed because it is for the betterment of all Manitobans. Well, there are other bills. This one that I want to highlight is the FASD bill, a private members' bill

June 8, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3151 that I have introduced. Or I could talk about the Good Samaritan bill that the Leader of the Liberal Party has introduced, or we could talk about even bills within the Conservative Party that have been introduced, Mr. Speaker. There are other bills that are equally as important in some ways and, in some ways, even more important some might argue, than this bill. Yet the government, Mr. Speaker, has to have it their way. It is their way or the highway. Mr. Speaker: Order.

Second reading is to deal with the principle of the bill before us, and the bill before us is Bill 41, The Pharmaceutical Act. It is the principle of the bill that members should be debating. Mr. Lamoureux: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your interjection on it because The Pharmaceutical Act will pass second reading today and we support it passing second reading. We support it in most part because of what it is going to create, the College of Phar macists of Manitoba. We support it for the idea of having annual reports. We support it because of issues like the scope of practice being dealt with.

There are many good reasons to support this piece of legislation. There are a lot of issues in health care today that we need to stay on top of and fetal alcohol syndrome is one of those issues. The need for pharmaceutical attention with individuals that have FASD is that much greater. There is more of a dependency. Yet there is opportunity as this bill is good, we want to and we encourage its passage. We want to see things done in a fair and appropriate way inside this Chamber. My intentions were not to speak long on Bill 41 because, Mr.

Speaker, I do believe that there are some other pieces that we would like to be able to get to today. So, with those few little words and expressions that I have been able to give in terms of some frustration on the way in which the government is manipulating this Chamber, I am going to leave it at that and we will see when it actually gets to committee and see what happens in terms of if we can ultimately get it through this Legislature. I would encourage the Government House Leader (Mr.

Mackintosh) to maybe sit down with members of the opposition and see if in fact there might be other ways that we can accommodate. Suffice to say that in principle it is a good bill and should, in fact, have been introduced long ago. Thank you. Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to have an opportunity to make some comment on Bill 41, The Pharmaceutical Act, and the modernization of this legislation. I would like to indicate that we support the principle of this bill and look forward to its moving on to committee to hear comments from the public.

I would indicate, however, that it is too bad that the government did miss their deadline to ensure passage of this bill and that it is the good will of the opposition that is allowing it to go through. This legislation has been worked on, Mr. Speaker, I am told, for about five years. So I am surprised that it has taken this long for this government to get the bill forward. I am surprised that it has taken them this long to call second reading of this bill.

I do feel that the pharmacist profession is a significant one and I would have expected, because of the significance of the pharmacists within the health care system and the role that they play, I would have expected that this bill might have come along sooner than it did in terms of its modernization. I am glad to see, though, that it finally is here today. Mr. Speaker, I am also su rprised, I guess, to find that it has not been managed as well through the process as a number of other bills have been, and it has seemed to have taken this government a while in order to bring this bill forward.

It is too bad, though, that it was not brought forward in a more timely fashion which would have actually guaranteed passage through this legislative session. Mr. Speaker, I have very high regard for pharmacists.

I have worked side by side with that profession for years during my 23 years as a nurse, and I have always believed that there is an untapped capacity to enlarge the scope of their role and to get that profession more integrally involved within all of the roles within the primary health care service delivery. * (15:10) I think that through some of the modernization of this legislation and the expansion of the scope of practice of pharmacists that, indeed, what will happen is that there will be a very good opportunity to see an improvement of primary health care in this province.

One of the things that I am particularly pleased to see is that patients with chronic illness like diabetes might soon be able to get regular prescriptions approved by a pharmacist, rather than

3152 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2006 enduring long waits in a doctor's office. The proposed amendments are going to allow patients on a continuous care plan to have their prescriptions renewed by the pharmacist and eliminate the need for a visit to the doctor's office just to get a refill. Not only is this going to be very, very good for patient care, I think it is also going to be good for improving the efficiency of the health care system. I think it is going to be good, especially in the situation where there could be a pandemic.

What this would do, then, is allow an improvement in terms of how challenges are met within the health care system. So this particular aspect of the bill, and my congratulations to the people that were working on this legislation that saw the opportunity to bring such an enlarged scope of practi ce within the legislation. My congratulations to all of those people because I think that this is very futuristic thinking, in terms of what we can do to improve the health care system as a whole in Manitoba.

But I think it is going to be so good for patients with chronic conditions who have enough challenges in just facing their own illness, without having to worry about what happens every time they need to have a prescription filled. I think it will be very, very good for patient care. The legislation also creates a college of pharmacists of Manitoba to replace the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association and, by virtue of that, does update the complaint and discipline process, modeling it after the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba.

Again, that is another aspect of this legislation that is going to be very good for our health care system and good for the public. I would like to indicate that we are very supportive of that, again because of the significance in the role of pharmacists within the health care system. It is too bad that it has taken almost five years, or over five years, in that vicinity I am told, to actually have this legislation before us because some changes certainly could have been made in a more timely fashion.

There is the aspect also where there is an improved access to health care in rural and northern communities by allowing pharmacy operations to include licensed offsite facilities as part of a pharmacy's practice. Again there, Mr. Speaker, that is good for patient care; that is good for primary health care and the efficien cy of the system; and it does look at innovation and modernization of how we can do things.

When you look at the opportunities for making our health care system more innovative, and you look at more integration of services and professions, and professions getting along and working together–keeping in mind always that the patient is at the centre of all of this, and what we need to do is always keep that patient in mind, and get past the issue of turf wars–I think we will see there are great opportunities for improving patient care.

I am particularly pleased about the opportunity it is going to provide for allowing collaborative practice between pharmacists and other regulated health care professionals, practitioners with prescriptive authority, which, I understand, are doctors, extended practice nurses, registered clinical assistants and midwives. Certainly, doing something like this and having more of a collaborative practice is where all of the research points us to go, if we want to see improvements in the health care system.

So I think that is going to, amongst the other aspects to this legislation, is certainly going to improve patient care and improve efficiencies in the system. I think it will create interesting dynamics, I think, amongst the practices for professionals. I would even imagine that, once all the professions out there got used to working very well together, that we could see some very, very exciting things happen in health care. Mr. Speaker, along with the other members that have spoken on this, I would urge passage. Our caucus, certainly, is committed to seeing this bill pass.

I would like to commend the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association for their good work in helping put this legislation together. It is too bad, though, that so much angst has been created around the way the government has been handling issues lately, or lack of handling of issues, because if the government was going to be transparent and ac countable, there would have not been some of the things going on in this House that have actually gone on in order to see this government forced into accountability .

It is too bad, in opposition, that we have to do some of the things we do while working within the parameters of what we are able to do. If the government had called an inquiry into Crocus a long time ago, all of this legislation would have had full and complete debate in this House, and it would have been moving forward in a much more timely fashion. Certainly, the angst they have created by not doing what they should do as an accountable government has really put a lot of people on edge in this province, a lot of health care professionals, and it

June 8, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3153 really does rest with th e government for their unwillingness to look at doing the right thing for the people of Manitoba. As I said, what it has done is create a lot of angst amongst many people out there. I hope, though, that what we can see happen today is the government making a commitment to ensure that this bill does go through. They have certainly taken a long time to bring it forward for second reading, and we have been looking for this, actually, for a number of weeks now.

The bells have not been ringing here for a long time, and this government has had many opportunities to get this bill in on time to guarantee passage. They have had many opportunities to bring it forward for a second reading and they have not done that. So I would indicate that it is only by the good will of opposition that this bill is going to go through, and it is because we have such high regard for improving patient care and for the role that the pharmaceutical profession will play in that. So we look forward, Mr. Speaker, to this bill getting to committee for further input from the public. Thank you. Mr.

Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading Bill 41, The Pharmaceutical Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 33–The Northern Affairs Act Mr. Speaker: Bill 33, The Northern Affairs Act, standing in the name of honourable Member for Inkster, who has 27 minutes remaining. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put a few words on the record before Bill 33 passes into committee.

It was interesting, earlier this morning, we were in committee on Bill 32, and Mr. Harper gave a wonderful presentation on MKO. It was interesting when you contrast that to the press release that was issued out by the government on Bill 33. Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair I would like to share the quote, one from Mr. Harper in committee, and one from the government press release which was on April 11 in reference to Bill 33, the minister stated, and I quote: "The existing act has not been comprehensively reviewed since it came into effect in 1974.

The proposed legislation reflects the input gathered through consultation with northern communities." That is what the minister indicates in his press release dated April 11, Mr. Deputy Speaker. * (15:20) Just a few hours ago in committee, I listened to a presentation. It is on a bill that is substantially different, but a bill which the same minister is ultimately responsible for. Mr. Harper, who represents MKO, made a wonderful presentation. I am going to turn to page 3 in his presentation.

It is about four paragraphs down and it states, and again I will quote: MKO and TLEC have each expressed concerns to the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs (Mr. Lathlin) and the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers) regarding the lack of meaningful consultation and the lack of collaborative transparency between government and the First Nation parties to the affected treaties and agreements that have characterized the development, introduction and consideration of Bill 32.

So it is interesting, you have a gentleman that is well respected representing individuals up in northern Manitoba in essence saying that the government is not listening to them, is not acting on what it is that they are talking about. In essence, you know, in committees they go, oh, yes, there were some meetings. They did attend some meetings, but there was no indication whatsoever if the government was actually even listening to what was being said, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One would have thought that whether it was Bill 32 or Bill 33, that the government would have done consultation.

In fact, I might even have, you know I do have the press release for Bill 32, and if I could, I would read it just to see if in fact they say that they consulted. I suspect that they have. At least the government will tell you that they have. So I would hope that the discussions there would have been more tangible in regard to Bill 33 because it does have a fairly significant impact on settlements, calls into or puts into proper place or into an order unincorporated communities and corporated commu- nities. It is a modern update of significant legislation that has an impact on thousands of Manitobans.

One would hope that the minister did do some consultations.

3154 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2006 If one does a comparison of Bill 33 to another very important issue to northern Manitoba, was the Manitoba Northern Flood Agreement. Under that flood agreement even the pr esenter made reference, he talked about the flood agreement in essence being treated like a treaty agreement which highlights the importance of that particular agreement.

You know, you look at it, and I had done an Internet search on the Manitoba Northern Flood Agreement and that one started in 1975 and quote right from–this one actually comes from the Government of Canada: "Federal-Provincial Lake Winnipeg Churchill Nelson River Study Board reports on post-project impact assessment and recommendations." Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is back in 1975. That was a year after this particular legislation was last overhauled.

I do think that we need to work a little bit more proactively within our northern communities and that we do need to be more genuine in listening and bringing forward legislation that better reflects the interests of all. I am anticipating, in principle, that this legislation does have support, but I was surprised and having said that, I say in principle, having said that, there was a great deal of concern on another bill that the minister actually introduced. Am I going to be seeing the same thing or witnessing the same thing once again in committee?

Well, we do not know, and I guess we will not find out until it gets to committee. But it is an important issue and, for that reason, in part, plus I believe there is a willingness to get on to third reading report stage, because we have not even had that opportunity with only a few days to go, so I think it is best if I will leave my comments at that and look forward to seeing Bill 33 going to the committee so that we can actually get into report stage. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this?

The question before the House is the second reading of Bill 33, The No rthern Affairs Act;

Loi sur les affaires du Nord. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] REPORT STAGE AMENDMENTS Bill 21–The Public Health Act Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are moving to report stage of Bill 21. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the MLA for Inkster, THAT Bill 21 be amended in Clause 106(1) by adding "or was grossly negligent or grossly incompetent" after "bad faith". Motion presented. Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a debatable motion. The time limit is 10 minutes for all members. Mr. Gerrard: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I bring forward this report stage amendment because I believe that it is important that there is some level of accountability, and to waive all liability, except in the case of bad faith, is not appropriate.

Now, we are certainly dealing with The Public Health Act and we are dealing with matters which may be of urgent public health importance, but I would look here and suggest to you that this clause 106(1), which basically says, as follows: No action or proceeding may be brought against the minister, the chief public health officer, a director, a medical officer, an inspector, a health officer, a public health nurse or any other person acting under the authority of this Act, the regulations or a municipal by-law for anything done or not done, or for any neglect, (

a) in the performance or intended performance of a duty under this Act, the regulations or a municipal by-law; or (

b) in the exercise or intended exercise of a power under this Act, the regulations or a municipal by-law; unless the person was acting in bad faith. * (15:30) Now, I believe that it is important that there be some liability for people acting under this act. This act will cover a wide range of actions, and it is important that people not be completely free of liability. I would suggest to you, for example, that a surgeon doing an operation with good intentions makes an error.

At the moment, that is subject to legal liability, and that this should not be exempt from legal liability or actions under this Public Health Act, and that the clause "bad faith" is not sufficient, but that there needs to be for certain things which are done grossly negligently or grossly incompetent, there should be the potential to have liability for doing such actions. Clearly, these are only intended to be used in the most extreme

June 8, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3155 circumstances, but I suggest to you that a minister knowing that there is a potential for liability will act in a bit more prudent way. So will all the others who are working under this act than if they were to believe that they were completely free of liability except in the issue of bad faith. So there is a problem in proving bad faith, and certainly this is part of the reasons why it is important to have grossly negligent or grossly incompetent action subject to some level of liability.

There is, I suggest, for some of the people covered under here; a medical officer, for example, might be subject to some level of liability for malpractice or incompetence. Under most of the provisions under which medical service is provided and current laws, but it could certainly be subject to censure by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. But here there is an issue. Are you going to completely remove somebody from liability? Which act will have precedence under the circumstances? Hopefully, the Minister of Health (Mr.

Sale) will clarify which acts have precedence when there is something done in the name of public health, and public health can be pretty broad. So let us hear what the minister has had to say. I have put the case clearly. I do not believe the minister should be above the law. The minister should be subject to some liability when there are actions which are grossly negligent or grossly incompetent, and the word grossly is included so it is not, except in the most extreme of circumstances, that this would come into play under the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Question?

An Honourable Member: Question. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? Some Honourable Members: No. Some Honourable Members: Yes. Voice Vote Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Those opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Deputy Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, the Nays have it. I declare the amendment lost. * * * Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next bill for–oh, there is a second amendment. Mr. Gerrard: I move, seconded by the MLA for Inkster (Mr.

Lamoureux), THAT Bill 21 be amended in Clause 106(2) by adding "or is grossly negligent or grossly incompetent" after "bad faith". Motion presented. Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the clause that we are amending, 106(2), refers to a person who provides assistance under this act, has the same protection as a person referred to in subsection 1, unless he or she acts in bad faith.

This we could look at as having some equivalents in terms of the bill that we put forward in terms of Good Samaritan legislation because we are talking about a person who provides assistance, who may come forward off the street or be a volunteer. The person is perhaps not adequately defined. It could be somebody who is employed perhaps even in the public health system. But to the extent that we are talking about volunteer or somebody who gratuitously comes forward and provides services under this act, there is a similarity to what we have put forward and, indeed, interestingly enough, what the MLA for St.

James put forward after I and the MLA for Inkster put forward our Good Samaritan bill. The MLA for St. James put forward her bill after we did, and we have had that debate, but the point here is that in our Good Samaritan bill we provided for protection from liability except when there was an action which was grossly negligent. It was not enough to have whether your intentions are good or bad. One had the presumption that if somebody comes forward as a vol unteer to try and help somebody out under circumstances which may be covered under this act, this is equivalent to somebody who is a Good Samaritan.

Yet, when we put forward our legislation on the Good Samaritan bill, and I think it is also that the language was similar in the bill put forward by the MLA for St. James, that there was not protection from liability where there was gross negligence. Mr. Speaker in the Chair

3156 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2006 Mr. Speaker, I think that this is important, that this government, clearly, is putting forward a bill which, in a sense, makes the presumption that people acting under this bill can do no wrong. One of the presenters who came in and who saw this said to me, these NDP think they are God, think they cannot make any mistakes, that they have no accountability. Mr. Speaker, we have seen time and time again where this government has been incompetent. I would suggest to you grossly incompetent.

There needs to be a mechanism to hold individuals to account when they are grossly negligent. We put that in the Good Samaritan bill. It should be in this bill. That is what we are doing with this report stage amendment. * (15:40) The government may get up and say that they do not want this amendment. They may get up and say: We can do no wrong; we are the NDP. Well, we on this side know very differently. There needs to be accountability. The NDP may reject accountability, but we have the experience to suggest to them that there needs to be accountability.

We have watched what has happened on the other side for the last six and a half years. We know that there needs to be accountability in terms of what happens at the provincial government. This government, in putting forward this bill and a variety of other bills, is going to extreme lengths to protect themselves and that, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, is a very serious issue and a very serious problem. That is why we have put forward this report stage amendment, because we believe in The Good Samaritan Act that we put forward. The government has failed to help us even pass The Good Samaritan Act.

We believe in the approach that Good Samaritans should be protected from liability except where there is gross negligence. That principle should apply here in The Public Health Act as well as in Good Samaritan acts, as it does in Good Samaritan acts, I would suggest to the minister, in virtually every other jurisdiction in which they have been written. Not protecting somebody for gross negligence is a fairly standard approach.

This government has taken a non-standard approach to protect themselves and to protect people acting under these acts because–[interjection] No, here we are talking about volunteers, people who come forward as Good Samaritans, and we want to provide them with protection from liability, but not as extreme as the Minister of Health (Mr. Sale). The Minister of Health, clearly, in putting forward this act believes that he can do no wrong.

Well, that is not our view, and we believe that in legislation we need to reflect the view that there is accountability, that there ne eds to be accountability, and that is why we have brought forward this report stage amendment. I would hope I would have the support of other members in supporting this report stage amendment. I would hope that I would have the support of the MLA for St. James, because her language and her Good Samaritan bill are similar to what I have in the report stage amendment. So I wait and hope that the MLA for St.

James will comment on this report stage amendment because it will do a piece, but it will not be the same as the kind of Good Samaritan legislation that we have put forward and that she has put forward because this makes the presumption that people under this act should be protected from liability even where there is gross negligence. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that people should be protected from liability, should be protected from liability under all sorts of circumstances, but not where there are actions which are grossly negligent. Thank you. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr.

Speaker, I, too, want to speak to this amendment. I must say right up front I am surprised that the government has seen fit not even to respond to amendments. I like the challenge that has been put from the Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) in terms of hearing from the Member for St. James (Ms. Korzeniowski) because, as he was addressing the amendment, I took the liberty to pull the Member for St. James's Bill 204, because what this amendment does is it talks about the importance of acknowledging gross negligence.

That is what th e amendment is all about, the principle of accepting the fact that, at times, unfortunately, there is gross negligence. I know the Minister of Health had taken some exception to it saying, well, these are civil servants. Mr. Speaker, I, for one, have a tremendous amount of respect for our civil servants. I like to think that our civil service is second best to no other civil service. It is not a question about the quality of the whole civil service.

I like to think that the Minister of Health is not that naive to believe that when you have thousands of civil servants, each and every one of those civil servants is incapable of being grossly

June 8, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3157 negligent. If he does believe that, I would give the Minister of Health some advice by saying that, at times, civil servants do make mistakes. After all, we are all humans, not perfect. The Deputy Speaker of this House has given speeches on not being perfect because we are, indeed, all humans. [interjection] An Honourable Member: Quoted it from the Bible. Mr. Lamoureux: Quoted it from the Bible I believe is where he got it from. Mr. Speaker, it is the same thing in terms of civil servants.

There are civil servants that, on occasion, have been negligent, and where they have been grossly negligent, why would the government want to waive any sort of liability launched against that civil servant? I do not understand that. I had a chance to speak about this in second reading. In speaking on it, I used examples of gross negligence. The ultimate gross negligence of this government is in regard to the Crocus fiasco, Mr. Speaker. I guess maybe that is the reason why they do not want to incorporate those words. I do not quite understand it. Obviously, it is a Cabinet thing.

The Cabinet has decided, do not use gross negligence. That is the reason why, I believe, they are even too scared to talk on the amendment because that means they have to say gross negligence. So, because of that fear of even saying gross negligence, the government is not even responding to the amendments that are being put forward by the Member for River Heights. Well, then we have the Member for St. James. This is why I believe that it is just a Cabinet rule, Mr. Speaker, just pertains to Cabinet. Other members can say it. Why? Well, let us look at the explanatory notes from the Member for St.

James on another bill. It is very short and I will even start on the halfway point: The person will not be liable to pay damages in a lawsuit started by the victim unless the person was grossly negligent. Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. James (Ms. Korzeniowski) has something here. I think that the Member for St. James should be talking to some of her Cabinet colleagues. That is why it was inte resting. The Minister of Health (Mr. Sale) is walking around the exit doors, and he takes the shot of, well, we are talking about civil servants, to the Member for River Heights. Well, Mr.

Speaker, so only volunteers are allowed to be grossly negligent and be held accountable? Is that what the Minister of Health is saying? We know it is all about civil servants, but we also are in the real world. We realize that people do make mistakes and sometimes there is gross negligence, i.e., the Premier (Mr. Doer) of our province, Becky Barrett, and many others that were grossly negligent on the Crocus file. How gross? Well, we are talking tens of millions of dollars. [interjection] An Honourable Member: Sloppy gross. Mr. Lamoureux: Sloppy gross, as one member has pointed out.

But that is a word which they are having a difficult time addressing. It will be an interesting process if the intent of the government is to avoid any use of that term. * (15:50) I believe that this is a resolution, or an amendment, that warrants the passage of this Chamber. It is too easy for us just to walk over it and say no. How do you justify to the constituents, which you want to represent, by saying it is okay for a civil servant to be negligent to the degree, Mr. Speaker, that it is just not acceptable? To what degree are you prepared to say that they should not be held to account for that? Mr.

Speaker, remember the Walkerton. Lives were lost and the issue of negligence came up. This government would ultimately argue that there should not have been any consequence to the employees. That is what this government would ultimately argue. I think that the government needs to reflect on, yes, we have the best civil servants in the world, but there are at times negligence that occurs which people need to be held accountable for, and what this particular amendment does is it gives better definition, better clarity as to when that could occur. For that reason, Mr.

Speaker, I support the amendment, and believe that the government should join me, the Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) and the Member for St. James in supporting this amendment. Thank you. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is the amendment moved by the honourable Member for River Heights. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

3158 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 8, 2006 Some Honourable Members: Yes. Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the amendment, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it. Bill 36–The Youth Drug Stabilization (Support for Parents) Act Mr. Speaker: Bill 36, The Youth Drug Stabilization (Support for Parents) Act, amendment by the honourable Member for River Heights. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I move, seconded by the MLA for Inkster (Mr.

Lamoureux), THAT Bill 36 be amended in Clause 22 by adding "or was grossly negligent or grossly incompetent" after "bad faith". Motion presented. Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, this is a report stage amendment to The Youth Drug Stabilization Act, an important act which we hope will make a significant contribution. This particular

section which provides protection from liability says: Protection from liability 22 No action or proceeding may be brought against an addictions specialist, the co-ordinator, a reviewing officer or any other person acting under the authority of this Act for anything done or not done, or for any neglect, (

a) in the performance or intended performance of the duty under this Act; or (

b) in the exercise or intended exercise of a power under this Act; unless the person was acting in bad faith. Our report stage amendment would add "unless the person was acting in bad faith, or was grossly negligent or grossly incompetent." Now, I think it is important to point out that the persons who are protected from liability include any person acting under the authority of the act. That would include the minister. That would include the Premier (Mr. Doer) to the extent that he might be acting under the authority of this act, but he would certainly include the minister.

It is another example of how the government is bending over backwards to protect themselves from any liability for things that they have done which are grossly negligent or grossly incompetent. It is an attempt by this government to avoid any form of accountability. Why is it important to put in here "grossly negligent"? Well, I suggest to you that what is important is that people who are acting under the authority of this act are aware that, if they do something which is totally egregious in being grossly negligent or grossly incompetent, there will be some mechanism to hold them to an account.

That is why it is important that we accept and adopt this report stage amendment. If people are provided with authorities for which there is no accountability, I suggest to the members of this Chamber that that is not a good situation for anybody, the reason being, as has been demonstrated all too often in the past, that power which has no checks and balances, which there is no way of holding accountable, has all too often been abused.

It is important, whether under this act or whether under the other acts that we are dealing with, that there be some level of accountability, some level of liability, for actions which are grossly negligent or grossly incompetent. Now, the members will note that we do not say for actions which are negligent or incompetent. It is not ordinary negligence or incompetence that we are actually concerned about here for having some liability. It is actions which are grossly negligent or grossly incompetent. This is the most extreme of actions which can be done.

The most egregious of actions which might be done under this bill that there is some level of accountability, that there is some level of liability. I think that it is important that that level of liability be there as a reminder to people that they are not all powerful. They do not have the ability to do things which are inappropriate, which are negligent, which are incompetent in a gross way without having some level of liability. We need certain checks and balances when we pass legislation, when we pass laws.

It is appropriate and we agree that people who are acting under this act be protected from liability for minor things that may be done, that maybe show

June 8, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3159 incompetence or negligence. But where things are done which are so totally, grossly negligent or grossly incompetent, we believe that there has to be some level of accountability. Now, I would hope that there would be some members of the Conservative Party who would stand up and speak to this, because the Conservatives have been silent on this issue of accountability. It is unusual for the Conservatives not to be ready to talk about accountability.

The only explanation that we have come up with for their silence is that maybe the Conservatives have some misguided view that they might, at some point, be government in the future of Manitoba, and that they might want to protect their own butts, or protect their own ministers from gross incompetence or gross negligence.

I would hope that, at least, one of the members of the Conservative caucus would get up and support our efforts in the Liberal Party to get some level of accountability where there is gross negligence or gross incompetence. * (16:00) What I think is important, and I am trying to make this case, is that we are dealing with youth under a drug stabilization act. We are dealing with youth who are very vulnerable. We need to have the protection for those youth.

If an addiction specialist for some reason was to sexually abuse one of the youth who was detained under this act–we would hope that it would never, never happen, and hopefully it never will, but there needs to be some level of accountability. I have heard of charges like th

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-4-86b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 4th hansardpdf 86b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	32844b65b829fa3c5a94bcc188c071ceccdfc1d2

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