Manitoba Hansard — 15 June 2005 (Sitting 64, 38th Legislature, 3rd Session)

38-3-64

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session - Thirty-Eighth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LVI No. 64 - 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 15, 2005

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

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

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

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

3609 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, June 15, 2005 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us today from Victoria-Albert School 49 Grade 5 students under the direction of Mr. Dave Leochko and Mr. Moszynski. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes). Also in the public gallery we have from Van Walleghem School 33 Grade 4 students under the direction of Ms. Cathy Hughes and Ms. Val Craddock.

This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Loewen). Mr. Speaker: Now the House will now resolve into a Committee of Supply. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. As previously agreed, I will now call Orders of the Day. ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please call Supply. Mr. Speaker: The House will now resolve into Committee of Supply. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: Order.

Before we move into a Committee of Supply, the honourable Official Oppo- sition House Leader, on a point of order. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am wondering if there is leave to revert back to the House from Supply so that I could table the ministers that we will be requiring for the concurrence session. Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement of the House that we go back into the House? [Agreed] Mr. Derkach: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to table the list of ministers required to this concurrence session, and basically who I am asking for is the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Smith). Mr. Speaker: Okay, that has been tabled. * * * COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY Concurrence Motion Mr. Chairperson (Conrad Santos): Order, please. The Committee of Supply has before it for our considerations the motion concurring in all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of Expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006. The floor is now open for questions. Mr.

Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr. Chairman, I would just like to talk a little bit about the rain that has come upon the province over the last month and the hardship that has been placed on the farming community and the ranchers that have been hard hit, their hay and that that has been put underwater and pasture that has been flooded. I have had a number of requests for aerial spraying. I would just like to ask the minister if her department has been in touch with the various departments in order to make sure that the farmers will be able to apply Roundup by air and if she would like to comment on that. Hon.

Rosann Wowchuk (Minis ter of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that has been raised with us, and there are discussions going on with the people that have that responsibility. There are federal regulations that are here as well, and we are looking at how we might be able to at least get some aerial spraying done. So, to

3610 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 15, 2005 the member's question: Yes, we are aware of the problem and we are working on it. Mr. Eichler: In the essence of time, the House rises tomorrow, Mr. Chair. Could the minister indicate some type of a time line of which a decision might be made in order to get back to the number of calls that have been placed out there? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, we are in discussion with the industry, and I hope that a decision can be made very shortly on it. When that decision is made, I will make an effort to inform the member. * (13:40) Mr.

Eichler: With respect to the payment per acre, the other day in Question Period I had asked the minister her government's idea as far as reviewing again the payment for unseeded acres of $50 per acre, and the minister responded that it was reviewed in 2002. However, I am of the opinion, and we on this side of the House feel very strongly that with the input costs of what they are today, in order to maintain that land with the increase in chemicals, the increase in fuel cost, the increase in machinery and tillage equipment, we just feel the $50 is not enough.

Also, I know this is a bit of a sore spot for the minister, but I did go to the news releases. In June 29 of 1999 Harry Enns, along with Premier Filmon, at the time announced the $50-per-acre payment on unseeded acres. I do want to give the minister credit; their government did follow through on that commitment made on behalf of the party on this side of the House. On January 5, I believe, the gov- ernment of today has carried on with that, but we do feel that it is not in time with the cost that really is in effect what we need for this industry at this particular point in time.

We would ask that the minister review that and review it in a timely matter so that the farmers can make the necessary arrangements in order to look after this unseeded land. Ms. Wowchuk: The member asked the other day whether we would consider changing crop insurance, and I told him then, and I will continue to say, that this is a program that has to be reviewed on a regular basis. To make changes within year is not possible. This is a federal-provincial program, and to make adjustments at this time would be very difficult. I would continue to disagree with the member with regard to the $50 an acre. He is right.

There was a $50-an-acre payment introduced by the members opposite, but it was not crop insurance. There was a plea from farm organizations asking that the gov- ernment of the day change crop insurance so that it would be a change to programs so that excess moisture would be a free program so to speak, rather than a purchase program as it was under the previous administration. The program that the member is talking about, the $50-an-acre payment, was not a crop insurance payment. It was a payment that was made, some of it was AIDA money and there was money that came from another source.

We could agree to disagree on this issue. The members opposite did have an excess moisture insurance program that you had to pay for, then they brought in an ad hoc program of $50 an acre during the flood of 1999. Our government made it a permanent program that is available for all people who participate in crop insurance. Mr. Eichler: On the excess moisture program, could the minister tell us why young farmers, first-time insured farmers, are being excluded from the $50- per-acre payment? We have had four phone calls that I know of that have been brought to my attention with respect to the excess moisture.

This is definitely a hardship that is being placed upon those young farmers, and they are the on es who probably need it as well, probably more so than the farmers that have been in business for a number of years. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I would want to review that. It is not my understanding that there is an exclusion of young farmers from this program, but I will check that and I will get back to the member on it. Mr. Eichler: Is the minister of the opinion that she is in favour that these young farmers should be receiving compensation? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr.

Chairman, I would like to verify the comments that the member is making indicating that young farmers are excluded. I do not believe that is accurate, but I will get back to him as soon as we are done with this concurrence and get the accurate information for him. Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Chairman, we just heard the member from the

June 15, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3611 Interlake talking from his chair about how this was a program that the government had put in place, taking the advice of the previous Conservative government, and implemented the program into crop insurance. If these are first-time, young farmers nobody needs this assistance more. I never would want to underestimate those who do need it, but these are the future of the industry. It should be an absolute given that they qualify if they have taken out crop insurance for the 2005 year. Can the minister not confirm that right now? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr.

Chairman, I had just indicated to the member from Lakeside that I would verify whether that was accurate or not and get back to him as soon as possible. I say to the member opposite I am not aware of the youn g farmers being excluded from excess moisture insurance, and, as soon as I verify it, I will get back to him. Mr. Maguire: Well, would the minister then confirm that she would agree that they should be included, that there should be no technicality as to why there would not be would there? If she is aware of one could she please advise me? Ms.

Wowchuk: As I indicated to the previous question, I am not aware of a technicality that excludes young farmers. If that is part of the program I will certainly verify as to why it is, but I am not aware of that and I will get back to the member as soon as I can. Introduction of Guests Mr. Chairperson: Before we proceed any further, it is my privilege to introduce and draw the attention of all the members to the public gallery where we have with us today Grades 4 and 5 students from Garden Grove School. This school is in the constitu- ency of the honourable Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).

We welcome you here today. * * * Mr. Eichler: The minister made a tour last week, a whirlwind tour of the province with respect to the waters of the heavy rains that came. Some of the things that have also been brought to my attention are the relocation of livestock where the waters are so high that the pastures are under water and the farms and the feedlots are under water, and they are unable to handle the livestock because of the rising water.

Is the minister or her department developing a plan to assist the farmers with some sort of compensation in order to relocate these cattle to a higher area where they can be stored until such time as the water levels go down? Ms. Wowchuk: We did talk to one producer who had concerns about moving his livestock, but there is definitely a concern that some of the feedlots, the corrals, are very wet and they need to move them to pasture. If there are these kinds of problems these people would qualify under disaster assistance for some of those costs.

I would, and we are encouraging all municipalities, whether they have municipal damage or not, to pass their resolution declaring a disaster. Then people who have these additional costs that they have to incur to move their livestock will qualify for assistance under the disaster assistance program. The municipalities should be passing a motion declaring their area a disaster. Mr. Eichler: Could the minister give us an update on the number of municipalities that have declared disaster areas at this point in time? Ms. Wowchuk: My understanding from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affa irs and Trade (Mr.

Smith) is that 41 have declared and it could be up to 44 by later today, but when we were talking to muni- cipalities when we were out visiting in various parts of the province, the municipalities were going to be passing resolutions and they still have up to, how many days? They have 30 days to put their resolution in and up to 90 days to make their claims, but I would encourage municipalities to do that as quickly as possible. * (13:50) Mr. Eichler: It would have been much easier if the critics would have been involved in this tour as well as the MLA for the area.

It might have taken out some of the questions as far as the municipalities that applied and those that have not. So I would encourage both the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister of Agriculture, when they are out and about in the area, if they would involve at least the local MLA in the tours. I think it would save the ministers an awful lot of questions. I know that some of the municipalities that I have been

3612 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 15, 2005 talking to are very disappointed that the members have not been invited, and we will follow up with these municipalities. However, it does take a lot of time to phone each one of these municipalities and see whether or not they have applied. If they do have a list that could be provided to us, it would be much appreciated. If the ministers, either one of them, would want to comment on it that would be fine. Chairperson's Ruling Mr. Chairperson: Before we continue, I have a ruling for the committee.

During consideration of the concurrence motion in the Committee of Supply on June 6, 2005, a point of order was raised by the honourable Member for Brandon East (Mr. Caldwell) regarding com- ments spoken by the honourable Member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Loewen) in addressing questions to the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger). The honourable Member for Brandon East contended that the honourable Member for Fort Whyte said that the honourable Minister of Finance required his hand on the Bible to tell the truth. The honourable Member for Fort Whyte also spoke to the point of order.

I took the matter under advisement in order to peruse the remarks in question in Hansard. On page 3306 of Hansard, the honourable Member for Fort Whyte is recorded as saying, "I will certainly be interested when the minister gets to actually put his hand on a Bible and testify in that forum." Although the honourable Member for Fort Whyte did make a reference to the Bible and the Minister of Finance, he did not make a direct reference to telling the truth. I would therefore rule that there is no point of order. * * * Ms. Wowchuk: Mr.

Chairman, I am surprised that the member has taken offence to my being out in their area and they thought that we should have invited him. This was really a departmental tour with staff looking at the various areas of the province. It was very much a fact-finding mission and meeting with a few municipalities to look at what their situation was. It was not meant to be offensive to anyone. I am sure the member is well aware that the department offered a tour to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Murray), and the member from Carman went along on that tour.

He asked for a list of municipalities, and I can tell the member that I am not sure what list he is looking for. If he is looking for the list of muni- cipalities that we visited or the list of municipalities that have filed their application, I can tell you that all municipalities where there is a problem are being encouraged to pass a resolution that will say that their area is a disaster, and that makes it a little bit easier for everybody in the whole municipality. Mr.

Eichler: The list that I am requesting is the 41 municipalities that have already requested, asked, to be approved as a disaster area is the list that I would like to have. Ms. Wowchuk: I think that list is probably public already. If it is available, I will talk to my colleague the Minister of Intergov ernmental Affairs (Mr. Smith), and if it is available, provide it to the member. But I think that it is available. Introduction of Guests Mr. Chairperson: There is more introduction here. Mr. Jun Ayson and Dr. Allan Renacia are guests of the Member for The Maples (Mr. Aglugub).

They are there in the gallery. * * * Mr. Eichler: Mr. Chair, we have a number of colleagues that want to ask questions as well, but I just want to ask one closing question before I give time to my colleagues. That is on the infrastructure for Neepawa. My understa nding is that Natural Valley meats have been very successful in raising the dollars that are required to move forward with their project. The holdup now is the infrastructure dollars in order to upgrade the treatment plants and also the lagoon, and I was wondering if the minister, either one of the ministers, would like to comment on where that is at.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, the Natural Valley project at Neepawa has been one that people have been working with. I can in form the member that to my knowledge they do not yet have a business plan that has been provided. No work on infrastructure

June 15, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3613 projects can begin. It is also my understanding that that project is a little ways down the road. They are not ready to move forward with it yet. They do not have their business plan. They are working on the plant in Saskatchewan whom they are partnering with. That plant will go ahead first. Then they will do the plant in Neepawa. So it is a ways down the road, and there is not a business plan for it yet. Mr. Eichler: I just want to come back here just for a second. This is what got us into trouble with Dauphin, Mr.

Chair, that we did not have the infrastructure dollars in place. We did not have the business plan in place. I want to ask the minister to assure this House that she will continue to work with Natural Valley meats in order to make sure that the infrastructure dollars are in place to move this project forward. I cannot stress enough that without a processing plant in the province of Manitoba, we will lose not only the jobs, we will lose the grain, we will lose our cattle. We, as the Province of Manitoba, cannot afford to wait and just say, "Well, they haven't got a business plan in place.

They don't have this in place." It is up to us, as government, to show the leadership to ensure those infrastruct ure dollars are put into place, Mr. Chair. Hon. Scott Smith (Minist er of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade): Mr. Chair, the member asked the question regarding the infrastructure dollars. The infrastructure dollars are cons idered by a joint panel. We have executive members from AMM and the northern communities association. The first intake was completed on March 15, and obviously, that one was overprescribed some 4.5 to 1 on the dollars allocated.

The secondary intake that they will be bringing out will be for June 15, and I know they are considering a lot of the issues, a lot of the requests that they have for the programs. So that will be done on June 15, and then the final intake will be September 15 for consideration. So the next series of intakes that are accepted will be June 15, and then there will another one again September 15 that will finalize the dollars for the year. But I am not privy to exactly where they are with their application and whether or not that committee has asked them for more information.

I could attempt to get some more information for the member on that, but just to clarify that the secondary intake will be completed and those will be done on June 15. Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Mr. Chair, just to the same topic about infrastructure projects required to support the slaughterhouse facilities. I think what the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs had just said could be interpreted as very telling about what is happening and what we, on this side of the House, believe is a weakness on the part of this government. He and the Minister of Agriculture (Ms.

Wowchuk), I would have thought would be on top of these projects and pushing to know what the potential budgetary impact would be, what the projected date of completion would be, when they would have their project dollars available. * (14:00) I believe it is fair to say that the town of Neepawa has had the initial studies done. They have a pretty good idea where th ey are going to be at.

I know the ministers can say, "Well, until we see the final numbers, we are not going to make any commitment." I think what people that I represent and people across the province who are looking for some opportunity in this field want to know is will the government be there if they meet the criteria. One of the things that can be most distressing for a community at a time like this is they have got their engineering people in hand.

They know pretty much what the general cost of their construction is going to be, and they do not know whether they are first, last or anywhere on the list of infrastructure projects that need to be done. I know that there is not a member in this Chamber who would not be looking for infra- structure support in the communities that they represent, but I would like to see this debate go beyond local partisan politics. Certainly, the member from Dauphin and I are on the same side of this issue.

These are not only lo cal projects, but they are projects that are important to an industry that is part and parcel of the areas that we represent. So I do not think it is at all unfair to ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Smith) to make a stronger statement about how he sees his government moving forward with these projects. I would draw the parallel to what happened in his hometown of Brandon when Maple Leaf was

3614 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 15, 2005 being established. Everyone knew that there would be big infrastructure requirements. The government was pushing to have Maple Leaf establish here. The government was in active negotiations–I cannot emphasize that too much–with the communities of Brandon and with the proponents, in this case being the soon-to-be largest hog processing company in Canada for sure and almost the largest in North America.

So I had hoped that the minister might want to put something on the record that would provide a little bit more comfort to these communities that they believe these are important projects and they want to make something happen. Obviously, they will be looking for more information on business plans in doing their diligence on that end. We are certainly assisting and helping out in every way through all departments that we can.

As the member opposite mentions, this is important, and it is something that we have said we will assist with, we will help with and we will put resources into trying to assist in way that we can. Mr. Smith: Mr. Chair, as early as this morning at the AMM June district meeting, I had the opportunity to speak with the mayor from Neepawa. We have had communications regarding this issue back and forth for some time obviously through resources of agriculture and conservation and in my department, many others. We have been assisting with resources any way we can to move this project ahead. The member is quite correct.

This is an important project. It is something that we would like to see move ahead. When you delineate the process that is in place and the agreements that we have have to be followed obviously, that is something that is structured. It is there. We are looking certainly at helping any way we can. They know that. We have been there from day one. When you have a committee in place that is dealing strictly with the infrastructure programs that are there, it is not something that we take lightly. We do not meddle with that. We have got an excellent group.

In fact, it is recognized right across Canada as probably one of the best structures in Canada for distributing in a fair and equitable way across the province, our funding. So Ron Bell and Lorne Boguski and Garry Wasylowski, I think is his name, are from the AMM. I know that three other members that are from the northern communities have assessed, they have looked at it. They need to do their due diligence. That is something that is critically important when th ese funds are subscribed sometimes five and six times to one on the dollars that are able to be put out there. They are from rural communities.

These people know priorities and certainly whether things meet criteria or whether they do not. We refer to them for good decision making and their diligence in accepting everything that comes in. So, just to be perfectly clear, we do not get to pick and choose every dollar that goes out to these projects. There is a system in place; in fact, a very good system of diligence in assessing these wants and needs that are out there. The government is very supportive of this project, and we will try to assist in any way that we can. Mr. Cummings: Mr.

Chairman, it sounds like the minister just said that they have delegated the decision-making process to the group that he described, and I have the highest regard for that group, but then does this mean that I should now be lobbying them? Mr. Smith: I am sure the member lobbies many people a great deal of the time with issues that he feels are important for Manitobans and to his community, so I would recommend that he speak to anyone on this project or any other project that he has on how important he feels it is to Manitobans and his community.

The responsibility and the recommendations that come from this committee are certainly of the highest calibre, and we certainly have full respect for the autonomy that is brought forward by the priorities that they set out. We look to them for advice on all the projects and all the intakes through the infrastructure funding that is going out. I am not sure I would use the terminology "lobby," but any information that the member might want to supply to AMM or people who are involved in the process as with myself, as with the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) and others.

Certainly, we would look for any constructive ways that we can to move important projects ahead. The committee has their job to do. They do a good job at it. So the member can lobby or do whatever he wants. Mr. Cummings: Well, I want to be extremely clear that I am not criticizing the members of the advisory group that the minister has. I think he will get good advice from them, but I am concerned that the

June 15, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3615 minister and this government are taking a hands-off approach to this decision-making process, and please tell me that that is not the case. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, our government has made a strong commitment that we are interested and we want to see slaughter capacity interested in this province. We have made commitments on doing feasibility studies. We did a pre-feasibility study. We had funds in place for further feasibility studies.

We increased the funding and, in fact, a proponent can now take advantage of three different components of feasibility studies. We are committed to working with people who come forward with a business plan. We have been in discussion with the people involved with Natural Valley, and when they are ready to move forward on this project, our government is committed to working with them. My understanding of it is that they are not ready to move forward on this project, but we do have staff working with them and as they move their project forward we are committed to be there.

We have been very clear that we must increase slaughter capacity in this province and we will work with all proponents. Will everybody that has a proposal be successful? I am not sure. I hope we have a lot of good proposals, and there are some good ones there now, but I want to assure the member this has nothing to do with partisan politics. This is about working with people who have an idea on how we can increase slaughter capacity, but my understanding, as well, is that this group is working on the Saskatchewan facility first and then will be working on the one here in Manitoba at Neepawa. * (14:10) Mr.

Cummings: Well, sadly, what we see happening is that Saskatchewan has had a large number of applications, and Saskatchewan has got capacity that is growing as a result of Natural Prairie being one. Saskatchewan had the advantage of having the plant at Moose Jaw that is of significant capacity, and I understand they are co- operating as much as they can in all areas of the market, but there are glaring differences between what is happening in Saskatchewan and what is happening here.

I am saying to these two ministers that that appears to reflect directly back on them and their governments as to whether or not they are willing to be aggressive in moving forward on this file, and welcome to give me all sorts of reasons why that is not the case. But I recall asking before: Was there an intergovernmental, for lack of a better term, SWAT team that was prepared to provide leadership and direct assistance? I am not talking about $10,000 here for a feasibility study and another 10 over there for another feasibility study.

I am talking about pulling together expertise to work with the proponents who are anxious to move forward. Whether Natural Valley is ready to start turning dirt by this fall or not, it is strange that it should come to my attention just today. I was reminded that the lagoon system at Neepawa was, and Springhill Farms were given three months to change their system and clean up their waste problem or they would be put out of business. Now, that is scary news for a community that has in excess of 300 jobs dependent on that plant. I cannot emphasize too much to these ministers that they have a leadership role.

They have been government since 1999. They have known all along that this is a capacity issue if Manitoba is going to come out of this ahead, and so far all the signs are that Manitoba is going to come out dead last. That is worrisome when it appears, as my colleague from Lakeside said yesterday, that Canada is expected to be self-sufficient in capacity next year, and virtually none of that capacity is in Manitoba. I want to hear this government say that they are prepared to jump in and not just provide oppor- tunities for feasibility studies but that they are prepared to assist.

Assistance does not mean they have to cut a cheque tomorrow, but I heard the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Smith) saying, "Well, you know, they are being vetted against the"–he did not use the word "vet," but it sounds to me like they are being vetted against the criteria that his advisory committee has in place. What I wanted to hear was that he was gung-ho to get this thing going, that he was encouraging the plants in question to meet the criteria so they could start turning dirt. I am not hearing any of that from either one of these ministers.

I wonder if they deserve a second chance to answer the question. Ms. Wowchuk: The member began his question by asking whether there was a strategic team that was put together with the work on these projects, and I want to assure the member that in fact that is true. There is a team of people that crosses the various

3616 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 15, 2005 departments that works with the proponents of each of the projects. With regard to the question, the member started talking specifically about infra- structure. I will let the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs address that one, but I can assure the member that we have been working very closely. The member asked about funds. Yes, in particular cases, and the member is well aware that with Rancher's Choice, there have been actual dollars put into the facility. With other proponents, the member says he does not want feasibility studies.

Well, feasibility studies are very important if some- body is building a plant. People have appreciated the feasibility study that we did that did the tallying of the inventory here in this province. Proponents also want to look at their marketing. We are working. So, to the member's question, yes, there is a team that works with each of the proponents, and I can tell you that there are local people working with them and people within the department. Mr.

Speaker, if I could I am going to be a bit off topic from what the member has asked, but the members opposite asked about young farmers being excluded from crop insurance and the answer is no. If somebody has a crop insurance contract they are entitled to excess moisture insurance, so I am not sure who is telling the member that there is a disqualification for young farmers on excess moisture insurance. That is not accurate. Ms. Wowchuk: We have had inquiries from I believe four facilities and they are in process of making applications.

That program was just announced, but I can tell you that staff are actively working with people to upgrade their facilities. I think that it is four or five. Mr. Cummings: I have one short comment on this line of questioning, coupled with a question. Saskatchewan put $37 million forward for pro- cessing in their province, as I understand it, and they have achieved success in attracting and starting construction. What is the difference between what Saskatchewan is doing and what Manitoba is doing? Why are we not achieving the same rate of growth and success as Saskatchewan is? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr.

Chairman, unfortunately, we lost all our slaughter capacity in this province in the nineties. We really went down in the amount of slaughter capacity then. In Saskatchewan there are some facilities that they have been able to upgrade and increase their slaughter capacity. I believe that Natural Valley is slaughtering, I believe, at Wolseley, where there is an existing plant, but they are talking about building another plant. So, Mr. Speaker, if you look across Canada, since BSE hit there have not been green field plants built. The plants that are coming into operation are existing plants that have been upgraded.

I wish that we would have more of our facilities moving from provincial to federal standards here in this province. I want to commend the processors though for increasing the capacity in this province, and certainly the programs that we put in place helped some of that. If you look at Saskatchewan, they had some plants that were in existence that have upgraded and are able to increase processing. We do not have.

We only have one federally inspected plant, but I want to let the members opposite know that there are several people who have provincially inspected plants who are lo oking at the options of how they can increase capacity in this province and we are working very closely with them. Mr. Maguire: I appreciate that the minister feels that there has been some expansion. Can she tell me how many applications she has had for expansion? It appears as if she put about 2 or $3 million on the table to help that expansion in Manitoba. Has she had any applications and could she tell us how many? Mr.

Maguire: So, just for clarity then, there have been no applications. There are a few inquiries. Ms. Wowchuk: I believe that there have been applications for the feasibility studies. There have been applications there, but people have not moved forward with business plans. I can tell you that there are people that are actively working on this. I listen to the member opposite being so critical of the industry saying that zero of them are doing anything.

I remember very clearly when the member opposite said we did not need to increase slaughter capacity in this country, that there was enough slaughter capacity, then he has changed his mind and he is being critical of the people for not moving forward with their expansion. Our government is there to work with them. We have put in place feasibility study money. We have told the industry that we are prepared to take equity positions with them, but it is

June 15, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3617 up to the individual to decide. It is not this government's responsibility to decide for individuals if they are going to go ahead and improve their slaughter capacity. We can put the supports there. We can encourage them, Mr. Speaker, but we cannot make–[interjection] * (14:20) Point of Order Mr. Chairperson: Point of order being raised. Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Chairperson, I think it is only reasonable that we, as members of the Legislature, when we ask questions, expect honest answers. The minister is blaming us for being critical of the industry.

We are critical of her for not aggressively pursuing the expansion of the slaughter industry in this province, not the industry. She has not even received an application because the criteria that were supposed to be made available by the minister and her government only were made available within a few weeks ago. That is the first time the application forms came out. No wonder there are no applications. Mr. Chairperson: Disputes over the facts are not points of order. * * * Mr. Maguire: Well, just a couple of quick questions, Mr. Chairman, just in relation to unseeded acreage payments.

Can the minister indicate whether her government has considered increasing the unseeded acreage level for excess of moisture from the $50 level that was put in place and paid out by the previous government in 1999? Ms. Wowchuk: Just to correct the record for the member, the previous administration did not put in place the excess moisture insurance that is available now. Mr. Speaker, under the previous administration, there was an excess moisture insurance program that the producers had to pay for and there was very low uptake.

Although the industry had been asking the previous administration to put in excess moisture insurance, they did not do it, and as a result, they had to do an ad hoc program that did pay out $50 an acre. When we took office, we introduced excess moisture insurance that is available to all producers free of charge as long as they ar e participating in crop insurance. With regard to the specifics of whether we are going to increase the crop insurance coverage, my department is looking at the various programs to increase the crop insurance. Excess moisture insurance is a federal-provincial shared program.

I am concerned about increasing payments midyear. What we are doing is analyzing all of the programs. We have to remember, if producers have not seeded, they qualify for excess moisture insurance. If they have seeded and have lost a crop, they could possibly reseed but that is quite unlikely this year, but then they would qualify for crop insurance on the crop that they have. So we are reviewing the various programs to see how they will work for individuals and to see where there might be some gaps. There is also some support that will come for producers through the disaster assistance program. Mr. Maguire: Mr.

Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, you know, when he took over in, I believe it was October 12 that he indicated in Estimates that he became the new Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, can he indicate to us what type of a briefing he received in relation to Bill 40. Mr. Smith: Mr. Chair, when any minister comes into a portfolio, obviously there are a number of issues that are being dealt with by the department. Certainly, there are many, many briefings over a period of months that are dealt with.

The briefing in regard to Bill 40 was not something that I needed to have too extensively as we as ministers had followed along with a lot of the legislation, a lot of the different bills that were out there. So I was quite aware of the bill, obviously had met with a number of different community groups, certainly both pro and against, as we all do with all bills and fairly extensive conversations and talks between interdepartmental affairs and many of the other departments regarding the issues of what the member terms as Bill 40. The Planning Act really, Mr.

Speaker, is something that we had a lot of concerns with over a number of years, last extensively revamped back in the period of 1976, some 30 years ago. The overall

3618 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 15, 2005 revamp now of The Planning Act certainly addressed not only Bill 40 in its entirety, but, certainly, many of the other issues that we were dealing with on The Planning Act and some of the shortfalls that we believe that were in The Planning Act. We certainly heard from the A ssociation of Manitoba Municipalities not only on what was in Bill 40, but for extensive planning throughout the entire province of Manitoba as well. Compounding on that is some of the other modernization of bills that we had that would be affecting, certainly, The Planning Act.

So the choice was made not only to incorporate Bill 40, or what was previously Bill 40 under The Planning Act, but also to modernize the new Planning Act and substantially revamp with the recommendations from AMM, a lot of agricultural groups and many people in the community. I want to tell the member opposite that, prior to this, we were providing money for feasibility studies through another line in the budget and the industry was taking advantage of those feasibility studies.

The industry was also appreciative of the fact that we did a feasibility study through a consultant to collect all of the data for the Province that helped all of them very much. Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairperson, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether the $3-million announcement, that she has now made three times, the first time, I believe, some nine months ago, maybe even a year ago, you made a $3-million announcement to enhance slaughter capacity in this province.

Then about six months ago you made another announcement of $3 million for infra- structure or for addition al support for slaughter capacity in this province. Then about a month or two ago you made another announcement of $3 million for the enhancement of slaughter capacity in this province. This last one, you actually included in your statement that the application forms were now available. This is the first time, Mr. Chairperson, the minister actually made provisions for the application to the infrastru cture program that she has now announced three times.

Is it the intention of this minister and her government to try and leave the impression, the deceptive impression, out there in the general public's eye that she and her government have actually put out $9 million for infrastructure support? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong again. I can tell the member that we made the announcement at the budget time that we were increasing the funds for feasibility studies. We said at the time, when we made that announcement, that we would be providing details shortly. We worked with the industry.

The member opposite might find that a novel concept, but we worked with the processing industry and they indicated to us what programs would work them. Mr. Speaker, we have made more than $9 million available. We have made an investment into Rancher's Choice. We have invested in feasibility studies and we have told the industry, and they are very happy with our announcement, that there will be resources available for them for infrastructure when they have completed their business plans. I would encourage him to talk to people in the industry about this package that has been put forward. Mr.

Penner: Therein lies the biggest problem. The minister has been in a deceptive mode all along. I made 28 phone calls to 28 different slaughter facilities and processing facilities in this province of Manitoba, 28 phone calls I made. I got 26 responses. Two people I could not get on the phone, but all 26 of them said that none of them had qualified for any funds at all and they were not aware, at that time, this was about a month and a half ago, roughly, they were not aware of the fact that they could make application yet. An Honourable Member: Wrong, wrong, wrong. Mr.

Penner: The minister says I am wrong, wrong, wrong. She is telling me I am wrong, that I made 26 phone calls and all 26 said, "Sorry, we could not apply." I would like to ask the minister whether she would respond to that. I am dead right and you know it. * (14:30) Mr. Chairperson: Is the committee ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. Mr. Chairperson: The question before the committee is the motion moved by the Government House Leader that the Co mmittee of Supply concur in all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of

June 15, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3619 Expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006, which have been adopted at this session by a

section of Committee of Supply or by the full committee. Shall the motion pass? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed to the motion, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): Do we have it on division on this? Mr. Chairperson: On division. The motion is carried on division. Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.

IN SESSION ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PETITIONS Ambulance Service Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: In May 2004, 46-year-old Peter Krahn suffered a heart attack while exercising in East St. Paul and was pronounced dead just under an hour later after being transported to the Concordia Hospital in Winnipeg. Reports show that it took nearly 18 minutes for an ambulance to arrive for Mr. Krahn.

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

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

To request the provincial government to consider improving the way that ambulance service is supplied to all Manitobans by utilizing tech- nologies such as GPS in conjunction with a Medical Transportation Co-ordination Centre (MTCC) which will ensure that patients receive the nearest ambu- lance in the least amount of time. To request the provincial government to consider ensuring that appropriate funding is pro- vided to maintain superior response times and sustainable services. Signed by Elizabeth Pellaers, Jason Pellaers, Stacey Kubara 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. Teachers' Pension Plan Pension Adjustment Account Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The background to this petition is as follows: After contributing to the Teachers' Pension Plan Pension Adjustment Account (PAA) which funds the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) since 1977 until the year of our retirement from the profession of teaching, we find ourselves facing the future with

3620 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 15, 2005 little hope of a meaningful COLA, and with the resulting severe loss of purchasing power. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to consider funding the PAA to ensure that we receive a reasonable COLA, and that any loss of purchasing power we will face will be minor. Signed by Doug Ott, Randy Hawryluk, Brenda Masson, Annette Logeut and many others. Crocus Investment Fund Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

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

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to consider the need to seek clarification on why the government did not act on fixing the Crocus Fund back in 2001. Signed by V. Salangsang, Violet Napoles and Elisa Muelan. Wuskwatim Project Development Agreement Mrs. Bonnie Mitche lson (River East): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

The background of this petition is as follows: The Government of Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro have stated publicly that a referendum vote including all NCN band members will be held as part of the approval process for the Wuskwatim Hydro Project. The Government of Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro have stated that the Wuskwatim Hydro Project and associated hydro transmission lines will not proceed without the support of the majority of NCN band members through the Wuskwatim Project Development Agreement Referendum.

NCN band members were not properly informed and consulted concerning the terms and implication of the Wuskwatim Agreement in Principle. The partnership agreement to be approved by the Wuskwatim PDA Referendum will largely determine the economic future of NCN First Nation. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro (Mr.

Chomiak) and the Government of Manitoba consider ensuring an informed, appro- priate and fair Wuskwatim Project Development Agreement Referendum vote, and a vote overseen by an independent qualified third party such as Elections Manitoba. Signed by Jan Mallett, Chastity Spence, Raymond Hart and many others. * * * Mr. Jack Reimer (Southdale): I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if there is leave for me to make a presentation on behalf of the Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan). Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Speaker: Leave has been granted. Fort Garry Hotel Mr.

Jack Reimer (Southdale): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

June 15, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3621 The background to this petition is as follows: In 1987 the City of Winnipeg seized the Fort Garry Hotel from its owner, Harvard Investments Limited, a family-owned Manitoba corporation, in what has been characterized as a miscarriage of justice. Due to deliberate actions of the City of Winnipeg, errors by the Municipal Board of Manitoba and a lack of clarity in provincial legis- lation, Harvard was denied the due process and natural justice that are fundamental to the property tax assessment and appeal process in Manitoba.

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

Smith) to consider con- ducting a review of the circumstances outlined and to consider making a recommendation for redress to the Government of Manitoba. Signed by Solange Munduruca, Dominick Blais, Douglas Daher and others. Coverage of Insulin Pumps Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: Insulin pumps cost over $6,500. The cost of diabetes to the Manitoba government in 2005 will be approximately $214.4 million.

Each day 16 Manitobans are diagnosed with the disease compared to the national average of 11 new cases daily. Good blood sugar control reduces or eliminates kidney failure by 50 percent, blindness by 76 per- cent, nerve damage by 60 percent, cardiac disease by 35 percent and even amputations. Diabetes is an epidemic in our province and will become an unprecedented drain on our struggling health care system if we fail to take action now.

The benefit of having an insulin pump is it allows the person living with this life-altering disease to obtain good control of their blood sugar and become much healthier, complication-free individuals. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Premier (Mr. Doer) of Manitoba to consider covering the cost of insulin pumps that are prescribed by an endo crinologist or a medical doctor under the Manitoba Health Insurance Plan. Signed by: Kathy Kornelsen, Ashley Kornelsen, Terri-Lee Broesky and many, many others. * (14:40) Committee Report Mr. Conrad Santos (Chairperson): Mr.

Speaker, the Committee of Supply has considered and adopted a motion regarding concurrence of Supply. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. TABLING OF REPORTS Mr. Speaker: I am pleased to table in the House the reports of members' expenses for the year ended March 31, 2005, in compliance with

section 38(1) of the Indemnities, Allowances and Retirement Benefits Regulations. ORAL QUESTIONS Crocus Investment Fund Public Inquiry Request Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): This morning on a radio interview, this Premier said, and I quote, "I am not opposed to

3622 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 15, 2005 inquiries when it is in the public interest." Well, Mr. Speaker, 34 000 Manitobans have been fleeced by this government and are affected by this scandal. Every Manitoba taxpayer is affected by this Crocus scandal. The future of venture capital is at risk and affected by this Crocus scandal. Mr.

Speaker, if the Premier believes what he said when he said, "I am not opposed to inquiries when it is in the public interest," will he then stand in the House today and ensure that all Manitobans, Crocus unitholders, get access to all the truth by calling for an independent public inquiry? Will he do that today? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the member used the term "venture capital" because venture capital is, in fact, the legislation that was introduced in the early 1990s. I would quote back to the member opposite from the then-sponsor of the fund, Mr.

Clayton Manness, who said that the fund should be privately managed. Let us look at it a different way. Let us take our best business minds and heads within our community and rather than entrust somebody within the civil service and rather than entrust the political interference that sometimes would squirrel around decisions made, let us have some trust in our community leaders, our business leaders to make the right decisions. They are the people who are skilled. That was the legislation that was put in place back in the early 1990s.

It is certainly the philosophy that is contained within the legislation, and we obviously have been accountable for that legislation. Information Tabling Request Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General identified two very significant red flags, memos from the officials of Industry in 2001 and the Department of Finance in 2002. Yesterday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) said that all of the infor- mation contained in the memos was fully described on page 145 of the Auditor's report.

Well, if that is true, then there is no reas on why the minister cannot release the memos with the names of departmental officials blacked out. I would ask the First Minister this: Will this Premier direct his Minister of Finance to black out the names and release the contents of that memo, Mr. Speaker? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is an e- mail between officials. It is properly described– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It has obviously been in the possession of the Auditor General.

The Auditor General quotes quite specifically on page 145 and describes the e-mail on page 185, "An official from the Department of Finance suggested that CIF's continuing requests for legislative amend- ments may be a sign of management issues and that an independent review of CFI's operations may be in order." That memo has been made available to the Auditor General. It is not a memo rather, I correct myself, that e-mail. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr.

Doer: The obvious investigation had that e-mail available to the Auditor General's staff, as they had available to them all the files of the department dealing with the Crocus Investment Fund. That is as it should be. That is why we have 120 recom- mendations, that is why we have over 200 pages of findings and that is why we are acting on legislation. There is a new board, there is new staff, there is new legislation and there is a new approach to Crocus based on the recommendations from the independent officer of this Legislature. Mr. Murray: Mr.

Speaker, what is becoming increasingly clear to Manitobans is that the only ones who do not want to get to the bottom of this Crocus scandal, to have the truth come out, is this Premier and his government. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) has said that the only reason he would not release the memo is because he was concerned about the names of the civil servants. Well, that is what this Premier and that is what this Minister of Finance have said very clearly, very clearly. All this Premier has to do is get that memo, block out the civil servant who, by the way, was doing their job, unlike this

June 15, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3623 government. Block out that civil servant and release the content of the memo. This is a critically important document to this Crocus scandal and it needs to be released today. Will he do that, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General speaks to the e-mail between one official and another. He basically, and I would quote again, "An official from the Department of Finance suggested that CIF's continuing request for legislative amendments may be a sign of management issues and that an inde- pendent review of CFI's operations may be in order." Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Finance answered that question yesterday. The e-mail was available to the Auditor General. The e-mail was available and not only was the e-mail available to the Auditor General, the Auditor General quotes the contents of the e-mail in the report on page 145 to this Legislature. I recall just a couple of months ago, members opposite were accusing the board member that the government had appointed to the Crocus Investment Fund as being a political appointee. I have gone back and the government ap pointments in the 1990s, whether it was Mr.

Bessey or the other two government appointments, were politically donating to the Conservative Party. No one that we appointed to the Crocus board ever donated to any political party, let alone the NDP, because they were independent civil servants. Crocus Investment Fund Information Tabling Request Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the Finance Minister continually refer to page 145.

I would invite them to turn the page and read 146 where the Auditor General clearly states that there were sufficient red flags raised by government officials that a detailed review of Crocus should have taken place in 2002. A review, the Auditor General goes on to say, would have identi- fied many of the areas that Crocus was operating outside of its legislation. Today the Minister of Finance still refuses to explain why he chose to ignore those warnings.

He should immediately table the memos that were referred to in the Auditor General's report, and there was more than one, so that Manitobans can draw their own conclusions as to what he was advised to do. I would ask him once again, table those memos, do the right thing today. Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the members have not in my view completely understood the reason they put their own policy in place. In February of '99, they put a policy in place. It was not intended just to protect individuals who are public servants, civil servants.

It was intended to protect free speech, and the policy is very clear in that regard. It says, "are intended to ensure that full and frank discussion of issues takes place among officials, employees and others advising ministers or a public body." It is about the abili ty to communicate freely without anybody saying that when they do that their heads should roll. The policy is more important now– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr.

Selinger: It is a two-part protection for the individual and for the ability to speak freely, fully and frankly without fear of recrimination or some- body calling for their head. That is why we are doing it. That is why we have a professional public service. * (14:50) Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, the minister is stonewalling on the release of the memos. It only serves to confirm the government's culpability in the Crocus scandal. This has nothing, I repeat, this has nothing to do with the careers of the dedicated public servants who had the courag e to raise the red flags.

This has everything to do with a desperate attempt to protect the career of the Minister of Finance who has shown that he does not have the courage to disclose what he knew and to explain to Manitobans and unitholders why he has refused to act. He should table the memos immediately. It is the right thing to do. It speaks to openness and accountability. Will he do it today? Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, the easy thing to do would be to reveal the memo and to leave people

3624 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 15, 2005 exposed. That would be the easy thing to do. The members opposite, when they were in government, put a policy in place in February of '99. It is worthwhile to understand why have they abandoned that now. Is it for any reason other than expediency? This e-mail was on the record, was fully available to the Auditor General. The Auditor General had powers they never had before to investigate labour-sponsored venture capital. The special prosecutor has access to all the files.

Anybody in an official capacity with a responsibility for investigating what has gone on here will have full access to all of the information, but what we will not do is violate the policy put in place by members opposite which was intended to protect full, free and frank discussion in the public service. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, more stonewalling. The public servants did their job. Their political masters are the ones who refuse to follow up. The public servants monitored the fund.

The public servants raised the red flags that should have alerted the government to conduct a detailed review of the fund as early as 2002. The Finance Minister should show the same courage. He should have the courage to explain why his government ignored the red flags. He owes all Manitobans an explanation why his government refused to act. If he will not do that, which he has not shown the courage to do, he should at least table the memos so Manitobans can clearly see what monitoring was done by the public servants, what good work they did. Will he table the memos today? Mr. Selinger: Mr.

Speaker, the memos fully disclosed the Auditor General. It is fully described on page 145 in his report. The policy put in place in February '99 was obviously a policy that members opposite carefully considered and drafted, put it into their policy manual in February '99. It is the policy that has guided government since then. If civil servants are to think that the policy only protects them on easy questions but that it will be revealed on tough questions, all full and frank discussion will dry up within the public service. We will not get the kind of dialogue we need.

People will not be able to put their opinions on the record, and that is why at a time like this it is even more important to follow through on a promise that civil servants were given. They know what the policy is. They operated under that policy. To violate it now would be a betrayal of trust to public servants. Mr. Hawranik: Mr. Speaker, Crocus was having cash problems so in 2002 it went to this NDP government and asked for legislation. The government passed Bill 28 in 2002 which helped solve those cash problems. The 2002 legislation encouraged investors to reinvest more cash in Crocus.

The Minister of Finance obviously knew about a cash shortage at Crocus in 2002 and he colluded with Crocus to cover this red flag up by passing legislation. Crocus Investment Fund Government Inaction Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, in 2002 this NDP government passed legislation to bring Crocus on side with the law. Crocus had broken the law by investing too much money into one company. On discovering this, this NDP government immediately moved to pass legislation in 2002 so that the Crocus Investment complied with the law. I ask the Minister of Fi nance (Mr.

Selinger), he obviously knew that Crocus had broken the law and he passed the legislation after the fact so that Crocus could comply. Why did he participate in this? Why did he turn a blind eye to that red flag? Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Industry, Economic Development and Mines): Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite might be interested in knowing what the 2001 legislation did do. The 2001 legislation strengthened reporting. Before the 2001 legislation there was no formal reporting about pacing, about reserve requirement or liquidity.

What the 2001 legislation did was ensure that the invest- ments were made in Manitoba companies. It ensured that there was appropriate pacing of the investment in the 31 months and it ensured that the proper reserve requirement was maintained. That is what the 2001 reserve did. There were repeated requests on more flexibility on liquidity and pacing. We did not accede to those demands. We did what started to become more prudent in 1993. There was no reporting– Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the Minister of Finance this. He knew of this red flag yet he turned a blind eye to that red flag.

June 15, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3625 Why did he collude with Crocus to deceive 34 000 Crocus unitholders? Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, the member is very creative with the facts. He obviously has not read the report very carefully– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. We are very early into Question Period and I need to be able to hear the questions and the answers and the clock is ticking. We are trying to get as many questions and answers in as we can. I need the co-operation of all members. Mr. Selinger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Auditor General, the officer of this Legislature, made none of the claims the member opposite is making. Really there are two tactics the members opposite are pursuing– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the co-operation of members, please. We are trying to get as many ques- tions and answers in. I am asking the co-operation of members. Mr. Selinger: The member opposite continues to pursue his specific version of a conspiracy theory which is not supported by the facts.

The facts are that we have the strongest legislation in the history of the province for the Auditor General and that is why we have a– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the third time in a row I am on my feet. I am asking the co-operation of members. I need to be able to hear the questions and I need to be able to hear the answers. Mr. Selinger: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, and it was very clear in the report and acknowledged by all that a liquidity issue was brought forward and legislative change was sought to address that, but once again, on pages 183 and 184, the fund itself said they preferred legislation but they had other means they could use to address the problem. They did prefer a legislative approach and that was given consideration. The changes made in 2001 which allowed the rollovers of the tax credits were to be in conformity with what the federal government had already allowed so that the tax credits were treated equally at both levels of government.

The member opposite knows that. All this other bunk that he is putting out here is simply his conspiracy theory. Mr. Hawranik: Mr. Speaker, the only bunk put out here is by this Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, Crocus wanted to invest in real estate and that was not permitted under the existing legislation so Crocus went to this NDP government and they asked that the legislation be changed. In 2002 the response from this government was to pass Bill 28 which allowed the regulations to be changed to ensure that a real estate investment was then permitted.

Another red flag to the Minister of Finance, but again, he chose to ignore it. I ask the Minister of Finance why did he ignore all these red flags. Was it because he had direction from a higher authority or was it because of advice from his union friends or was it both, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Selinger: Once again, the member recycles the conspiracy theory that he asked in the previous question.

If members really are committed to breaking the link between special interests and legislators, if they want members of this House to operate freely, if they want members of the House to use their judgment when they come here, they would support the legislation to ban corporate and union donations. They have not done that. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, members opposite have said as soon as they return to office they will end that legislation, they will restore the ability of corporations to have influ- ence on members of the Legislature through direct contributions.

If they ar e really concerned about conspiracies, stand up and support that legislation. * (15:00) Crocus Investment Fund Proposed Legislation Amendments Mrs. Bonnie Mitchels on (River East): What a stretch that answer was. Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Industry, MaryAnn Mihychuk, knew about monitoring prob- lems at Crocus and was working with her department

3626 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 15, 2005 and the Department of Finance on legislation to make Crocus more accountable. She was shuffled out of Industry by this Pr emier (Mr. Doer), and the bill was killed. Did the Minister of Finance– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Did the Minister of Finance have any conversations with MaryAnn Mihychuk regarding the red flags that she knew about, that she was concerned about and that she was prepared to fix? Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): The short answer is no.

There was an awareness of the liquidity issue which has been well discussed in the report and the recommendations that were sought to address that through legislation, and also the fact that the fund indicated that it had other alternatives. Mrs. Mitchelson: Was the bill not drafted because MaryAnn Mihychuk was told to kill the bill by the Finance Minister who was part of the inner circle of Cabinet? Did the Minister of Finance direct MaryAnn Mihychuk to kill the bill because he was part of the inner circle in Cabinet who met behind closed doors with labour leaders and Crocus officials? Mr. Selinger: Mr.

Speaker, the short answer to the question is no. It is part of their conspiracy theory. Unlike members on that side of the House, members on this side of the House operate with their own minds, with their own discretion and use their own judgment. I can tell you the former minister, I am absolutely certain, did not take any direction from me. She would use her own judgment. Public Inquiry Request Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): Well, obviously, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance's own discretion shows his incompetence on this issue. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask who is going to investigate the political involvement, the actions of this Premier, this Minister of Finance, the inner circle of Cabinet, who met regularly behind closed doors with the union leaders who ran Crocus into the ground. If this government has nothing to hide, it is time for them to stop stonewalling, to clear the air and to call a public inquiry. What are they afraid of? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, first of all, I recall that when the member was a minister of Cabinet in 1992, the then-former Premier said that no NDP government has ever brought in a labour- sponsored fund, and he had in that bill, five former Cabinet ministers sitting on the other side in the bill, specific labour-sponsored fund sponsorship in dealing with the representation of the so-called labour. So, my goodness, were they behind closed doors drafting this bill in 1992? I do not think so. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we have– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have taken responsibility for an e-mail between officials in the various departments, but I would note in the Auditor General's report there is a specific reference to the staff that were in place, Mr. Umlah and other staff that were in place from the time of inception. Five former Cabinet ministers. Are you taking responsibility? Crocus Investment Fund Liability Insurance Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has mused about the government indemnifying Crocus board members once the insur- ance coverage of the board members ends at the end of this month.

I would just like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he would indicate to the House and to all Manitobans if, in fact, his government intends to indemnify Crocus board members after the insurance runs out. Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): I thank the member for that question. As everybody knows, there is a new board operating the Crocus Fund right now. It is composed of many respected people in the community who have decided to basically take their expertise, their reputations, their time and their energy to help straighten out the affairs over there.

As I understand in an interview given by the chair of

June 15, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3627 the board yesterday on one of the media outlets they are exploring their options for renewing insurance and they are going to find out what the price of that is. They have requested cons ideration of that to the implementation committee that we have put in place. The implementation committee is considering their request, but the fund itself has said that their own exploration of options for renewing indemnification insurance has not yet been completed. The imple- mentation committee is considering what advice they might give to government on that. Mr.

Derkach: Mr. Speaker, I do not question what the minister has just said except that we are asking about his intention and his government's intention. The minister's mishandling and this government's mishandling of the Crocus Fund, and the incompe- tence of this government, has cost taxpayers and has cost the unitholders over $100 million. I am asking the Minister of Finance is he now going to put more taxpayers' money at risk by committing his government to indemnifying the board members, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Selinger: As I said, we have a respected group of citizens from the community who have essentially volunteered to be the board of the Crocus Fund right now and they are doing a job on behalf of the entire community, not just the shareholders, to ensure that the affairs of that organization are directed properly in terms of the governance of that organization. They are exploring their options and seeking through a broker what indemnification insurance they can acquire, and at what price. Mr. Speaker, our capital markets have become a national spectacle.

The Crocus scandal is front page on the business pages of national newspapers across Canada. Capital flow is based on impressions. The impression of Manitoba, thanks to members opposite, is that we have a questionably governed financial system. All this because the Finance Minister chose, or was ordered, to ignore the red flags raised about Crocus. They have asked us to consider what we might do to help them. At this stage of the game, it is still a matter of getting information back from their brokers.

Once the details of what insurance they can get and at what price is available, we will consider our options with a recommendation from the implementation committee. Appointment of a Receiver Manager Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr.

Speaker, once the board has gone through the process of looking at the options, and if they cannot find insurance coverage, I want to ask the Minister of Finance and this government whether they will, in fact, not indemnify the board and will move to ensure that the Securities Commission puts in place a receiver manager who will appropriately manage the affairs of the Crocus wind-down as the unitholders have requested. Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): The member knows full well that is a hypothetical question. We will deal with the process as it unfolds.

We will try to find practical ways to respond to the leadership that members of the community are giving in offering to be on the board. They know their responsibilities. They are seeking out all their options, and once that exploration is complete and they have their options the implementation com- mittee will consider what recourse they should take and will make a recommendation to government. We will deal with it at that time in a way that is responsible for taxpayers as well as for all the citizens of Manitoba. Minister of Finance Resignation Request Mr.

John Loewen (Fort Whyte): That will be the first time this minister deals with anything regarding Crocus in a responsible manner. Mr. Speaker, the minister can do one thing to help restore credibility to our financial markets and that is to remove himself. Will he do that today? * (15:10) Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the two tactics the members opposite have used are on one hand, the c onspiracy theory, and on the other hand, the personal attack.

In neither case do they have any evidence to support the arguments they make, and in neither case do they have any evidence to support the recommendations they make.

3628 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 15, 2005 What we have done is we have followed all the recommendations in the Auditor's report. We have moved expeditiously to bring forward new legislation. We have moved to refer to a special prosecutor all the criminal allegations which have arisen in the report. We have seen the results of that that have been brought forward to us, and we are going to work with the implementation committee to ensure that all the recommendations are followed through on so that this kind of a thing can never happen again.

It is unfortunate when members oppo- site brought in the legislation they did not put the proper controls in place. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, what we have is the most scathing report that the Auditor General has ever produced in the history of this province. The Finance Minister holds a special position in government. He is responsible for $8 billion of taxpayers' money. As chair of Treasury Board he is supposed to be asking the tough questions at the Cabinet table that will ensure taxpayers' funds are spent wisely. He must be beyond reproach.

By refusing to release the me mos, and by refusing to answer questions on why he has turned a blind eye to the red flags, his integrity is being brought into question. He must now step aside so that confidence can be restored in our capital markets. Will he step aside today? Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, since we have come to government our credit rating has been improved twice by independent bond rating agencies. Our credit rating in this province is now higher than it ever was under the members opposite, and members are aware of that.

I can tell you the financial markets are aware of that as well. They have given very good reports on all of our budgets. They argue that this Province is financially managed in a prudent fashion. They know that the credit ratings have been improved. They know that the pension liability has been addressed for the first time in over 40 years. They kno w that there is reinvest- ment going on in this province that will grow the economy, and they know that our debt-to-GDP ratio is going down. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, this province has a very good reputation everywhere, except in the mind of the member opposite.

Crocus Investment Fund Public Inquiry Request Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, and in the mind of the Audito r General who referred to the minister's press releases on the financial position of this province as misleading, misleading from this Finance Minister. By refusing to table the memos or to answer questions the minister is showing complete disdain for the citizens and the taxpay ers of Manitoba. He talks about openness, honesty and integrity, but he refuses to walk the talk. A public inquiry would clear the air. Unitholders and taxpayers would have a better idea if government acted appropriately.

For the benefit of future entrepreneurs the air must be cleared quickly before capital markets in Manitoba completely dry up. The honourable action would be for this minister to step aside until the results of a public inquiry are known. Will he commit to that today? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): The people of Manitoba can listen to the markets, or they can listen to the member opposite. The markets have improved the credit rating for the Province of Manitoba on two occasions because of the excellent fiscal stewardship of this Minister of Finance.

So I am going to go with these markets as opposed to the members opposite, Mr. Speaker. You know, I just got my property tax bill in the mail, Mr. Speaker, and I noticed that my education tax went down under this Minister of Finance's budget. I know that the taxes for education went up some 68 percent in the nineties; they are now going down. When we came into office there were two taxes on homeowners for education tax. We are now in the process of eliminating one of those taxes. Talk about fleecing people; the two taxes fleeced people. [interjection] Mr. Speaker: Order.

I would remind all honourable members that exhibits are not allowed in the Chamber, so I ask–[interjection] Order. I ask the co-operation of those members. Crocus Investment Fund Public Inquiry Request Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, to the Premier the issue is not education tax, the issue is

June 15, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3629 government negligence. That is the issue. This government is hoping to buy time in order to avoid having to go through a public inquiry. I think that is shameful. The government needs to recognize over 33 000 people lost over $60 million because this government was negligent. That is the issue. My question put very simply to this Premier is why will the Premier not call a public inquiry. That is what Manitobans have a right to, Mr. Speaker. It is in the public's best interest to see that inquiry called. Why does he not have the courage to do what is right? Hon.

Gary Doer (Premier): We had the courage a few years ago to provide additional power to the Auditor General, particularly as it applied to entities in the private sector that were not covered under the former Auditor General Act. We were concerned about Isobord. [interjection] Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Fort Whyte, on a point of order. Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Beauchesne clearly indicates that answer s to questions should be to the point, and they should not provoke debate.

I would simply remind the Premier and he should know, and if he does not, his ministers should have told him that there has been a memo of understanding within the Crocus Fund for years dating well back to the mid-nineties. It allowed the Auditor General to go into that fund at any time and fully audit what went on there. Why did they not take advantage of it? Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable First Minister, on the same point of order? Mr. Doer: On the same point of order. We know that a dispute over the facts is not a point of order.

The member makes the point that the Auditor General did have the authority when he was an auditor in the early nineties to audit the books, and, secondly, he will know that there was a deficiency in the ability to go after the relationship between the government and private corporations that was enhanced and improved dramatically in the early 2000s because we were concerned about Isobord, we were concerned about Winnport, and we were concerned about Westsun, Mr. Speaker. That is why we changed The Auditor General Act. Mr. Speaker: Order.

On the point of order raised, I want to remind all honourable members that we have–[interjection] Order. If the honourable member was rising on Beauchesne 417, we have an agreement in place pertaining to that specific rule. I would ask all honourable members to please honour that. * * * Mr. Speaker: The honourable First Minister had the floor. Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I point out today, David Dodge just finished saying that a person appointed by the Liberal government to be the governor of the Bank of Canada stated that the broadening of Manitoba's economic base has provided stability to the economy and kept the province's unemployment rate low, well below the national average. Manitoba has also been helped by continued financial prudence. That is what the stewardship of this Minister of Finance is all about. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier to be focussed on this issue. He shafted 33 000-plus Manitobans on the Crocus Fund– Mr. Speaker: Order.

Our rules are very clear about personalizing questions and debates. * (15:20) Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, I will withdraw that comment and make reference to it as being this government. Mr. Speaker, 33 000-plus Manitobans are out over $60 million because of this government's neglect. We are asking for a public inquiry. I do not want the bafflegab coming from the government. I want a public inquiry. Manitobans want a public inquiry. Public inquiry, how many times do we have to say it? The House is going to recess before you know it and we are not going to be inside this Chamber.

Will the Premier do the honourable thing and allow for a public inquiry? Do not try to sit out the Legislature. Have the political courage to do what is right, what

3630 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 15, 2005 Manitobans deserve. They want the public inquiry. I challenge the Premier to do what is right. Do what is right for a change and call it today. Mr. Doer: As the member raises his voice, he should be aware that the greates t recipient of political donations via the Crocus Fund over its existence, 10 times higher than the NDP or the Conservatives, was to the Liberal Party of Canada, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, again one asks the question, you know we were asking for a public inquiry, he is talking about a donation.

Well, I will match my donations to your donations any time. You want to talk about political involvement, I will match your union participation and your union elite that supports your political party and the Premier's campaign compared to my grassroots involvement any day. The question is not ab out that. The question, Mr. Speaker, is about the Crocus Fund. Focus, Mr. Premier. Can this Premier not acknowledge that there is a public need for a public inquiry? Why will he not do what is right and call for that public inquiry? That is what Manitobans want. That is what they deserve.

They want an answer from this Premier, not some bogus, whatever you want to call it. Focus. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I do not think having an independent–[interjection] Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe having an independent prosecutor who has now passed on some of the issues raised in the Auditor General's report is bogus. I do not believe that referring matters to the Manitoba Securities Commission, an independent body that has the powers– The honourable Government House Leader (Mr.

Mackintosh) and the Official Opposition House Leader (Mr. Derkach) also offered advice to the Chair on the matter. I took the matter under advise- ment in order to consult the procedural authorities. I thank all members for their advice to the Chair on this matter. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: I do not believe sending a matter to the Manitoba Securities Commission with the power of the Court of Queen's Bench is bogus, nor do I find a 200-page report with some 120 recommendations from an independent officer of this Legislature to be bogus. The question is bogus.

The investigations have not been. Mr. Speaker: Order. Time for Oral Questions has expired. Speaker's Rulings Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling for the House. Following Oral Questions on Tuesday, June 7, 2005, the honourable Member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) raised a matter of privilege concerning comments made by the honourable First Minister (Mr. Doer) during Question Period.

The honourable Member for Emerson contended that the honourable First Minister had given responses regarding an announcement of a disaster assistance program that would not, in fact, be in place unless a state of emergency is declared and that the information given was not factual.

He concluded his remarks by moving "THAT the Legislative Assembly ask the Premier to clarify his statements to the Legislature dealing with the matter of declaring a disaster area versus a state of emergency and which declaration constitute evacuation and which declaration would require the Province and the federal government to assist in paying for and through disaster assistance." There are two conditions that must be satisfied in order for the matter raised to be ruled in order as a prima facie case of privilege.

First, was the issue raised at the earliest op portunity; and second, has sufficient evidence been provided to demonstrate that the privileges of the House have been breached in order to warrant putting the matter to the House. Concerning the first condition of timeliness, the honourable Member for Emerson asserted that he did

June 15, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3631 raise the matter at the earliest opportunity, and I accept the word of the honourable member. Regarding the second condition, it appears that the honourable Member for Emerson is stating that the facts put on the record by the Premier are incorrect. Beauchesne Citation 31(1) advises that a dispute arising between two members as to allegations of facts does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.

Joseph Maingot, on page 223 of the second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada states, "A dispute between two members about questions of facts said in debate does not constitute a valid question of privilege because it is a matter of debate." Turning to Manitoba practice, in 1980, Speaker Graham ruled that a dispute between two members as to allegations of facts did not constitute a breach of privilege.

This finding is supported by two rulings from Speaker Waldin g, by three rulings from Speaker Phillips, by eight rulings from Speaker Rocan, by two rulings from Speaker Dacquay and by two rulings from the current Speaker. I would therefore rule with the greatest of respect that there is no prima facie case of privilege. * * * Mr. Speaker: Order. I have one more ruling for the House. * (15:30) Prior to Oral Questions on Tuesday, June 9, 2005, the honourable Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) rose on a matter of privilege com- plaining about an action he alleged had taken place earlier in the sitting day.

The honourable Member for Inkster asserted that after he had requested a quorum count during the morning sitting, the honourable Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs (Mr. Lathlin) had gestured at him using the middle finger of his hand. The honourable Member for Inkster pointed out that he had raised the issue at the time as a point of order, and when that point of order had been ruled out of order, the honourable Member for Inkster raised a subsequent point of order to extend the honourable minister the opportunity to issue an apology.

The honourable Member for Inkster concluded his remarks by moving "THAT this matter be sent to a standing committee of this House." The honourable Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan) and the honourable Government House Leader (Mr. Mackintosh) al so offered advice to the Chair. I took the matter under advisement in order to consult the procedural authorities. I thank all members for their advice to the Chair on this matter. There are two conditions that must be satisfied in order for the matter raised to be ruled in order as a prima facie case of privilege.

First, was the issue raised at the earliest op portunity; and second, has sufficient evidence been provided to demonstrate that the privileges of the House have been breached in order to warrant putting the matter to the House. Concerning the first condition, the honourable Member for Inkster asserted that he was raising the matter at the earliest opportunity. However, I have difficulty accepting this assertion as by the admission of the honourable Member for Inkster he had raised the issue earlier in the day as a point of order.

Therefore the matter could have been raised earlier, and I do not accept that the matter of privilege was raised at the earliest opportunity. Regarding the second condition, whether there is sufficient evidence that the privileges of the House have been breached, it is important to determine whether parliamentary privilege has been breached in the actions complained. As I had advised the honourable Member for Inkster when he initially raised the issue as a point of order, the Speaker did not see the action that he is complaining of.

Additionally, there is no way for a gesture to be captured as part of the record of the House through Hansard or through Votes and P roceedings. In addition, I would like to advise the House that when a virtually identical matter of privilege was raised in the Canadian House of Commons where the member for Simcoe-Grey complained that his abilities as a parliamentarian were obstructed and threatened due to another MP flashing a certain finger in his direction, Speaker Parent ruled on February 10, 1998, that it would be difficult for the Speaker to check Hansard because such a gesture would not be recorded.

Speaker Parent ruled that there was no question of privilege but encouraged all honourable members to treat each other with courtesy. I would also like to note for the House that the honourable Member for Inkster had already raised

3632 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 15, 2005 the issue twice, earlier in the sitting day, as points of order, and I had ruled that there was no point of order. Accordingly, I would rule that there is no prima facie case of privilege. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Disaster Assistance for Farmers Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to want to make a few comments about the severe difficulty that many farmers are facing in Manitoba today because of the huge amounts of rain that has fallen in many parts of the province. I note that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr.

Smith) has put out another press release saying that there will be an additional $2.6 million added to the already-announced $4 million that the Province had announced before for disaster assistance. I want to say that the municipalities are the ones that will benefit by these announcements that have been made. Very little has been said about the effect that these rainfalls have had on the farmers and people in rural Manitoba that have experienced huge losses over the last number of weeks.

I think it is imperative that the government of Manitoba recog- nize that the programs that are currently available under such programs as crop insurance and the CAIS programs are simply inadequate to cover, but those areas that last year had no crops cannot add those to their margins under CAIS, those that had previous years crop losses. If you have three years in a row crop losses, the CAIS program is virtually ineffectual. Similarly, the crop insurance coverages drop every year that you have a crop failure.

I believe it is imperative that the Province of Manitoba recognize the difficulty that many of these people will face this fall and will not simply be able to continue unless the Province intervenes with some meaningful support and additional monies to help these farmers. I believe those people that have experienced the BSE situation and the closed borders are going to have a financial impact. There will be a double whammy, and the Province of Manitoba needs to recognize and support those farmers. Coleen Rajotte Mr.

Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): I rise today to pay tribute to one of Manitoba's most well-known and world-famous film production experts, Ms. Coleen Rajotte. Coleen is the founder of Winnipeg-based Rajotte Productions, a 100% Aboriginal owned-and- operated film production company. She is also the co-founder and artistic director of the Winnipeg Aboriginal Film and Video Festival which I have had the pleasure of attending. It is a highly successful event which is now entering its fourth year in 2005. Coleen uses her films to explore difficult social issues that are relevant to the Aboriginal community.

Her films are emotionally powerful, and while addressing tragic situations, they still contain inspirational messages about hope for the future. Her feature-length documentaries Jaynelle: It's Never Easy to Escape the Past and Back to Picangikum are both critically acclaimed award-winning films that have screened at many renowned film festivals around the world. In fact, I have been informed that Ms. Rajotte has just returned from Paris, France, where her work was showcased at the United Nations arts and cultural centre.

Rajotte Productions recently also completed a three-part mini-series about Aboriginal adoption experiences during the 1960s and 1970s, and this will air this fall on the Aboriginal People's Television Network and the Saskatchewan Communications Network. Coleen is also working on a sequel to her Jaynelle docu- mentary which will be released for broadcast in the spring of 2006. Mr. Speaker, the value of Coleen's work cannot be overstated.

It makes a vital contribution to our society's understanding of Aboriginal issues and demonstrates that Aboriginal people, through the inspiration of their own culture, have the ability to take action against problems that are facing their communities. Ms. Rajotte takes pride in sharing these stories with a growing international audience. On behalf of our government, I would like to congratulate Coleen on her recent success and commend her for exploring such important issues.

It is also important for all of us to remember that there are many other talented Aboriginal filmmakers right here in Winnipeg and Manitoba, something all of us should take great pride in. I strongly encourage all members of this House to support Winnipeg's Aboriginal filmmakers by attending this year's

June 15, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3633 Winnipeg Aboriginal Film and Video Festival coming this November. Thank you. Bryce Pallister Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, in my years serving th e constituency of Portage la Prairie, I have been privileged to meet and learn about many talented young people with a variety of gifts. Among this exceptional group of young Manitobans is Bryce Pallister, a gifted vocalist.

After performing at the Portage la Prairie Music and Arts Festival, Bryce was recommended by the adjudicator to perform at Manitoba's provin- cial music festival, where I am very pleased to say he placed first among the contenders in the junior level vocal category. Artists from Art City and the Graffiti Gallery showcased their talents by working with local children. Bryce is currently a Grade 11 student at the Portage Collegiate Institute and has plans to attend the University of Manitoba after he graduates. Beyond his academic studies, Bryce has diligently trained in music.

For numerous years, he received his instruction in Portage la Prairie, but for the last three years, Bryce has travelled to Winnipeg to train at the University of Manitoba's School of Music. Classically trained, Bryce exhibits a profound love for music and discipline in this field. I know that his parents, Jim and Colleen, as well as his siblings, Tess, William and Claire, along with the whole Pallister family, are most proud of this young man. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the whole community of Portage la Prairie as well as the province of Manitoba can surely show great pride in this young man's accomplishments.

I would like, on behalf of all honourable members of this Assembly, to offer congratulations to this young man, Mr. Bryce Pallister, for his success shown at the Portage la Prairie Music and Arts Festival as well as placing first at the Manitoba provincial music festival and to wish him well this summer as he performs at the Dauphin Country Music Festival during the Canada Day weekend. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. * (15:40) Ellice Street Festival Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Mr. Speaker, the spirit of the West End took to the street last Saturday, June 11, for the 6th Ellice Street Festival.

Ellice Avenue, closed to traffic from Sherbrook Street to Langside Street, came alive with music, art, sports, food and fun. The live stage showcased local performers including Paradise, Gum Shoe Strut and John M. King students working with children's entertainer, Mr. Mark. There was even a fashion show featuring district models and businesses. The University of Winnipeg Wesmen men's basketball team played street basketball with local students. My colleague, the MLA for Wolseley (Mr. Altemeyer), and I each captained a team of young people in a raucus street hockey game.

The first annual Minto-Wolseley Ellice Street cup was won in overtime by the Wolseley team. The Ellice Street Festival is a great neighbourhood event that fosters interaction and good connections among residents, community groups and businesses. It brings us together in fun and sharing, creating a more positive community image. The stage provides a forum for local talent.

I congratulate local organizations for supporting the Ellice Street Festival: the Spence Neighbourhood Association, University of Winnipeg Students Asso- ciation, CKUW (campus radio), West Central Community Program, Winnipeg Child and Family Services, the John Howard Society, the West End Cultural Centre and the West End BIZ. Residents in the West End are proud of their homes, their schools and their community, and I am proud of the impact Neighbourhoods Alive! has had on this area.

I am very happy Neighbourhoods Alive! supports this festival, and I am pleased to be part of a government that just last week announced the extension of the Neighbourhoods Alive! zone from Sherbrook Street west to Ingersoll Street. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Matters of Concern Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I have two matters to address. First, I want to speak to

3634 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 15, 2005 the outrageous comments of Pat Martin. There are certainly times when we are angry and upset with people in the United States, but Mr. Pat Martin's use of the "b" word to describe our friends and neighbours to the south of us is totally unacceptable and inappropriate. Mr. Pat Martin has served as a Member of Parliament for some time and he should know better. Today I call on the Premier of Manitoba (Mr. Doer) to ask Mr. Martin to publicly apologize or, failing this, to revoke the membership of Mr. Pat Martin in the provincial NDP party.

The Premier is, as is well known, a very close associate of Mr. Pat Martin, and the words of Mr. Martin reflect very badly on the province of Manitoba and the provincial NDP party. There is a responsible action for the Premier to take under these circumstances to show his strong disagreement with Mr. Pat Martin, and that is to revoke his membership in the provincial NDP party. Failing this action, the Premier, we will all know that he tacitly accepts Mr. Pat Martin's approach to calling our southern friends and neigh- bours "bastards." Second, I want to comment briefly on the– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr.

Speaker: Order. Unparliamentary language is not accepted in this House, whether it is quoting from articles or from other third-party members. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that word he just used. Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that word. Second, I want to comment briefly on the almost unbelievable level of incompetence in the present NDP government. The NDP have been incompetent in their oversight of the Crocus Investment Fund, and they are now trying to cover up their blunders.

The NDP have been incompetent in dealing with Hydra House, in dealing with Aiyawin, in announcing $40 million for the MDC without a clear plan. Even in areas where one might expect better performance in environmental matters, the NDP have amply demonstrated their incompetence. More than a year ago, they signed a solemn memorandum of understanding, MOU, to have consultations with communities around the Lowlands National Park completed by May 30 of this year. Mr. Speaker, they are so incompetent that consultations have not even started. We have not had a State of the Environment Report for the province since 1997.

The Sustainable Development Round Table rarely meets. The Sustainable Development Awards have not been given for years. On issue after issue, the NDP are dropping the ball. GRIEVANCES Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Fort Whyte, on a grievance? Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a grievance. This is indeed a dark day for Manitoba.

The Premier's lifetime wish to be on the front page of the national newspapers regarding his acumen in the business community has finally been reached today when The Report on Business and the Financial Post are both, on the front pages of their business sections, reporting on the serious, serious scandal involving the Crocus Fund. This says a great deal about this government and about its ineffective- ness in dealing with this issue.

We first learned on December 10, the day after the legislative short session in the fall came to a halt, that the principals of the Crocus Investment Fund had made a visit over to the Securities Commission and asked permission of the Securities Commission to halt trading and to halt redemptions in shares because of serious problems with valuations within the fund. Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair This was undertaken, in particular by two brave individuals, whom I want to recognize in this House and give credit, two individuals who were hired by Crocus in early 2004, Mr. John Pelton and Mr.

Laurie Goldberg, two investment profes- sionals who, very quickly and very early on after their hiring, took a look at the books and said, "This does not make sense. These valuations bear no resemblance to the truth." They held firm, and they kept up with that fight to the point, when the board had asked them to change the valuations, they

June 15, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3635 refused. When the board had asked them to sign financial statements indicating the valuations that the board had approved were accurate, they said "No, our reputations are at stake. We are investment professionals. We do not believe these values reflect the true value of the companies in the portfolio, and we are taking this to the Securities Commission. We are not signing a prospectus. We are not signing a financial statement." Grave steps in the face of a lot of pressure.

We heard that particularly with regard to the pressure inflicted on those two individuals by the then-chair of the investment committee, Mr. Wally Fox-Decent, who actually had the gall to make a personal phone call to ask them if they would somehow change their mind and move the value on the investment portfolio up. To their credit, they withstood the pressure. They had the strength and the courage to stand up and do the right thing. Unfortunately, at that particular time, when this side of the House called for the Auditor General to conduct an investigation, we had the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Selinger) and we had the Minister of Industry (Mr. Rondeau) both say, "We do not need the Auditor General to step in and look at this. There is an investigation, though, that will be undertaken by the Securities Commission. That is enough." Well, and the Minister of Industry is shaking his head. I would invite him to go back and read his comments that he made on the record to the media and this community that indicate that he did not believe at that time that it was necessary for the Auditor General to go in. That is a fact. That is something he and his Minister of Finance will have to live with.

Very quickly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we were informed, and we found out that the valuations placed by the board bore no resemblance whatsoever to the actual value of the companies involved in the portfolios. The Auditor General went in out of his own accord. He had to invoke, for the first time in the history of the province, his right to go in and investigate a company that was involved in selling a product that contained tax credits from the Province of Manitoba. He knew at that time that it was precedent-breaking.

He indicated, in a meeting to me, that, in fact, he was a little bit concerned because he ran the risk of having this taken to the Court of Queen's Bench to test his authority. * (15:50) The Minister of Industry and the Minister of Finance could have solved this problem on December 11 had they merely done the right thing and asked the Auditor General and given the Auditor General the powers, which they subsequently gave to him after he asked for them on or about the middle of February, to go in and do a full investigation and a full audit of the Crocus Fund.

From day one, this government has been trying to hide the facts from public knowledge. That day one was not on December 11. That day one was in 2001, when this government was first warned by internal sources, people within the Department of Industry, that there was a serious liquidity problem, a serious cash crunch staring the Crocus Fund right in the face. This government turned a blind eye. The Minister of Finance's own officials in his department were concerned. The Auditor General has noted that in 2002, they raised concerns. His own officials raised concerns.

There was no denial from the Minister of Finance that that had taken place until more than four weeks after he first had the opportunity to read the report, and even then he was forced to go in the hall at 5:40 on a Friday afternoon, 5:40 at night. He finally had the gumption or was forced by his Premier to go in the hall and try to involve himself in this cover-up of the scandal at Crocus. Mr. Speaker in the Chair Can you imagine that?

Having a report for four weeks on your desk that says an official in your department wrote a memo indicating there were serious concerns at the Crocus Fund and not even asking if that memo existed, what form it was or what it contained. Four weeks later, he walks into the hall after 5:30 and says, "I never knew that memo existed. I just saw it for the first time the other day." I mean, if that is not an indication of a cover-up of this scandal and the incompetence of this Minister of Finance, I do not what is.

The Auditor General indicates clearly in his report that by late in 2002, and I want to quote directly from the report. I would invite the minister and the Premier (Mr. Doer), they keep wanting to quote page 145. I appreciate that because that is probably as far as they r ead, but I would invite them to read page 146, the conclusion, and I quote from

3636 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 15, 2005 the Auditor General's report: "We concur IEDM is not responsible for CI F's performance. However, there were sufficient 'red flags' to justify a detailed review in the latter part of 2002. While such a review may not have identified problems with CIF's valuations and investment performance, it is our view that such a review would have highlighted the gaps between CIF's management and investment practices and the legislative rules.

The findings of such a review would have provided IEDM with the support to put CIF on notice that it needed to manage its operations in a manner consistent with the legislation." Clearly, the fund was acting contrary to the legislation that governed it. Clearly, this government was warned about it. Clearly, they knew about it, and, clearly, they decided to participate in a cover- up. So they must answer the question at some point, why?

Why would they prefer to stand up for the Manitoba Federation of Labour as opposed to the 34 000 investees and the million people in Manitoba who were investing in this fund by way of tax credits? That is a question that should weigh heavily on everybody on the benches opposite, but in particular on the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), on the member from Brandon West and on the Premier of this province, who are totally culpable in this cover-up of the problems at Crocus Fund.

This cover-up has resulted in hardworking Manitobans who were coerced, I would say, into investing in this fund by the mere fact that the government said they stood behind it. The gov- ernment, at every turn, said it was a good idea. In at least two budget addresses, the Minister of Finance stood in this House after 2002 and indicated how much faith he had in the Crocus Fund.

By way of continuing to grant tax credits to everybody who invested in the fund, this government was saying, "We have faith, we believe." This is after saying in 2001 that they understood clearly that it was their responsibility, and the Minister of Industry (Mr. Rondeau) said that in this House, Mr. Speaker, that it was the responsibility of government to monitor the fund and see that it complied, ensure that it complied with the Crocus Act. They did nothing. They went so far as to have officials within the Department of Industry fill out the forms for Crocus.

They went so far as to not bother to follow up on warnings from the department that indicated clearly that Crocus was offside, but they went one step further and this, Mr. Speaker, is just totally despicable.

When it was brought to their attention, and I would refer the minister and the Minister of Finance to page 100 of the Auditor General's report, when it was brought to their attention that there was an investment that had been made by the Crocus Fund that was over the 10% limit that had been set as a maximum investment for any one company, instead of raising the alarm bells, instead of indicating to this House, instead of responding to individuals who were raising warnings outside of government, instead of responding to officials within government they simply cratered.

They simply said, "Okay, well, if that is a problem, we will change the legislation. We will just write a new piece of legislation," which, with the stroke of the pen and in the dark of night, had the effect of making this legislation, of making this investment onside with the rules of the fund. Even worse than that, Mr. Speaker, when an individual from outside of this Chamber, from outside of government, one Mr.

Bernie Bellan, who was watching this fund closely, wrote to the Minister of Industry to question whether, in fact, the invest- ment in this company was onside with the act, the minister had the gall to write back and inform him that there was nothing wrong with the investment, that she had looked into it and that everything was fine. Nowhere in her correspondence did she ever indicate, "Yes, the company was offside.

The investment was offsid e, but we changed the legislation, and now it is onside." The Auditor General has also noted that in the financial statements produced by the Crocus Fund there was no mention of the fact that the legislation passed by this government had changed the method by which the calculation on a maximum investment had been done. The Auditor General notes that. So, to the outside observer, to those following the fund, it would not appear as if anything had been done to change that legislative framework.

Nowhere in the comments from the Minister of Industry, nowhere in the description of the bill, was it identified that this change had been made. It was raised as a question by members on this side of the House. This government refused to respond. They simply turned a blind eye to those individuals in Manitoba who had, on good faith, taken the advice of this government and invested

June 15, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3637 their money in the Crocus Fund on the belief that they were doing something to further this province, that they were helping to better the province by

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-3-64
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 3rd hansardpdf 64.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3896578c1c7fb675db12205703f74f6cb3cf8519

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