Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 25 (38th Legislature, 3rd Session)

38-3-25

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. 25 - 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 23, 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.

1053 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, March 23, 2005 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PETITIONS Highway 200 Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: Highway 200 is paved from Winnipeg to the Canada-U.S. border except for approximately a 10- kilometre

section between highways 205 and 305 which remains unpaved. School buses, farm equipment, emergency vehicles and local traffic must travel on Highway 200 which is dangerous, if not completely impassable, during wet spring weather and other times of heavy rainfall. Due to unsafe conditions, many drivers look to alternate routes around this

section when possible and time permits. The condition of the gravel road can cause serious damage to all vehicles. Insufficient traffic counts are not truly reflective of the traffic volumes because users tend to find another route to avoid this section. Traffic counts done after spring seeding, during wet weather or during school recess are not truly indicative of traffic flows. Maintenance costs for unpaved highways are high and ongoing. It would be cost-effective to pave this section.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Transportation and Government Services (Mr. Lemieux) consider paving Highway 200 between highways 205 and 305 to ensure a smooth, safe and uninterrupted use of Highway 200. Signed by Julien Lemoine, Ron Edwards, Justin Simundson and others. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House. Provincial Road 355 Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

These are the reasons for this petition: The unsafe conditions of PR No. 355 from the western edge of Minto municipality to PR No. 270 (including the hill out of the Minnedosa valley), poses an undue risk to Manitobans who must travel on this roadway. The steady stream of traffic on this stretch of PR No. 355, which includes automobiles such as "B" train semi-trailer tractors, mail delivery vehicles and school buses, makes the roadway in its current state dangerously impassable.

Continued expansion of the regional economy in livestock development, grain storage and trans- portation and the proposed Mohawk Plant, puts additional strain on PR No. 355 and creates further safety concerns for motorists. PR No. 355 experiences an increased risk in traffic flow during the spring season when there are weight restrictions on surrounding provincial trunk highways. For several years, representatives of six municipal corporations, as well as ad hoc citizens' group have been actively lobbying the provincial government to upgrade and reconstruct the stretch of PR No. 355 at issue.

Manitobans and visitors to the province deserve a better rural highway infrastructure. We petition the Manitoba Legislative Assembly as follows: To request the Minister of Transportation and Government Services (Mr. Lemieux) to consider

1054 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 23, 2005 upgrading PR No. 355 from the western edge of the R.M. of Minto to PR No. 270 (including the hill out of the Minnedosa valley). To request the Premier of Manitoba (Mr. Doer) to consider supporting the said initiative to ensure the safety of our Manitobans and all Canadians who travel along Manitoba highways. This petition signed by Margaret Northam, Donald Northam, J. Raupers and others. * (13:35) Ambulance Service Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): 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 benchmark of 4 minutes. Ambulance coverage for East St. Paul is provided from Selkirk, which is almost 25 kilometres away. The municipalities of East St. Paul and West St. Paul combined have over 12 000 residents. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to consider providing East St. Paul with local ambulance service which would service both East and West St. Paul.

To request the provincial government to consider improving the way that ambulance service is supplied to all Manitobans by utilizing tech- nologies such as GPS in conjunction with a Medical Transportation Co-ordination Centre (MTCC) which will ensure that patients receive the nearest ambulance in the least amount of time. To request the provincial government to consider ensuring that appropriate funding is provided to maintain superior response times and sustainable services. Signed by Marianne Toews, Chris Toews, Nathan Toews and many others. Minimum Sitting Days for Manitoba Legislature Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The background to this petition is as follows: The Manitoba Legislature sat for only 35 days in 2003. In 2004, there were 55 sitting days. The number of sitting days has a direct impact on the issue of public accountability. The Legislative Assembly provides the best forum for all MLAs to debate and ask questions of the government, and it is critical that all MLAs be provided the time needed in order for them to cover constituent and party duties.

Establishing a minimum number of sitting days could prevent the government of the day from limiting the rights of opposition members from being able to ask questions. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to consider recognizing the need to sit for a minimum of 80 days in any given calendar year. Signed by R. Navarete, A. Gacutan and R. Bantugan. Supported Living Program Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

These are the reasons for this petition: The provincial government's Supported Living Program provides a range of supports to assist adults with a mental disability to live in the

March 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1055 community in their residential option of choice, including a family home. There is a lack of group homes available and this means special needs dependants must remain in the family home. The provincial government's Community Living Division helps support adults living with a mental disability to live safely in the community in the residential setting of their choice. Families with special needs dependants make lifelong commitments to their care and well-being, and many families choose to care for these individuals in their homes as long as circumstances allow.

The cost to support families who care for their special needs dependants at home is far less than the cost of alternate care arrangements such as institutions or group and foster home situations. The value of the quality of life experienced by special needs dependants raised at home in a loving family environment is immeasurable. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Family Services and Housing (Ms.

Melnick) consider changes to the departmental policy that pays family members a reduced amount of money for room and board when they care for their special needs dependents at home, versus an amount paid to a non-parental care provider outside the family home. To request the Minister of Family Services and Housing to consider examining on a case-by-case basis the merits of paying family members to care for special needs dependents at home versus paying to institutionalize them.

Signed by Dallas Gerbrandt, Margaret Waldner, Tracy Friesen and many others. * (13:40) COMMITTEE REPORTS Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs Third Report Mr. Daryl Reid (Chairperson): I ask for leave to present the report of the Legislative Affairs Standing Committee. Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Reid: I wish to present the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs. Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs presents the following as its Third Report. Mr. Speaker: Dispense.

Your Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs presents the following as its Third Report. Meetings: Your main committee met on the following occasions: Thursday, December 2, 2004, at 10 a.m. in Room 254 of the Legislative Building Tuesday, December 21, 2004, at 1 p.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building Tuesday, March 22, 2005, at 3 p.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building (in camera) Your sub-committee met on the following occasions. All meetings took place in Room 1023 – 405 Broadway: Thursday, January 6, 2005, at 10 a.m. Monday, January 31, 2005, at 1 p.m. Tuesday, March 1, 2005, at 1 p.m.

Thursday, March 3, 2005, at 9:51 a.m. Friday, March 4, 2005, at 9 a.m. Monday, March 7, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday, March 8, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. Friday, March 11, 2005, at 1:30 p.m. Matters Under Consideration: Recruitment and Selection of the Children’s Advocate Motions Adopted and Reported: Motion adopted at the December 21, 2004, meeting (motion was reported in the 2 nd Report of this Standing Committee) THAT a Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs consisting of:

1056 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 23, 2005 Kerri Irvin-Ross Greg Dewar Kevin Lamoureux Kelvin Goertzen Daryl Reid, as Chairperson be struck to establish the selection criteria, the advertisement, conduct the screening and interviews and provide to this Committee their recommendation of the appointment of the individuals to fill the positions of the Ombudsman and of the Children’s Advocate.

Sub-Committee Report At the March 22, 2005, meeting, the sub- committee reported that it had met in camera on Thursday, January 6, 2005, at 10 a.m., Monday, January 31, 2005, at 1 p.m., Tuesday, March 1, 2005, at 1 p.m., Thursday, March 3, 2005, at 9:51 a.m., Friday, March 4, 2005, at 9 a.m., Monday, March 7, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, March 8, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. and Friday, March 11, 2005, at 1:30 p.m. The sub-committee reported that thirty-three applications were received for the position of the Children’s Advocate, and from these applications, interviews were held w ith seven (7) candidates.

Interviews were held on March 4, 7 and 8. Following from these interviews, on March 11, the sub-committee agreed to recommend to the Standing Committee of Legislative Affairs that Billie Schibler be the nominee for the position of the Children’s Advocate in Manitoba. Items agreed to at the March 22, 2005, Meeting Your committee has unanimously agreed to make its report to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with the recommendation that Billie Schibler be appointed as the Children’s Advocate for the Province of Manitoba. * (13:45) Mr. Reid: I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Steinbach (Mr.

Goertzen), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 24–The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Cost of Credit Disclosure and Miscellaneous Amendments) Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Training (Ms. McGifford), that Bill 24, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Cost of Credit Disclosure and Miscellaneous Amendments); Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection des consommateur (communication du coût du crédit et modifications diverses), be now read a first time. Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Finance, seconded by the honourable Minister of Advanced Education and Training, that Bill 24, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Cost of Credit Disclosure and Miscellaneous Amendments), be now read a first time. Mr. Selinger: Mr.

Speaker, this bill will allow consumers to have a common rate of interest expressed in transactions th ey engage in, so they can make proper consumer choices about the credit instruments they choose. Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us today Marion and Jack Kostuik who are the parents of the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Minnedosa (Mrs. Rowat).

They live in the constituency of the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach). Also in the public gallery we have from Valley Gardens Junior High 17 Grade 9 students under the direction of Mr. Marek Kutka. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable First Minister (Mr. Doer). Also in the public gallery we have from Alhijra Islamic School 23 Grade 4 students under the direction of Ms. Michele Rouleau. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Labour and Immigration (Ms. Allan). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.

March 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1057 ORAL QUESTIONS Red River Floodway Expansion Master Labour Agreement Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): According to the numbers being crunched by the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, based on a conservative estimate that 15 percent of the $660-million expansion project cost is for wages, this NDP government's policy of forcing non-unionized workers to pay union dues will take about a million dollars out of their pockets. Mr. Speaker, this is a union scam. This is forced payment to the NDP's union bosses.

It is fundamentally unfair to hardworking Manitobans who have democratically chosen to not be part of a union. Mr. Speaker, when will the member from Concordia wake up and realize that he should be the Premier for all Manitobans, not a union boss lackey that simply thinks he can use taxpayers' dollars to support his union boss friends? When will he wake up? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I believe the Rand formula was implemented by Duff Roblin in the civil service some 40 years ago. Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, memo to the NDP, the floodway is already built.

It was a Progressive Conservative government that built the floodway. Memo to the NDP, that Progressive Conservative Premier did not force unionized workers to pay union dues. Mr. Speaker, the public, all non-unionized workers throughout Manitoba, people outside of the province of Manitoba, see this colossal NDP blunder for what it is. It is an NDP union scam that wastes taxpayers' dollars. It funnels hardworking Manitobans' money to the NDP union boss friends, and it is nothing short of a blatant attempt to force unionization in an industry that has chosen to be non-unionized. * (13:50) Mr.

Speaker, aside from the million dollars of forced union dues, this NDP government is also going to force each contractor to submit to unions just under $3 per non-unionized worker to a trust fund. The industry calculates that will add an additional 10 to $15 million to the cost. For a worker who works some 3000 hours, that is an additional $9,000. The only way that non-unionized workers can get access to the benefits is if he or she joins the union. This is forced unionization all over again. Why is this NDP government forcing non- unionized workers to do this? It is NDP forced unionization at its worst.

Do the right thing and scrap this agreement. Mr. Doer: I noticed, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Rajotte was at the press conference, an owner of a construction company, along with other individuals. We could have gone to one big management company, one big tender. It was the advice I received from companies to try to take the more difficult, but important route for businesses. I have talked to businesses on either side of this issue and there are differences. Most of them, if not all of them, will be tendering for all the work. Mr. Murray: Mr.

Speaker, this Premier is trying to pull the wool over Manitobans' eyes, and he is going to fail because what he is saying is this is like the NHL trying to solve their talks with the owners there but the players not at the table. It is very, very clear that this government is going to force Manitoban non-unionized workers to put a million dollars out of their pockets to add 10 to $15 million into a pension fund which they cannot access unless they become part of that union.

While the cost is not yet known, the industry expects millions more will be handed out over special fees, project fees, union initiation fees once that is taken into account. Mr. Speaker, Bill Fisher who was one of the original floodway workers and led the drive in co- ordinating the work on the Z-dike said, "Government needs to get out of the way and let us get on with the job of redigging Duff's Ditch." Mr. Speaker, we did it before without having forced unionization and we can do it again. We deserve the opportunity. Why will this First Minister, this former union boss, not listen to someone like Bill Fisher?

Do the right thing and scrap this arrangement.

1058 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 23, 2005 Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite worked for the former Prime Minister, who put in place a Treasury Board regulation dealing with the Confederation Bridge. Why did the former Prime Minister do that? He did that because any disruption through strikes or lockouts with any part of that bridge would have a dramatic impact on the economics of that project. The former Conservative government, in the 1960s, brought in the first labour- management agreement. Why did they do that?

Because any disruption on the building of, I think it was the Kelsey project, would have a negative impact on the economics of that project. Mr. Speaker, we have a considerable amount of bridge work to do on the floodway project. No strike or no lockout with many of those workers means that there will not be any disruptions to ensure the flood protection is there on time and on budget. The owners of this project are the federal and provincial governments that are funding this project, but if members opposite want to talk about hockey, he was a failure trying to build a new arena. He voted against this arena.

We have got it built. Red River Floodway Expansion Master Labour Agreement Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, the NDP government of Manitoba has signed a labour agreement which the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce says, and I quote, "is a rogues gallery of union perks." The Canadian Chamber of Commerce said, "The NDP's floodway agreement looks like a forced unionization." The Brandon Sun says, and I quote, "In short, it stinks." Will the NDP today scrap this forced union agreement? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): Mr.

Speaker, it is quite clear that, going back over the last several months, the members opposite were opposed to any kind of agreement. In fact, they ha ve got both feet firmly planted in the 1950s. They oppose employment equity, and they are op posing in this case an agreement that ensures that both unionized and non-unionized companies and workers will have the opportunity to benefit from great economic opportunities. They are even opposed to the provisions that allow for deductions for pensions and benefits. This is not the 1950s. It is the year 2005. Mr. Penner: Mr.

Speaker, yesterday in Interim Supply questioning, the Minister of Water Stewardship applied again and again, that the Winnipeg Construction Association approved the labour agreement. However, in a letter dated March 16, the Winnipeg Construction Association categorically states, and I quote, "WCA is not a signatory to the final flood labour agreement." Will the NDP government now scrap this forced unionization agreement? * (13:55) Mr. Ashton: You know, once again, Mr. Speaker, and I put on the record, I think in the last session of the Legislature, they asked more questions on this than virtually any other issue.

By the way, never a question about the building of the floodway expansion that is going to protect 450 000 Manitobans against the 1-in-700-year flood. That is what is the most important aspect of this agreement. This agreement will ensure no strike, no lockout and we, on this side, are looking into the future, the tremendous economic benefit and the flood protection for the people of Manitoba. Manitoba Hydro Office Tower Master Labour Agreement Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr.

Speaker, in February we learned that the cost of constructing a new Hydro office building in downtown Winnipeg had doubled from $75 million to $150 million. This is an expense that will be borne by the ratepayers of Manitoba Hydro. The construction industry is now being told that anybody involved in construction on the new Hydro tower is going to have to deal with the forced master labour agreement from this NDP government. This could add another $7 million to $10 million to the cost of the building.

I would ask the Minister responsible for Hydro if he would today stand up and give his absolute assurance that the NDP government will not force a master labour agreemen t on those involved in constructing Manitoba Hydro's new office tower. Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am very pl eased that we are very close to final design of a building that will be a signature building in downtown Winnipeg. It will be

March 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1059 the most energy-efficient building probably in North America, a bigger size than originally envisioned that will see 2000 full-time employees moving to downtown Winnipeg to help revitalize downtown Winnipeg, and bring back even more, in addition to the MTS Centre, in addition to Red River College, in addition to the library project, in addition to Waterfront Drive and in addition to the Health Sciences Centre that is being rebuilt and will be also reinvigorating to downtown Winnipeg. We are very pleased that we are very close to a final design. Mr. Loewen: Mr.

Speaker, once again the question was very straightforward and one that the minister absolutely refuses to an swer. We understand now that the reason why he will not answer is because, indeed, the NDP government intends to force, for the first time in the history of this province, contractors who are involved in building an office tower, to work under a master labour agreement. I would ask the minister a very simple and very straightforward question.

Sir, stand up today, give your assurance to the ratepayers who could be on the hook for another $10 million, give your assurance to the construction industry who is looking at alternatives to investing in Manitoba, give them your assurance, sir, that under your NDP government they will not be forced to construct the new Hydro tower under a master labour agreement. Yes or no, a simple question, a simple answer. Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be part of a government that said we are going to move the Red River College downtown, and it is built. It is open; it is running, 2002.

I am very proud of the government that said we are going to rebuild Brandon general hospital, $56 million and it is built. I am very proud of the government that said we are going to be rebuilding the largest health capital project in the history and that is the rebuilding of Health Sciences Centre. It is under construction and close to completion. I am very pleased that we will be building downtown, not yet finished, gone to design, of which tenders will be let, and which construction will be built of the Hydro signature building in downtown Winnipeg that will move 2000 employees into the downtown area.

I think something all members of this Chamber, I would have presumed, would support. Children in Care Safety Concerns Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we raised the issue of a child that died while in the care of Family Services. Can the Minister of Family Services tell us why she placed another child in this home shortly after one child died under horrific circ umstances and while an investigation was ongoing? Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table two documents today. The first document I am tabling is

Part VI, Confidentiality of The Child and Family Services Act. I draw the House's attention, in particular, to

section 76(3), "Records are confidential. Subject to this section, a record made under this Act is confidential and no person shall disclose or communicate information from the record in any form to any other person." There are lists of exceptions. Mrs. Taillieu: Well, Mr. Speaker, we are not asking her to share the specifics of the lawsuit against this NDP government. We are simply asking about another child that was placed in the same environment as another child. There are allegations that this home was not registered and not licensed as a foster home. Why did she place another child at risk? * (14:00) Ms.

Melnick: Mr. Speaker, the other document that I just tabled is The Fatality Inquiries Act. These are the two acts under which I was speaking to the House yesterday on questions asked. These are the two documents that I will continue to speak under when questions come from across the House on specific cases. Children in Care Safety Concerns Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Mr.

Speaker, I have a question for the same minister but given the stance that she has just ta ken, she is telling the people of this province she knows nothing, she will say nothing, she will not share responsi- bility for what happened to this child and what happened to the other children who were placed in that home.

1060 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 23, 2005 Just for the record, let me ask this minister this. During an election campaign, a child passed away under horrific circumstances in the home we are referring to that was not di vulged immediately that that child was in care. We could easily say there was a cover-up at that time, and it appears there is another cover-up. We ask this minister this: Will she share the recommendations that came from the review of this case? Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Mr.

Speaker, again, I have referred to the two laws of this province which protect the confidentiality of circumstances surrounding concerning events. I will respect those laws. I will respect the laws of Manitoba. I hope members opposite will do the same. Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, we did not ask the name of the child. We asked was another child placed in this home. Now, will this minister stand up, do her duty and answer the question? Ms. Melnick: Mr. Speaker, again, I cannot speak to specifics.

I can assure the House that when children are placed in homes, fost er care support workers from agencies and organizations are put in place. Ongoing involvement from parents can be put in place if requested. Daily involvement and super- vision can be put in place. The Foster Family Network works with foster families. The funding was cut in 1993. We brought funding back in 1999, and have since doubled that funding. The branch provides ongoing reviews and training for all individuals who are involved in the care of children in our province. Safe Schools Legislation Codes of Conduct Mrs.

Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, when asked how many schools had a Safe Schools Charter in place to address the issue of bullying, the Minister of Education said that 23 out of 24 school divisions have replied with their codes of conduct. The next day the Premier (Mr. Doer) of the province said that 24 out of 25 school divisions have so far responded. But, there are actually 38 school divisions in Manitoba, so 15 school divisions appear to not have submitted or done anything about their codes of conduct to address bullying. A senior department official said that these should all be in place.

I would like to ask the Minister of Education this: Why are all of these school divisions not in compliance with the legislation? Hon. Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): The number that have replied, the 23 of 24, were in compliance with the codes of conduct. That was the context in which those comments were made. As the number had been given last week, even while we sat in the House, what I had been advised of the numbers that were in compliance and the number that had replied, the number had grown.

More school divisions are submitting the information with respect to the status of the codes of conduct an d how close they are to complying. More school divisions are submitting information with respect to how many schools in their division do have codes of conduct. They are doing their job, and we are going to move forward with the safe schools legislation and the charter. Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, The Safe Schools Charter does require that individual schools all have a Safe Schools Charter in place.

When asked this the other day, the minister chose to answer this question by talking about school divisions, when in fact, his own legislation says that all 698 schools in Manitoba should have a Safe Schools Charter in place. I would like to ask the minister this today: Can he guarantee that his legislation is being followed and that all 698 schools in Manitoba have a Safe Schools Charter in place to protect our school children against bullying? Mr. Bjornson: Mr.

Speaker, the consultation process we have been engaged in with all the stakeholders, including parents, including teachers, including trustees has been ongoing around this legislation. They agree with the need for a Safe Schools Charter. They agree with the need for codes of conduct. They are all working towards the objectives of the Safe Schools Charter and the codes of conduct are a big part of that equation. As stakeholders who have been involved in this process, they are going to comply. They are advocates, teachers are advocates, for this legislation. Parents are advocates for this legislation. Mr.

Speaker, I know my previous critic was talking about the need to consult and she spoke to the need to consult during the debate on the bill. The

March 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1061 member from Charleswood got up and said, "Why are we dumping this on the school divisions?" We are not dumping it on anybody. We are working with our partners. Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, the condescending and arrogant attitude of this minister is going to do absolutely nothing to protect school children against bullying. The Minister of Education seems to forget why we are asking these questions about bullying. It is such a serious issue. A young boy in this province just committed suicide because of bullying.

The minister instead tried to go off on a bunch of rhetoric and rant in this House. It is more important than that. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask him this again: How many of those 698 schools are in compliance with his own legislation that they should all have a Safe Schools Charter in place to protect children against bullying? Mr. Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, the member makes some allegations about the commitment of this government. Every single person on this side of the House is committed to address this issue, and we have– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Bjornson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member from Fort Whyte during the debate said that we should be listening to teachers. Well, perhaps they should listen to teachers who have said through the Manitoba Teachers' Society the other day, they issued a release saying that it is this government that has done more in the past five years to address the issue of bullying– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr.

Bjornson: It is this government that has done more in the past five years to address the issue whether it is has been through the Healthy Child Committee of Cabinet and their initiatives, whether it has been through Justice and the Lighthouses offering alternatives for children, whether it has been through the Department of Education addressing curricular issues which try to educate children on the behaviours and the consequences of those behaviours. Everyone on this side is committed to address this issue. Orthopedic Surgical Procedures Wait List Reduction Strategy Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr.

Speaker, the government has done very poorly when it comes to planning on health care. My question concerns the very long waiting times for surgical procedures like hip and knee replacements. I have received many letters and calls from people who are waiting in pain, in discomfort or in agony because of the government's failures.

I quote from a letter from a man who says he received this reply from the NDP, "Our government recognizes that wait times for hip and knee surgeries are lo nger than ideal." My correspondent says, "I take this as code that they are admitting to having screwed up." Will the Minister of Health admit that his government has made a mess of the situation with knee and hip surgeries and that this mess has given rise to very long waiting times for these procedures? Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, last year and this current, we will do about 2800 hip and knee procedures.

That is a 20% increase since we formed government. The Canadian Orthopedic Association said that Manitoba had done more than any other province in Canada on hips and knees during the last five years. I take that as an endorsement. The CIHI data that was released recently showed that more than half of Manitobans had their hip or knee surgery in less than 20 weeks. That is also very close to the best in Canada. * (14:10) All that said, Mr. Speaker, my letter is correct.

It is not acceptable to have the number of people waiting on the list, and that is obviously why we just committed $10 million to put an additional 1000 procedures in place. We wi ll track those procedures month by month. We will do that job. Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about numbers and procedures when people are interested in waiting times and getting access to good care quickly. The CBC quoted a government figure of 10 months average wait time for knee replacement surgery in Manitoba, but it turns out that the NDP

1062 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 23, 2005 uses waiting times for emergency procedures in its calculation of this number. The government can then say that wait lists are, on av erage, only 10 months in this instance because the emergency ones are included. However, for somebody who has got an elective procedure, in actuality it often takes six months just to get on the waiting list. People then have to wait one or even two years for the actual knee surgery.

My question to the Minister of Health is this: Why is he using deceptive propaganda to mislead people who are waiting in pain and discomfort for knee surgeries? Mr. Sale: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that the orthopedic surgeons of Canada would take kindly to a doctor calling them down for using deceptive propaganda. These are their numbers. I rather doubt that the Canadian Institute for Health Information, which is a national non-partisan body, would take kindly to a doctor saying to CIHI that they were using deceptive numbers. Mr. Speaker, these are the national numbers.

We have agreed on using those numbers, publishing them, putting them out on the Web, which no government has ever done before. We are accountable. We will be accountable for 1000 additional procedures. We agree we need to do more to bring down that waiting list, and we are doing it. That is why Concordia Hospital has two new state-of-the-art operating theatres and why we have more orthopods practising today in Manitoba than we had in 1999. Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, Seven Oaks is one of our finest community hospitals.

It sees on average more people in their emergency department than any other community hospital in Manitoba, in fact, twice the number for which it was designed. So, we were delighted to partner with the foundation of Seven Oaks General Hospital who are raising about $2 million, and with our contribution of $5 million, we will double the number of examining rooms.

We will put state-of-the-art information technology, new ambulance-covered structures and other high tech diagnostic equipment so that that facility will be able to more than meet the demands of the 35 000 citizens of Manitoba who call on it for emergency services. They recently won the award for one of the best managed hospitals in Canada, as well. It is a fine structure. Victoria General Hospital Maternity Ward Closure Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, the minister should be accountable for providing accurate and reasonable waiting times.

The minister's government is known already, and all over the place, for its poor planning. The NDP have misled Manitobans on knee surgery. They have misled Manitobans recently in saying they would keep the Victoria Hospital maternity ward open, and now they are closing it. I ask the minister this: What would happen if there were an unexpected infectious problem or a burst water pipe on the maternity ward at Health Sciences Centre or St. Boniface? What will the minister do if for any reason either Health Sciences Centre or St. Boniface maternity ward has to close temporarily?

Will the minister tell this Legislature today where he will be sending mothers if there had to be a temporary closure of either St. Boniface or Health Sciences Centre maternity ward? Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): First of all, Mr. Speaker, I do not indulge in hypothetical scare stories that any member wants to raise.

Our health system is managed by very professional and competent people who plan for emergencies, who have plans in place should unforeseen things happen, but indulging in that kind of scare tactics should not be something that is underdone by any member of this House and especially by a physician. Seven Oaks General Hospital Services Mr. Cris Aglugub (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, this is a question for the Minist er of Health. Yesterday I saw a major announcement fo r the northwest part of Winnipeg.

Can the Minister of Health inform the House what steps he has taken to improve the services at Seven Oaks General Hospital? Interprovincial Trade Barriers Cattle Industry Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with a beef producer and business owner of a small slaughter plant who wants to promote a bull sale in Manitoba by giving away Manitoba grown hamburgers that were processed in Saskatchewan, but he cannot do that. The NDP government said no.

March 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1063 Interprovincial trade barriers prevent Manitoba meat that is slaughtered and processed in a federally processed plant from crossing Manitoba borders. Rather than making it easier for trade within Canada, the minister prefers to keep red tape in place from preventing outside beef from coming into Manitoba and beef from being purchased for other provinces. Will this NDP government move to remove those trade barriers that prevent the government from moving on with the meat products? Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minis ter of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr.

Speaker, I had this discussion with the member opposite before, and he is well aware that this is a federal regulation. It is a federal regulation that sets the standards of how meat can move interprovincially. For meat to move interprovincially it has to come from a federally inspected plant. Those are the rules. As I have told members opposite, we have talked to people in other provinces and the federal government about how we might be able to get the standards changed in plants so that we could, by adopting a national meat code, move meat inter- provincially by bringing a different standard.

We have not been able to get that commitment, Mr. Speaker, and under the standards that we have this will not happen. I have raised the issue. We have to continue to work to increase our slaughter capacity so that we can produce the meat that we need in this province. Mr. Eichler: Mr. Speaker, this minister cannot take the leadership role and negotiate that with the other provinces. That is what she should be doing. With an established shortage of federally inspected processing facilities in Manitoba, it is time to address the interprovincial trade barriers, especially as it pertains to processing beef.

Will the minister finally get on with the job and begin negotiating an interprovincial meat program which would make it easier and safe for meat products to cross provincial boundaries? Mr. Premier (Mr. Doer), tear down that wall. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the standards that we have for plants is a standard that applies across the country. Across the country you have to have product coming from a federally inspected plant before it can move out of the province.

I have told members opposite that since I have become minister, I have asked other ministers and the federal government to co-ope rate with us to adopt a national meat code. There is no desire on the part of other provinces or the federal government to adopt the national meat code that would allow for meat to move between provinces. Mr. Speaker, the rules that we have in place right now are that meat has to come from a federally inspected plant before it can work interprovincially. That is why we have federally inspected plants in this province so we can expand the trade for our producers.

Plan Winnipeg Amendment Proposals Oak Point Transit Corridor, Waverley West Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Smith) has two very important amendments to Plan Winnipeg sitting on his desk. The first is the deletion of the Oak Point Transit Corridor which would allow for the condos on the bridge project to proceed. The second is the amendment which would allow for the go-forward on Waverley West.

I would ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs if he could tell us how many letters of objection he has received to these two Plan Winnipeg amendments, firstly to the deletion of the Oak Point Transit Corridor and secondly to Waverley West. How many letters of objection have been received? Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Acting Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question on notice for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade. * (14:20) Mr. Loewen: Mr.

Speaker, the minister's office has been in contact with one of the objectors to the deletion of the Oak Point Transit Corridor. As a matter of fact, this individual is working under contract to the New Democratic caucus and she was called by the minister's office to assure her that the Oak Point Transit Corridor deletion would be referred to the Municipal Board. I would ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to please indicate to the House today if he

1064 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 23, 2005 intends to refer both the Oak Point Transit Corridor deletion and the Waverley West Plan Winnipeg amendments to the municipal board. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice for the Minister of Inter- governmental Affairs. Children in Care Safety Concerns Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, I quote from the Children's Advocate report that a supervisor once said, "The children do not have rights. They have needs and desires." Obviously a statement that the Children's Advocate was appalled by.

I would like this minister today to stand up and prove that she believes children have rights. Will you stand up on behalf of the children of this province who are in care and assure us the second child that was placed in the home we referenced earlier, that she was in fact satisfied, and that she will share the information that was used to make the decision about the safety of that home? The recommendations she had, will she share them with us? Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Mr. Speaker, I sense there are actually two questions.

The second question, I will refer back to the laws of Manitoba which will be respected on this side of the House, hopefully on the other side. In regard to ch ildren's rights, this is a government that has put our children first, time and time again, Healthy Child Committee of Cabinet, the first prenatal benefit in the history of this province, I believe, in the western world. We have more than doubled the budget of the Children's Advocate since 1999. There have been two, the child welfare initiative, devolving child welfare to the northern, southern First Nations, Métis and the general– Mr.

Speaker: The honourable Member for Russell. Safe Schools Legislation Codes of Conduct Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, families on the west side of the province, namely Roblin, Inglis, Russell, have gone through their first phase of mourning, and now there is some anger. There are questions being asked about the leadership of this government and specifically, the Minister of Education, when it comes to bullying in our schools. Mr. Speaker, over a year ago, legislation in this House was passed. No regulations have yet been written.

Today parents are asking how many more of these types of incidents will occur in this province before this minister gets serious about his responsibility in terms of showing leadership with regard to bullying and stopping the bullying that goes on in our school system. I want to ask this minister this: When will he consider this matter seriously and move ahead in a proactive way? Hon. Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): I considered this matter very serious in the 13 years that I was in the classroom.

I consider this matter very serious when the Teachers' Society, in 1993, started to lobby the government about some changes around safety in the classroom. I consider this a very serious matter as do all members on this side of the House. That is why we are engaged in a number of initiatives. We are engaged in a number of initiatives with Family Services, with Aboriginal and Northern Affairs, Justice, with Healthy Child. We are all engaged in trying to make our schools a safer place.

I will remind the members opposite that the Teachers' Society and a teacher on the radio today, on CBC radio, also mentioned that more has been done on this issue in the last five years than ever before. I will remind the House– Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, the evidence is before us. The evidence is before this minister. The evidence is clear. Today children are still taking their own lives because of bullying in our schools. That says collectively we have not done our job.

We look at the Minister of Education whose responsibility is to take a leadership role in setting the direction and ensuring this problem is curbed once and for all. Mr. Speaker, I ask for those citizens in Roblin, Inglis and Russell who are going through mourning today, will this minister show some proactive leadership and make sure that he calls, as his Premier

March 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1065 (Mr. Doer) had committed to yesterday, a collection of people together to deal with this problem, to share their ideas. At least show that much leadership so that people in this province will be able to feel comfortable in sending their children to school without having them being bullied. Mr. Bjornson: I will let the member from Russell know that when this incident occurred, I immediately contacted Safe Schools Manitoba which had been working very hard on this issue.

We talked about a number of different strategies that we need to engage in to address this issue. We were also reminded, Mr. Speaker, of the number of initiatives that have been ongoing in the last three years. Particularly, we have been reminded about the work of Safe Schools, the Healthy Child, Roots of Empathy program, the multi-interjurisdictional team working to prevent sexual exploitation, the buddy support system, the gang awareness curriculum, the initiatives that we are taking in curriculum to talk about positive relationships, the consequences of bullying behaviour, to talk about safe communities.

Yet the members opposite during the debate said that this was a waste of time. Protecting children is not a waste of time for this government. We are all committed to that, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. Speaker's Ruling Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling for the House. During Oral Questions on March 10, 2005, the honourable Member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Loewen) rose on a matter of privilege concerning comments made by the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Sale), in a newspaper

article dated December 26, 2004, in which the honourable Minister of Health was quoted as stating that "the Health budget had been purposely underfunded." The honourable Member for Fort Whyte indicated that he had given the honourable Minister of Health several opportunities during Oral Questions to indicate whether the newspaper quote was inaccurate, but the honourable minister had not done so.

The honourable Member for Fort Whyte asserted that his rights and privileges as a member had been breached, that obstruction and interference had occurred and that an improper reflection on the House as a whole had occurred. He concluded his comments by moving THAT "as a result of the seriousness of this breach of privilege that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs.

Furthermore, I move that the Minister of Health be requested to apologize to Manitobans and to all honourable members of this Chamber for purposely and knowingly misleading Manitobans and the honourable members of this Chamber." The honourable Deputy Government House Leader (Mr. Ashton), the honourable Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan), the honourable Member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger), the honourable Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and the honourable Official Oppo sition House Leader (Mr. Derkach) also offered advice to the Chair.

I took the matter under advisement in order to consult the procedural authorities. 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. * (14:30) Regarding the first condition, the honourable member for Fort Whyte asse rted that he was raising the matter at the earliest opportunity.

The remarks in question were made outside of the House in December 2004, during a period of time when the Assembly was not in sess ion. However, the matter was not raised until the fourth day that the House resumed sitting in March. Therefore, I have difficulty accepting that the issue 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 of.

Joseph Maingot advises on page 241 of the 2nd Edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada that "to allege that a Member has misled the House is a matter of order rather than privilege." Maingot also

1066 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 23, 2005 advises on page 224 of the same volume that "an admission that a Member had intentionally misled the House would be required in order to establish a prima facie case of privilege." This concept is supported by Manitoba precedents by a ruling from Speaker Walding in 1985, a ruling from Speaker Phillips in 1987, by seven rulings from Speaker Rocan from the period 1988 to 1995, by nine rulings from Speaker Dacquay from the period 1995 to 1999, and by four rulings from the current Speaker from the period 1999 to the present.

In a ruling delivered on April 20, 1999, Speaker Dacquay ruled that "short of a Member acknowledging to the House that he or she deliberately, and with intent, set out to mislead, it is virtually impossible to prove that a Member deliberately misled the House." I carefully read over the comments of the honourable Minister of Health from March 10, and there was no such admission.

Also, Citation 31(3) of the 6th Edition of Beauchesne states that "Statements made outside by the House by a Member may not be used as the basis for privilege." This is supported by rulings from Speaker Walding in 1983, by two rulings from Speaker Phillips in 1986 and 1987, by six rulings from Speaker Rocan from 1988 to 1995, by a ruling from Speaker Dacquay in 1995, and by a ruling that I had made to the House in 2004.

I would also like to share with the House portions of the 50th Report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs from 2002, which conducted an examination into the issue of allegations that the former Minister of Defence had misled the House. The committee dealt exclusively with the topics of intent to mislead and incorrect statements and had the following to say: "Intent is always a difficult element to establish in the absence of an admission or a confession.

It is necessary to carefu lly review the context surrounding the incident involved and to attempt to draw inferences based on the nature of the circumstances. Any findings must however be grounded in facts and have an evidentiary basis. Parliamentary committees charged with examining questions of privilege must exercise caution and act responsibly in drawing conclusions. They must guard against allowing partisanship to colour their judgment. The power to punish for contempt must not be exercised lightly. Incorrect statements in the House of Commons cannot be condoned.

It is essential that members have accurate and timely information and that the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House is ensured. Mistakes are made from time to time, and they must be corrected promptly. It is only a deliberately incorrect statement that comes within the meaning of contempt." The Royal Manitoba Winter Fair is a week of continuous excitement. It continues to feature many of its original western traditions which are always major attractions to both urban and rural visitors.

The fair also includes over 300 commercial exhibits, world-class eque strian events, children's shows, auctions, hawking demonstrations, fiddlers' contests and, my personal favourite, the calf scramble. In the words of Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, "It must be established that the Member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was made that it was incorrect, and that in making it, the Member intended to mislead the House." With the greatest of respect, I must rule that the matter is not in order as a prima facie case of privilege. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Royal Manitoba Winter Fair Mr.

Drew Caldwell (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to inform the House that the Royal Manitoba Winter Fair will take place at the Keystone Centre in Brandon this coming week between March 28 and April 2. The Royal Manitoba Winter Fair has a rich and lengthy history in Brandon. The Winter Fair was established in 1908, and it was granted royal patronage by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on July 12, 1970. The Royal Manitoba Winter Fair is known as one of Canada's largest agricultural events and, since its inception, has attracted hundreds of thousands of visitors from around the world. Mr.

Speaker, I cannot stress enough how important the Royal Manitoba Winter Fair is to our province and to Brandon in particular. It is an event where many families spend quality time together and make many lasting memories. The fair also educates the public about the vital contributions of the

March 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1067 agricultural sector. By attracting thousands of international visitors, the Royal Manitoba Winter Fair benefits the tourist industry in Manitoba and puts Brandon on the world stage annually. To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the staff, board and hundreds of volunteers who will help make this year's fair a huge success. I would also like to thank the Provincial Exhibition of Manitoba, a fantastic charitable organization, for sponsoring the Royal Manitoba Winter Fair.

I encourage all members to attend this year's fair and to enjoy the wonderful atmosphere of my home city, Brandon. Hartney School Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Lest we forget. Mr. Speaker, these are strong words that reverberate on Remembrance Day throughout Canada, however, the sacrifices commemorated on that day should not be restricted to November 11. It is with this conviction in mind that I rise today to acknowledge the efforts of Senior 3 and 4 students at Hartney School. Hartney School currently houses 165 students from kindergarten to Senior 4 and 27 students in the Senior 3 and 4 class.

These students and their teachers are a prime example of how quality education and commitment to learning exists in rural Manitoba communities. The Senior 3 and 4 class was recently awarded a grant for innovation and citizenship education. Crossing generational boundaries, these students will construct a video archive of local Legion history. Their project numbered among the 76 applications submitted and 1 of 10 final grants awarded. Their innovative creation will not only affect their lives but will also reach out to others as it will be played at future Remembrance Day ceremonies. Mr.

Speaker, I woul d like to commend the Senior 3 and 4 students from Hartney for their efforts for observing Canadian history and honouring citizenship. These young adults set forth an example for young students in their community and throughout Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, I would like to also praise their teachers, parents and the Horizon School Division for encouraging the quest for knowledge. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Provincial Basketball Champions Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Industry, Economic Development and Mines): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to congratulate the players and coaches of the John Taylor Pipers girls' basketball team. This past weekend, the Pipers won the provincial AAAA High School Championship with a hard fought 69 to 64 victory over a very worthy opponent, the Fort Richmond Centurions. This year's championship team has added yet another

chapter to John Taylor's already notable history of excellence in team athletics and fair play. I would like to congratulate the members of the team: Tanysha Robinson, Carly Muth, De Nel Johnson, Sandra Morton, Tremaine Francis, Krystal Hathaway, Chelsea Breland, Hayley Baker, Sara MacDonald, Brenna Philp and Katryna Robinson. I would also like to mention Ashley Morris who scored 33 points and wa s awarded the MVP for the tournament.

The coaches, Susie Laping and Jana Taylor, showed excellent commitment to the team, and I would like to say that your fans, relatives, friends, school and myself, a former grad from JT, are very proud of you. Congratulations on a great team and keeping up a great tradition. * (14:40) Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate both the Jeanne Sauvé Olympiens and the John Taylor Pipers girls basketball teams who both were victorious in last weekend's AAAA Provincial High School Basketball Championships held at the Investors Centre at the University of Manitoba.

Schools from all across the province had competed for these two championships. The Jeanne Sauvé Olympiens were able to defeat the Neelin Spartans from Brandon in an exciting and thrilling final game. In the boys' section, the Olympiens were led by twins Dan and Nick Lothar, both who scored 25 and 21 points respectively for the Olympiens.

1068 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 23, 2005 In addition, Nick Lothar was named the MVP of the boys'

section of the AAAA High School championships. My congratulations to their coaches Irv Hanec and Frank Clark , who guided their team to victory. The trend for fewer babies in Manitoba has been there for some years, and was well-known at the time that the NDP were talking proudly of their promise, their commitment and their plan. A reasonable plan would have taken the changing demographics into account in developing an approach to keep the Victoria Hospital maternity ward open and functioning.

A reasonable planning process would have involved consultations and community members to ensure everyone was working together. Clearly, a reasonable planning process would have ensured the goal of the plan was achieved. We can only conclude that the NDP have engaged in a most unreasonable planning and implementation process. Also, special mention and congratulations to the John Taylor Pipers girls who defeated the Fort Richmond Centurions in the girls'

section of this tournament. MVP of the tournament, Ashley Morris, scored 33 points in leading the John Taylor girls' team to victory over the Fort Richmond Centurions. It was indeed an exciting game that went back and forth until John Taylor was finally able to emerge victorious in the last part of the game. Special congratulations to individuals who performed in a superior fashion throughout the tournament: in the men's sections, in the boys' sections, MVP Nick Lothar, as well as All Stars Cam Hornby from Glenlawn, Oak Park's Dallas Bosko, Mr. Jacobson from Brandon, Byron Cob and Dan Lothar.

I would also like to congratulate the girls' All Stars. Thank you. Victoria Hospital Maternity Ward Closure Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I rise to speak to the NDP government's recent announcement of the closure of the maternity ward of Victoria Hospital. The closure illustrates clearly the failure of the government to develop and implement reasonable plans when it comes to health care. In this instance, we know what the NDP government's plan was. As we have heard clearly stated in this Chamber, the NDP government's plan was to keep the maternity ward of Victoria Hospital open and functional.

We must now ask how did it happen that the NDP plan to keep the maternity ward open at Victoria Hospital failed so miserably. The NDP, as usual, are trying to blame external forces. The NDP are saying, "Don't blame us." What is the result of the failures in NDP planning? The Victoria Hospital maternity ward closure will leave a large community in south Winnipeg and southern Manitoba without a community-based maternity ward. The Victoria Hospital maternity ward closure will put the whole system in peril if there were to be a problem with an infection or a burst water pipe in St.

Boniface or the Health Sciences maternity ward which closed one of these. The Victoria Hospital closure will unfortunately be a sad testament to the failure of NDP planning. ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Would you please call Interim Supply, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker: The House will resolve into Committee of Supply to consider the resolutions respecting the Interim Supply bill. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY Interim Supply * (14:50) The Acting Chairp erson (Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski): Good afternoon. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.

This afternoon the committee will resume consideration of the two resolutions respecting the Interim Supply bill. Opening statements were given yesterday, so we shall proceed with questions. Are there any questions? Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): I have a question for the Minister of Aboriginal and

March 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1069 Northern Affairs (Mr. Lath lin). Nine hundred people live in South Indian Lake, and they have been waiting and asking for band recognition status for decades. The minister appears now to be in a panic to give them status as early as April 1 of this year. To give them band recognition status by April 1 would exclude them from a vote on Wuskwatim, which is scheduled for June 1, because they would no longer be members of Nelson House First Nation. Is the minister pushing ahead with reserve status early because he is being forced by the Premier (Mr.

Doer) and the Minister responsible for Hydro to exclude them from the Wuskwatim dam vote? Hon. Oscar Lathlin (Minis ter of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs): I am happy to answer the question from the member. The situation in South Indian Lake could hardly be characterized as, or at least the creation of a reserve could hardly be characterized as moving too fast. This issue has been there, I am told, over 70 years. Some people are saying that it goes back even further than that. Some people say it has been there for a hundred years.

The majority of people living in South Indian are former members of Nisichawayasihk First Nation, formerly known as the Nelson House Indian Band. They have been lobbying the federal government for about seventy years now to get reserve status, for the community to be converted to a reserve by the Minister of Indian Affairs federally. So now it has finally reached that stage where the federal minister has agreed that he will, once certain conditions have been met, in fact, convert South Indian into a reserve.

So I myself applaud the federal minister for taking such action because that is what so many people, the majority of people living in South Indian, have wanted for a long time. Mr. Hawranik: I ask the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs again. The people of South Indian Lake have waited for decades, and he states 70 years and I believe that is so, to have a reserve of their own. The minister knows that most of the Status Aboriginals in South Indian Lake would vote against Wuskwatim. He knows that. They have been members of Nelson House First Nation for decades. They voted for council and chief.

I ask the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs if he would delay band recognition status for at least two more months or until the Manitoba Hydro vote is held for Wuskwatim. Surely a delay of a couple of months is minimal when compared to the decades of time that they have been waiting already, because to force band recognition status on these people, on South Indian Lake now, would disenfranchise 900 people who should have the right to vote with respect to Wuskwatim. Mr. Lathlin: I do not agree with the member across the way that people are in fact being forced for their community to become a reserve.

As I indicated earlier, this situation did not come about yesterday. It has been there for a long time. I said I support the federal minister, I support those people in South Indian who have been lobbying for a long time to be recognized as a First Nation, and finally they are going to get it. Who am I to, all of a sudden, stand in the way of them realizing their, you know, long, long-standing dream? As I said earlier, most of those residents living in South Indian are former Nelson House Band people, and I will do everything on my part to support them so that they realize their lifelong dream.

The member was alluding earlier to the notion that if we agree for them to become a reserve right away, that somehow can be construed to mean that we are forcing them to become a reserve so that they cannot vote on the Nelson House side because of Hydro-related issues. I myself do not see a connection between the two. I just want to make sure that I do everything in my part to help South Indian residents realize their dream, and that is to become a reserve. * (15:00) Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): I think that there are many on South Indian Lake that would like that independence.

I guess my question for the Minister of Northern Affairs is there are a cons iderable number of Métis and non-Status residents, as well as others at South Indian Lake, and my question would be what plans does he have to protect the rights of non-Status individuals and the Métis in South Indian Lake. Can he assure them today that their interests are going to be looked after, that houses that they have invested in will be protected as they move forward with reserve status? I think there are many issues and

1070 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 23, 2005 many people that the mini ster, after a reserve is created, will have direct responsibility for through his portfolio. I would like some clear indication of what assurance he is going to give those individuals as they move forward to reserve status. Mr. Lathlin: I do not see myself as protecting those Métis people who are going to be living in South Indian. Rather, I see, once the community has been designated as a reserve, it will be not unlike any other community.

For example, at OCN, we have about 3500 people, I guess, living on the reserve, and I would say a good number of those are, I do not have the exact numbers, but recently I was told we had about 100 people living at OCN who are Métis people. But then again some of them are people who have been reinstated under Bill C-31, federal legislation. Many of these people, for example, living at OCN are Métis people who have been married into the reserve but who maintain their Métis status.

There are a lot of family members who live in the community, and so South Indian is not much different from what exists in other reserves. At South Indian Lake, for example, once it becomes a reserve, and I do not want to go ahead of any planning that the new reserve may be doing, but there are other arrangements that could be made with the new chief and council. Land might be set aside. That is one option, or land can be leased from the band like what is done right now on many Indian reserves. I myself, persona lly, I do not see the Métis people suffering in that respect.

I have heard some people saying, even, that these people will be asked to leave the reserve once it becomes a reserve. I do not believe that is going to happen because many of these people, in fact, ha ve properties in the community right now, and it would be incumbent upon the newly created chief and council. Mrs. Mitchelson: There have been significant issues that have been raised at Nelson House regarding inappropriate activity by the band and the leadership. We do know that one of the council members, I believe, has been charged and is going through some criminal proceedings up in Thompson, as we speak.

There are over 800 signatures from NCN, from Nelson House on a petition that has asked the federal government for a forensic audit of the books of Nelson House. I know the minister has received copies of all the correspondence, as we have as members of the opposition, of concerns raised by many members of that community. I wonder whether the minister could indicate to me, because these are very serious allegations, whether, in fact, he has satisfied himself that there is no inappropriate activity because I do know that there are negotiations ongoing between the government and Manitoba Hydro and NCN.

I would hope that any negotiations around funding would certainly want to ensure that serious allegations that 800 members of the community are raising are addressed before negotiations continue or before there is any vote on whether the Wuskwatim agreement should go forward. I am asking the minister to confirm today that he has looked into these issues, because they are serious, and has assured himself that things are all aboveboard before any final negotiations are done with Nelson House regarding Wuskwatim. Mr.

Lathlin: I guess, first of all, I would like to indicate to the member that, under The Northern Affairs Act, my responsibility is limited to the Métis communities, the Northern Association of Community Councils. I am, under The Northern Affairs Act, responsible for those communities. I do not have any direct responsibility or jurisdiction on the Indian reserves. I believe, at least in my view, what goes on at Nelson House, Nisichawayasihk, is an internal matter. I am satisfied that the chief and council at Nelson House are, indeed, managing their affairs appropriately, at least from where I am sitting.

I believe the affairs over at Nelson House are being managed appropriately by their chief and council, but I do not have any direct jurisdiction over Indian reserves. Mrs. Mitchelson: I would like to ask a question of the Minister responsible for Hydro because I do know that there are ongoing negotiations with NCN, Manitoba Hydro and his ministry. These are, indeed, very serious allegations that 800 individuals have raised, expressing lack of confidence in the ability of the band and council to manage the financial affairs, and they have asked for a forensic audit.

Given that there are ongoing negotiations and that NCN is going to be part of any agreement around the building of the Wuskwatim dam, can the minister of Hydro tell us whether he has taken these allegations seriously? I know that he has been made aware of the allegations. He has copies of

March 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1071 all of the letters that have gone to the federal government? Has he assured himself that the financial issues and the expenditure of dollars at Nelson House have all been appropriately handled given that there are ongoing negotiations? There will be a fair amount of both Manitoba Hydro and provincial money going into Wuskwatim and the arrangements that will be made with the band. Is he assured and has he satisfied himself that the finances are aboveboard and sound through these negotiations? Hon.

Dave Chomiak (Minister charged with the administration of Th e Manitoba Hydro Act): Madam Chairperson, the control and governorship of First Nations are in the control of First Nations, and the methodology and the approach that they take to their affairs are go verned by their appropriate democratic principles and the conduct of their affairs. It is within their jurisdiction and within the jurisdiction of the federa l government to conduct those affairs appropriately. * (15:10) Mrs.

Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, the reality is, as Wuskwatim is built, Nelson House is going to benefit by 25 percent of the profits of hydro generation, and 800 members of that band are indicating that they do not have any confidence in the leadership of their band in negotiating that agreement. Now those are direct negotiations with the Province and with Manitoba Hydro.

So the minister has to stand up, be accountable and ask whether he is satisfied with the financial accountability, or is he si gning an agreement blindly with the leadership at Nelson House without assuring himself that there is transparency and financial accountability when many members of the band are asking for a forensic audit because they do not believe there is transparency and accountability? Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Acting Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade): Madam Chairperson, I will take that question as notice for the Minister of Interg overnmental Affairs (Mr. Smith).

Once we have finished this process, we will be going to the Estimates process, and I would suggest that the member raise that issue when we get into the Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade section. Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Madam Chair, that particular answer could be applied to any question that is put forward during this particular question and answer session. Having said that, I would ask for the Deputy Premier (Ms. Wowchuk) to give indication whether or not a decision has been made, whether it is going to be going to the Municipal Board or not.

Can he tell me today, unequivocally, that he knows that things are financially sound and that any agreement that he negotiates with the band is one that can stand the test of transparency and accountability? Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, that community in question will be exercising their democratic right through a referendum with respect to the agreement in question. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Chair, I have a few questions that I will try to be as brief as I can in regard to them. First off, it is going to be probably with two ministers.

The first one was the minister responsible for municipal affairs or the acting minister. I have had a great deal of interest expressed in terms of Waverley West and what was actually happening there. One did a fabulous job in terms of presentation. It was with the Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba and the Council of Women of Winnipeg. The questions that I had ar e in regard more so, I guess, to process. There s eems to be a considerable amount of interest that this particular project in fact be referred to the Municipal Board.

I would ask if the acting minister is in a position in which he can indicate whether or not the government is looking at referring it to the Municipal Board. Ms. Wowchuk: That question was raised during Question Period today, and I indicated to the House that I would take it as notice for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I say again, I will take that question as notice for the Minister of Inter- governmental Affairs. Mr. Lamoureux: What I will do, Madam Chairperson, is suggest to the deputy minister that we do have a very strong interest in terms of what is happening with this file.

I think it is important to note that it was back in March of 2004 when EPC, in essence, recommended it and then ultimately council gave first reading to it.

1072 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 23, 2005 Public hearings regarding this issue were in January of 2005 and second reading was given to it. At the end of January the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was sent a letter to that effect making reference to representations, both pro and against. I think what is important to note, Madam Chair, is that we did have a Plan Winnipeg approval for 2020 back in December of 2001 in which there was a wide spectrum of support.

The concern is that this government does not make a decision on this file prematurely without allowing us to go into the Estimates or to ensure that the proper feedback or that the government, and in particular this minister, is looking and listening to what people are actually saying on this file. I would be very much interested in the Deputy Premier passing on to her colleague, or expressing to her colleague, our interest in this file and would request that before any decision be made, we be afforded the opportunity to pursue this discussion. Ms.

Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I can assure the member that we would look at this as a very important file, and we are reviewing it very carefully. I will pass these comments on to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chair, my next few questions are for the Minister of Immigration.

I have asked the minister during Question Period in the past in regard to the restricted occupations list and to what degree the government would be prepared to allow family members, in specific what I am referring to are brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles, for being able to be exempt from that particular restricted occupation list. I wonder if the minister can indicate what her opinions are on this issue today. Hon. Nancy Allan (Min ister of Labour and Immigration): I would just like to inform the member that unfortunately my answer to the question has not changed since the last time he asked this question.

The Provincial Nominee Program is an economic program linked to labour market demand. It is governed by an agreement, a bilateral agreement, that is signed off on with the federal government. He has to understand that our responsibility is to work within the parameters in regard to providing employment for the people that come into Manitoba through this program. We have to link it to labour market demand, and that is the agreement we have with the federal government. Mr. Lamoureux: Would the minister then indicate to the House that there is no demand for nurses or doctors in our province? Ms.

Allan: The Provincial Nominee Program's primary focus is economic and labour market driven, once again. Actually, the restricted list that he is talking about, we are actually going to be announcing that we are going to change the restricted list to the occupational requirements list. The occupational requirements list is developed with extensive consultation with the Settlement and Labour Market Services Branch, professional regulatory bodies. There are 30 of them that we work with and Manitoba Advanced Education and Training.

It provides the widest range of eligible occupations of any nominee or skilled worker program in Canada. I think it is very, very important that the member understands that. * (15:20) Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chair, would the minister indicate whether or not there is a shortage of nurses or doctors in the province? Ms. Allan: I think it is very important for the member to understand– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. The Acting Chairp erson (Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski): Order. Ms. Allan: It is very important that both Manitoba and Human Resources Development Canada use the same processing criteria for jobs offered.

It is a Labour Market opinion that no Canadian or landed immigrant can fill the position. So if there is a position here, the labour market demand determines that, right? So, quite frankly, I have to tell you, if nurses and doctors are not on the list, it is because, particularly around nurses, we have put the training program in at Red River. There are 98 seats in Red River. So we certainly would not want to bring a nurse in from some other country if we are training them here in Manitoba through the Provincial Nominee Program. They can come through the federal stream.

March 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1073 Mr. Lamoureux: Well, if you are a nurse or a doctor, do not come through the PNP program. That is what the minister is saying, in a nutshell. Ms. Allan: No, that is not what I am saying. On the occupation requirements list, we actually work with the licensing bodies. There are licensing requirements. If an applicant is coming from another country, what we do is we ask the applicant to get in touch with the licensing body to ensure that that individual who is applying to come to Manitoba has the exact requirements.

If that individual had the requirements, they would be able to come to Manitoba. [interjection] The Acting Chairp erson (Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski): Order, please. Has the Member for Inkster concluded? Mr. Lamoureux: I understand that there is a sense that we should continue passing on and go through some other steps, so I am prepared to pass on. But I will give notice that I will continue once we get into second reading. Madam Chair, having said that, I do have some more questions. I must apologize to the minister. I did not quite hear all of her response to the last question.

The minister has stated, and I am quoting from an

article in which the provincial Labour and Immigration Minister said that "the reason doctors and nurses are on the restricted list is because the program is linked to labour market demand," which is fairly consistent with what she is saying currently. She makes reference to another list that is not the restricted list, and I am asking what page that is on in the Manitoba Provincial Nominee skill booklet that she provides. Ms. Allan: It is unfortunate that the member jumped up from his seat and did not hear what I said.

I said that what we are going to be doing is we are going to be giving the restricted list a new name, and the new name is going to be the Occupational Requirements List. Mr. Lamoureux: Under that new name, I take it, then, you are redesigning the PNP book. When would we anticipate receiving the next edition of that booklet? Ms. Allan: I do not know, but I can get those details from my department. But the list is not going to change. I want the member to know that. The list is not going to change. It is just the name of the list.

We are going to call it the Occupational Requirements List so that it sounds less negative. Mr. Lamoureux: So, if it is just a name change, the real impact it is going to have in terms of individuals who happen to be a nurse or a doctor or other professions that are on that list, in essence, there is no change in government policy. Ms. Allan: I think it is important that the member understand that the occupations on the list are linked to labour market demand. Both Manitoba and Human Resources Development Canada use the same processing criteria for job offers, the Labour Market Opinion.

The Provincial Nominee Program in Manitoba is an economic program linked to labour market demand and the Labour Market opinion. The opinion is, used by both the provincial government and the federal government, that no Canadian or landed immigrant, if they are here and they can fill the position, then they have the priority over that labour market. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chair, would the minister then concede that it is not within her ability to be able to change occupations th at are on that list or not on that list? Does she not . . . that change, to take one off the list or on the list? Ms.

Allan: Once again, the list is determined, the Provincial Nominee Program is an economic program linked to labour market demand. It is governed by a bilateral agreement with the federal government. The Manitoba and Human Resources Development Canada worked together to develop the list. Mr. Lamoureux: So, then, the minister does not have the authority to say that we want to drop a particular–I will use the example of dentists. This government does not have the authority to say that we want the dentists off today's restricted occupations list. Ms.

Allan: That is my understanding, that we do not have the legislative authority. Mr. Lamoureux: Whose responsibility is it to take the initiative if they want to see something dropped?

1074 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 23, 2005 Ms. Allan: Maybe the MLA for Inkster would like to talk to his federal counterparts in Ottawa. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chair, I do talk to my federal counterparts, but I choose to talk to the Minister of Labour and Immigration today, who has a responsibility in this area. I do not, for the life of me, understand why it is she has taken the position that she does not have any influence in what is on that list. I do not think that is accurate.

I believe that the Minister of Labour and Immigration, provincially, does have influence on what is on that list and what is not on that list. We have seen, this is a program that was brought in back in 1998, before her party was even in government here in the province, and there have been many changes to the program. I will suggest to you that some of those changes have happened because this provincial government requested changes. Some of those changes that have happened have happened arbitrarily from this government.

My question to the current minister is this: Would she concur with me that this government, former ministers of this government have made changes to this program, and, in fact, have led on some of those changes? * (15:30) Ms. Allan: Well, first of all, there is absolutely no question that the Provincial Nominee Program in Manitoba is the best of any jurisdiction in Canada and that we have, without question, raised the bar in regard to a very flexible program, and we have made many changes. We have incredible staff in our department.

If there is a pilot project to be launched in Manitoba, you know, the student foreign-trained program, that was launched in Manitoba and we are very fortunate that Mr. Ge rry Clement, our Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for Immigration, sits at the table. He is the co-chair of the federal bureau- crats table. So we have had a lot of opportunity to make change, Madam Deputy Speaker, and we are very proud of our record in regard to immigration.

The specific question that the member continues to ask in regard to the occupational requirements list, for some reason he does not seem to understand that it is a labour market program, an economic program linked to labour market demand. I have explained the criteria that HRDC and the Manitoba government, they work together. They work as well with the licensing bodies and Labour Market Services Branch and Manitoba Advanced Education and Training. They work together with the federal government to identify what the labour market demand here is in Canada and in Manitoba. There are criteria. Mr.

Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, now we are starting to get somewhere. Now we have a minister who says, yes, the Province can take a leadership role and implement changes within the Provincial Nominee Program, and she has actually cited some examples. So, then, the question becomes why does this minister not see the merit, and there are two issues here. One is the restricted list and making modifications to it. The other issue is exempting family members from being he ld to the restricted list. Why, then, would the minister not champion one of the two of them?

Is it because she does not support that change, so that is the reason why we are not seeing any movement in that area? Ms. Allan: Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, the occupations that are on the occupational require- ments list are those that are regulated, licensed, high-turnover occupations and entry-level jobs. The regulated, licensed are health professionals and teachers. The high-turnover occupations are sewing machine operators, and the entry-level jobs are labourers and production workers in certain sectors.

The list was developed to demonstrate employability and to better serve the applicant with accurate information on labour market preparation and entry. Now, in regard to the specific case, in regard to doctors and nurses, th ere are licensing require- ments, Madam Deputy Speaker, and we have to work with the licensing bodies to ensure that when applicants come in, that th ey have met the licensing requirements. That is our public responsibility in regard to our immigration program. Mr.

Lamoureux: Could the minister give some sort of a guesstimate in terms of how many people that would be coming to the province through the PN Program that would be computer, not necessarily consultants, computer data, mainframe type of occupations under the program? Ms. Allan: I do not have those specifics off the top of my head. No.

March 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1075 Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chair, my experience is that there has been a considerable number. I do not know the numbers, obviously, other than what I receive through my office and get a bit of a sense of it, but what I have found is that we do get some health care professionals who are married to those other occupations that are coming in. It seems to me that the government is being very selective, and some, including myself, would argue, discriminatory with the types of jobs that are being put on this list and preventing someone from being able to come to Canada.

A good example of that would be someone that would be, let us say, from the Philippines, who has been a computer data-bank builder for a number of years. They happen to be a brother of someone that lives in the province of Manitoba. That individual will not have a problem. There is no guarantee that person is going to be working on a computer when they get here. Then you have another situation where it is maybe another Manitoban's brother who happens to be a doctor or a nurse. All we can tell them is, no, not through this program because of the occupation they were doing.

It seems to me the most successful immigrants that we have had to our province have been through families where we have family members living in the province and immigrants are coming to Manitoba because they happen to have family here. They have been exceptionally successful at staying in our province, at living in our province and contributing in a very real, tangible way.

I guess the question that I have to ask the minister is this: Does she not feel that there are many occupations, or many people, I should say, that we are turning down that would in fact make wonderful residents and be able to contribute significantly to our province if the government were to be a little bit more open-minded on their restricted occupations list? Ms. Allan: We do recognize fully how important it is if an immigrant coming to Manitoba has family support because, of course, that helps newcomers to Manitoba settle in better and we have higher retention rates.

That is why when we redesigned our Provincial Nominee Program in April of 2004, family support became one of the major criteria in our redesign for our program. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chair, let me give a very specific example and ask the minister what she would recommend to her constituent. If a constituent approached her and said, "I have a sister who lives in the Philippines, who is a nurse and has been working in an emergency

section of the hospital for the last five or six years, and she would like to be able to come to the province under the Provincial Nominee Program. Her boyfriend happens to be a computer technologi st." On the surface, what would the minister recommend for that particular constituent if she had such a constituent? * (15:40) Ms. Allan: When anyone approaches me in regard to immigration matters, particularly constituents, what I do, Madam Deputy Speaker, is I ask them to call our Immigration Branch and work directly with the Immigration Branch. This is a very important program in Manitoba.

It is about the movement of people. I, as Minister of Immigration, must make sure that I am not giving out advice to anyone in regard to this program. The Acting Chairp erson (Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski): Is the committee ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. The Acting Chairp erson (Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski): The resolution reads as follows: RESOLVED that a sum not exceeding $2,747,125,010, being 35 percent of the total amount to be voted as set fort h in Part A (Operating Expenditure) of the Estimates, be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2006.

Resolution agreed to. The second resolution respecting Interim Supply reads as follows: RESOLVED that a sum not exceeding $79,146,515, being 35 percent of the total amount to be voted as set out in Part B (Capital Investment) of the Estimates, be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2006. Resolution agreed to.

1076 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 23, 2005 That concludes the business currently before us. Committee rise. Call in the Speaker. IN SESSION Committee Report Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (Acting Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has considered and adopted two resolutions respecting Interim Supply. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for The Maples (Mr. Aglugub), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. * * * Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience.

I move that Bill 19, The Interim Appropriation Act, 2005; Loi de 2005 portant affectation anticipée de crédits, be now read a first time and be ordered for a second reading immediately. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Finance. Mr. Selinger: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Mackintosh), that there be granted to Her Majesty on account of Certain Expenditures of the Public Service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006, out of the Consolidated Fund, the sums of $2,747,125,010, being 35 percent of the total amount to be voted as set out in Part A (Operating Expenditure) and $79,146,515, being 35 percent of the total amount to be voted as set out in Part B (Capital Investment) of the Estimates, laid before the House at the present session of the Legislature. Motion agreed to. * (15:50) INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 19–The Interim Appropriation Act, 2005 Hon.

Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that Bill 19, The Interim– An Honourable Member: Seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh). Mr. Selinger: Yes, the Minister of Justice. The Interim Appropriation Act, 2005; Loi de 2005 portant affectation anticipée de crédits, be now read a first time and be ordered for second reading immediately. Mr.

Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Finance, seconded by the honourable Minister of Justice, that Bill 19, The Interim Appropriation Act, 2005, be now read a first time and be ordered for second reading immediately. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion. Agreed? [Agreed] SECOND READINGS Bill 19–The Interim Appropriation Act, 2005 Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): I move, once again, seconded by the Minister of Justice– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr.

Selinger: Moved by the ever-present Minister of Justice, that Bill 19, The Interim Appropriation Act, 2005; Loi de 2005 portant affectation anticipée de crédits, be now read a second time and be referred to a Committee of the Whole. Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Finance, seconded by the honourable Minister of Justice, that Bill 19, The Interim Appropriation Act, 2005, be now read a second time and be referred to Committee of the Whole. Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): I am pleased to put a few words on the record about this bill.

I am very pleased to put some comments on the record about the bill because it really is related to the budget that was passed last Thursday and was voted on last Thursday. I have to start with the comment that, in fact, I have listened to much of the budget debate, and I listened to what the Premier (Mr. Doer) had to say just before my debate last Thursday.

I have to say that I was really quite surprised that the Premier rudely interrupted my debate on Thursday when it came time for the budget, especially since he knew well before I stood up, in f act, the Deputy Speaker at the time even before, once I stood up to deliver my debate, the Deputy Speaker in fact prefaced his comments with the fact that I had unlimited time.

March 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1077 I was really quite surprised when the Premier stood up on a point of order, but I was very pleased to see that the Chair, the Speaker, ruled in favour of me in terms of the Premier losing the point of order. The Interim Appropriation Act, as presented by the Finance Minister, authorizes up to 35 percent of the operating expenditures that are budgeted by government and up to 35 percent of capital expenditures that are budgeted that were included within the budget numbers that were presented a couple weeks ago by the Finance Minister. Ms.

Bonnie Korzeniowski, Acting Speaker, in the Chair It is allowing the Finance Minister to spend up to 35 percent of both operating and capital expenditures before June 10. I raised th at issue with the Finance Minister in Committee. I raised that issue with him because I am concerned about the fact that we have about 20 percent of time between now, April 1 and June 10, 20 percent of the budget year, and yet he is asking us to approve 35 percent of the expenditures under the budget. The explanation I received from the Minister of Finance was, in my view, less than satisfactory.

Certainly, you should not have to obtain 35 percent of authorized expenditures under the budget in 20 percent of the time, unless of course, perhaps maybe even the budget numbers are fudged, as they were in '03-04. That was my concern. On June 10, we rise and by that time, certainly the Estimates process would be complete. In fact, they will likely be complete about the middle of May.

I was not sure about why the government, why the Finance Minister, is in fact asking for 35 percent of expenditures except for the fact that he is so anxious to spend our money that he really needed to overshoot the mark when it comes time for the amount of expenditures that he wanted authorized in his department. There are two ways to increase taxes by the NDP, and they have shown us both ways over the last number of budgets and over the last number of years. They have shown us two ways they can increase taxes. First of all, they can increase taxes within the budget itself, and they have done that in the past.

They have increased the scope and the effect of the provincial sales taxes in the past. They have imposed provincial sales taxes on engi- neering, architecture, legal fees. They have imposed provincial sales taxes on the labour portion of mechanical and electrical contracts in the past. They have done that, but they have done it in the budget.

This year, in spite of record high revenues, $525 million of new revenue coming into the province, flowing into the province, largely as a result of the federal government increase in transfer payments, having nothing to do with the fact that the NDP have not grown the economy of the province the way they should have. We have been lagging behind all of western Canada. In fact, the Finance Minister last week in Question Period indicated that he and the NDP have grown the GDP in this province by more than $10 billion since 1999.

The numbers are correct, in terms of the growth of the GDP in the province since 1999, $10 billion, but what he really fails to mention, and he is really misleading by omission again, and the Auditor General has called him on that before. What he fails to mention is the fact that we are dead last in western Canada. We are dead last in GDP growth in western Canada, and that is clearly not acceptable. We are even behind Saskatchewan. I find it particularly disturbing that we are behind Saskatchewan in real GDP growth because of the fact that Saskatchewan has a much smaller population than Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker in the Chair So what we have seen is an increase in taxes a couple of ways. As I mentioned, the NDP have either put it in their budget and, in fact, this year in this budget it appears as though, even in spite of historic high revenues, they are increasing taxes in terms of increasing the Pharmacare deductible again, another 5% increase in the deductible and that came through budget approval. We voted against the budget; they voted for increasing Pharmacare deductibles. * (16:00) There is another way that they have been introducing taxes in this province, Mr.

Speaker, and in my view it is a sneaky way of doing it, but they have done it in the past. They have done it scores of times in the past, sometimes as high as 67% increases in terms of li censing, in terms of fees, in terms of permit fees and so on. They have done it in the past without budget approval, without consultation, without Manitobans having the ability to question them in the budget, without opposition

1078 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 23, 2005 being able to question them in concurrence or in Estimates. That is a concern of mine. When I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) while in committee, his response to whether or not they will be increasing taxes again through the back door and not through the budget approval, but increasing taxes by increasing licence fees and so on, his response was less than satisfactory. He gave me no assurance that he would not increase taxes by Order-in-Council without debate and without disclosure and without budgetary approval. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to put on the record some of the comments made by the Finance Minister in that regard. I asked him point blank: Are there any plans to broaden the effect or the application of any of the taxes within a particular category of revenue that I was speaking of at the time without going budget approval? I asked him that question. His response was that he was not aware of any specific initiatives with regard to taxes on page 5 of the Revenue Estimates. Then I asked him, Mr.

Speaker, whether he can guarantee to Manitobans that the items under Finance that I was speaking of at the time would not be broadened as he did in the past with respect to the provincial sales tax, that they would not be broadened without first going through budget disclosure and without undergoing public scrutiny, and I asked him that for the '05-06 budget year. His response again was less than satisfactory. He said there are no plans that he is aware of to do that.

If there is any information that he has not covered today, he says he would be happy to bring it to my attention as soon as he receives it, but he is not aware of any plans. He is not guaranteeing to Manitobans that he will not sneak in taxes through the back door as they have in the past, and this in spite of record high revenues available to the Province, incredibly high revenues, $525 million of new revenues. We normally receive in Manitoba between $250 million to $300 million in new revenues annually on a year-to-year basis. This year we received $525 million in new revenues.

In spite of those incredibly increased revenues, he could not give me the assurance or the guarantee that he would not increase taxes through the back door and not through the budgetary process. Again, he said, "I am not aware of any plans to do that. I may not be aware of the plans that they have, but they would be reported," he tells me. He says he would report directly to me.

I ask the Minister of Finance to live up to that obligation that he gave to me in committee that he would in fact notify me, give me prior notice before they increased taxes to Manitobans through the back door instead of through the budget process, Mr. Speaker. I also asked the Minister of Finance a question with respect to any increases in fees.

Does he agree that any increases in fees or increases in permits, or the broadening of the application of any tax within the Estimates or the budget papers, anything increasing the application of those fees or licences or taxes, does he agree that they should actually go through a budgetary process and they should undergo public scrutiny through this Legislature, and whether they should withstand the tests of opposition? He agreed with that, that if there are any fee increases proposed by any department, they have to be properly scrutinized for the need and the necessity. But he went on to say, Mr.

Speaker, he does not necessarily agree that they all necessarily have to come specifically through the budget process, that they are in-year measures that are both taken to reduce fees and levies and sometimes to increase them. Mr. Speaker, I remind the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) that he has had, in the past, scores– 10, 20, 30.

In fact, I think there were almost 100 increases in some of the permit fees and application fees and corporation taxes, in terms of incorporating new businesses, in terms of increasing the registra- tion fees at the Winnipeg Land Titles Office, and the taxes that are associated with that, when you register a transfer of land. Some of them were increased last year as high as 67 percent. That is an increase in taxes without going through the budget. There is no comfort. I do not believe that the Finance Minister gave any comfort to any Manitobans when he replied to my questions.

It all goes to show you that the NDP philosophy, of course, is to spend, spend, spend because they are addicted to spending. I have some concerns, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned during the budget debate as well, about whether or not the budget numbers can really be believed. I know this bill, The Interim Appropriation Act, could even be labelled the interim misappro- priation act because of that, not The Interim

March 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1079 Appropriation but the interim misappropriation act because we cannot believe the budget numbers. We cannot believe them. We have proven that, in fact, the budget numbers likely should not be believed. How can we trust the books?

How can we trust the budget, when in 1984, Vic Schroeder, the Finance Minister of the NDP at that time, when he presented a budget in 1984, for the '84 fiscal year, the provincial auditor, Bill Ziprick, stated that the government, and he was talking about the NDP at that point, and his words were, "They cooked the books." Those were his exact words. They understated the deficit of the '03-04 budget year. They understated the deficit by $263 million. At that time, the deficit was really $428 million which is more than three times what the then- Finance Minister, Vic Schroeder, stated they were.

The auditor was so appalled at this that he did not sign off on that budget, would not sign off on those books. It is comforting now to note, Mr. Speaker, that Vic Schroeder is an appointee of this NDP. He is an appointee and he is now the chair of Manitoba Hydro. Manitoba Hydro earns a great deal of money. To put the former Finance Minister, who was accused by no less authority than the Auditor General, accused of cooking the books, is not very comforting to Manitobans. That, of course, is the history of the NDP and their Finance ministers in terms of how they have dealt with the finances of this province.

Now we fast forward, Mr. Speaker, to 2004, when the expenses of the Health Department were understated so that the '04-05 budget balanced. The Minister of Health, in fact, admitted the fact in the newspaper that, in fact, he misstated, he understated the Health Department expenses in the budget. They were worried, obviously, about political fall-out. During the '04-05 budget, you will recall that there was only forecast a $3-million surplus in that budget.

Simply put, if the Health Minister had understated the expenses in the budget of the Health Department by just over $3 million, the budget would have revealed a deficit for that year. Certainly, this NDP would not like to take a hit, in terms of presenting a budget to this House that would not be balanced. Obviously, the only alternative would be to ask ministers to take a look at their departments to determine whether or not their Estimates of Expenditure are accurate.

The Health Minister did us all a favour, I think, and revealed the true nature of the budget of '03-04, and stated publicly that, in fact, he understated the expenses of the Health Department. That certainly would have helped the budgetary process for the Finance Minister. Another concern I have, of course, Mr. Speaker, is the fact the Health Mini ster does not do this by himself. Certainly, he would have consulted with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger). Certainly, he would have consulted with the Premier (Mr. Doer). Certainly, he would have consulted with all the ministers in this House.

He would have consulted with all of them when th ey are undergoing their budgetary process to determine whether or not they could balance the books of the Province for '04-05. Certainly, if the Health Minister knew that he was understating the expenses, then one would expect that the Premier and the Finance Minister of this province would also have known. * (16:10) The other issue, Mr. Speaker, is in the '03-04 audit, with respect to whether we can believe these books.

In the '03-04 audit by the Auditor General, the Finance Minister insisted on a $13-million surplus for the '03-04 fiscal year, and the Auditor General insisted there was a $604-million deficit. How can Manitobans believe the numbers in this budget when the Auditor General and the Finance Minister are so far apart? If they were only a million or two apart, that would be understandable. But, when you are over $600 million apart in your numbers, how can we believe what the Finance Minister presents to this House in terms of the budget? We believed them in 2004-05.

We believed them then, but now those numbers prove to be inaccurate, and my belief is that they are hiding the real numbers. The Finance Minister will stand up in this House, and he will crow that, in fact, there was a $13-million surplus in the operating budget, in the operating financial statements, of the Province. Well, it is easy to do that, Mr. Speaker, because you can manipulate those numbers. This government has a history of manipulating numbers and certainly in the '03-04 audit, it proved that. The way they can do it is they are going to be counting income that is not really income.

They count income that is, in fact, not really income at all. It is just a shuffling of numbers from one account to another, from the rainy day fund in particular.

1080 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 23, 2005 Secondly, they do not count expenses that are really expenses. If you count ed all the expenses of the Province, Mr. Speaker, you would never come up with a $13-million surplus, and the Finance Minister knows that. He used every loophole that was available. Even if it was not available, he ensured that every excuse in the book was made as to why he did not have to count the expenses related to BSE and expenses related to forest fires in this province.

My feeling is that, in fact , BSE and the forest fires would not have counted in the budgetary process, that those expenses should have been included in the Province's finances. Mr. Speaker, just to give you some of the flavour for what the Auditor said about the Finance Minister, I could give you a couple of things, what the Auditor General said about the Finance Minister and the audit of Public Accounts for '03-04, he stated that, "The Operating Fund financial statement should not be used to assess the government's performance.

Unfortunately, the government's communications continue to emphasize the Operating Fund financial statements." That is a pretty direct statement. In spite of that statement, the Finance Minister continues to quote the Operating Fund financial statement because it is to his advantage. That is the only reason. The Auditor General also indicated that, "Communicating the Operating Fund financial statements portrays an incomplete, and misleading by omission," those are not my words, Mr.

Speaker, that is the Auditor General who says, "a misleading by omission picture of the Province's financial position and operating results to the citizens of Manitoba." In spite of that statement, after the Auditor General's reports come out, the Finance Minister still continues to communicate the Operating Fund financial statements and continues to mislead Manitobans by omission in spite of the statements by the Auditor General. The Auditor General is not a politician, Mr. Speaker. He is somebody who can be absolutely trusted.

He is independent of the Legislature, and that is something that Manitobans should remember when reading some of the material that is produced by the Auditor General. The Auditor General also indicated that the net debt of the province increased by $1.2 billion in 2003-04. Yet members opposite have the audacity to stand up in this House and tell everyone they paid down the debt, including the Premier (Mr. Doer). Now the Premier even thinks that they paid down the debt. My concern is that the Finance Minister, the Premier, and members opposite are not being open and honest with Manitobans.

They are not being transparent with respect to the finances of this province. They think they paid down the debt. In fact, what they have done is paid money toward the debt. What has been happening is that the debt to the province continues to climb. It continues to escalate in size. The members opposite continue to try to spin that they have paid down the debt. It is certainly not believable. If that is not believable, if they are not being open and honest with Manitobans, why should we believe the numbers in the budget? Why should we give any credence to what the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Selinger) says in this House? Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General also indicated that if Generally Accepted Accounting Principles were used in the '03-04

summary financial statements, the deficit would have increased by $292 million. This would have increased the deficit by $292 million to $896 million, which is the largest deficit since 1988 when those records were kept. That is a concern of ours as well. In fact, the '03-04 financial statements of this Province actually revealed that it is the highest deficit in the history of this province. Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General also indicated that shareholders of public companies would not tolerate a company that produced two different sets of audited financial statements each year.

I do not think the Auditor General was speaking about necessarily that they prod uce the two different sets because we all know that the operating fund financial statements are produced by the Province every year to determine whether they comply with the balanced budget legislation. What he was concerned about was not necessarily that they were produced but that the government was focussing its entire public communication, almost its entire public communica- tion of the results of the financial

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-3-25
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 3rd hansardpdf 25.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3e286920c3d3099d08990400af7c1e1d9dfdbe3e

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