Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 85 (38th Legislature, 4th Session)

38-4-85

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session - Thirty-Eighth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LVII No. 85 - 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 7, 2006

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

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

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

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

3075 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, June 7, 2006 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYER ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PETITIONS Morris-Macdonald School Division 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: The RCMP investigation of allegations of criminal activity in th e former Morris-Macdonald School Division has been completed and has found no evidence to substantiate criminal charges.

In the wake of the Auditor General's 2001 report, the provincial government fired the board of trustees of the former Morris-Macdonald School Division. As a result, residents were w ithout an elected board for nearly a year. The RCMP investigation and the firing of the board have irreparably tarnished the reputations of many citizens in the former Morris-Macdonald School Division.

When the provincial government insisted that the school division reimburse the Province for the overpayment of funds, the government-appointed trustee of the school division increased local ratepayers' school taxes by 28 percent to be implemented each year for four consecutive years. This action imposed a significant burden on farmers and other faultless citizens in the former Morris-Macdonald School Division. To date, $1.4 million has been paid out of the citizens' pockets for actions as the RCMP have recently ac knowledged were not criminal in nature.

Residents of the former Morris-Macdonald School Division are angered and frustrated by the provincial government's lack of acknowledgement of its mistake, refusal to apologize to those involved and failure to reimburse the additional tax dollars that blameless citizens have been forced to pay. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To strongly urge the provincial government to consider apologizing to citizens of the former Morris-Macdonald School Division for firing the school board, launching a criminal investigation and tarnishing their reputation.

To request that the provincial government consider reimbursing blameless Morris-Macdonald citizens who have paid the Province $1.4 million in additional school taxes over the last three years. T h i s i s s i g n e d b y J o a n n e Z o p p a , C h r i s Richardson, Lynda Tunny and many, many others. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House. Grandparents' Access to Grandchildren Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition.

These are the reasons for this petition: It is important to recognize and respect the special relationship that exists between grandparents and grandchildren. Maintaining an existing, healthy relationship between a grandparent and a grandchild is in the best interest of the child. Grandparents play a critical role in the social and emotional development of their grandchildren. This relationship is vital to promote the intergenerational exchange of culture and heritage, fostering a well-rounded self-identity for the child.

In the event of divorce, death of a parent or other life-changing incident, a relationship can be severed without consent of the grandparent or the grandchild. It should be a priority of the provincial government to provide grandparents with the means to obtain reasonable access to their grandchildren. We petition the Manitoba Legislative Assembly as follows: To urge the Minister of Family Services and Housing (Ms. Melnick) and the Premier (Mr. Doer) to consider amending legislation to improve the process by which grandparents can obtain reasonable access to their grandchildren.

3076 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2006 Signed by Lisa Bilcowski, Cathy Woychyshyn, Kelly Collen and many, many others. * (13:35) Civil Service Employees–Neepawa Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislature Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: Eleven immediate positions with Manitoba Conservation Lands Branch are being moved out of Neepawa. Removal of these positions will severely impact the local economy with potentially 33 adults and children leaving the community.

Removal of these positions will be detrimental to revitalizing the rural and surrounding communities of Neepawa. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to consider stopping the removal of these positions from our community, and to consider utilizing current technology in order to maintain these positions in their existing location. Signed by Maxine Nagorski, Allan Prado, Sandy Loewen and many, many others. Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

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

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to consider stopping the removal of these positions from our community, and to consider utilizing current technology, ie: Land Management Services existing satellite sub-office in Dauphin, Manitoba, in order to maintain these positions in their existing location. Signed Kerry Turner, John Neufeld, Anne Neufeld and many others. OlyWest Hog Processing Plant Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

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

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to immediately cancel its plans to support the construction of the OlyWest hog plant and rendering factory near any urban residential area. Signed by Skyler Berman, Cory Brass, Blake Runhuist and many others. Crocus Investment Fund Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

The background to this petition is as follows: The government needs to uncover the whole truth as to what ultimately led to over 33,000 Crocus shareholders to lose tens of millions of dollars.

June 7, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3077 The provincial auditor's report, the Manitoba Securities Commission's investigation, the RCMP investigation and the involvement of our courts, collectively, will not answer the questions that must be answered in regards to the Crocus Fund fiasco. Manitobans need to know why the government ignored the many warnings that could have saved the Crocus Investment Fund. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the Premier (Mr.

Doer) and his NDP government to co-operate in uncovering the truth in why the government did not act on what it knew and to consider calling a public inquiry on the Crocus Fund fiasco. Signed, Mr. Speaker, by R. Dolenuck, M. Dolenuck, T. Pritchard and many, many other fine Manitobans. TABLING OF REPORTS Mr. Speaker: I am pleased to table a Report to the Legislative Assembly by the pension Commissioner, Michael D. Werier, dated June 7, 2006. Hon. Eric Robinson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the 2004-2005 Annual Report for the Centre culturel franco-manitobain.

I would also like to table the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 annual reports for the Manitoba Centennial Centre Corporation. * (13:40) Hon. Diane McGifford (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the following reports: Red River College Annual Financial Report 2004-2005, Assiniboine Community College Annual Report 2004-2005, University College of the North Annual Report 2004-2005 and the Manitoba Student Aid Program Annual Report 2004-2005. Introduction of Guests Mr.

Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us from Westdale Junior High 90 Grade 9 students under the direction of Mrs. Caroline Josephson. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. ORAL QUESTIONS Bill 11 Amendments Mr.

Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Some weeks ago the government introduced, with its trademark fanfare, Bill 11, ostensibly to use revenues from Manitoba Hydro to subsidize the use of natural gas. At the time, we pointed out that the government was talking out of both sides of their mouth. Kyoto protocol on the one hand, while encouraging the burning of non-renewable resources on the other. Given the criticism that this bill attracted, the government now appears to have had a change of heart with amendments introduced at second reading.

My question to the government is: Originally the bill was intended to encourage the burning of natural gas. Now it appears with these amendments that it is designed to encourage the burning of ratepayers' funds. What is the purpose of these amendments to Bill 11, Mr. Speaker? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): Mr. Speaker, the bill was introduced at a time when natural gas prices, of which 200,000-plus Manitobans are reliant on in the wintertime for their heating, were facing a potential increase of 44 percent.

It was a short-term sunset bill that did not subsidize and was only to be used for energy efficiency. In fact, we clarified that because members opposite, in their usual hysteria approach to anything that has to do with hydro or energy; we clarified it so that they could not send out the kinds of letters that they were sending out, talking about the kinds of things we were talking about and showing that there is a difference when you manage a Hydro corporation and have the profits that we had, versus selling off a telephone system that the member opposite helped to do. Mr.

McFadyen: It is a government that continues to treat Manitoba Hydro as its private, political piggybank. First, it subsidized greenhouse gas production and now it seems to set up a slush fund to achieve some, as yet undefined, political goals of the government. Why is the government pursuing legislation to provide a political slush fund when the corporation's

3078 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2006 debt to equity ratio is still far too high, unacceptably high, and they are using those funds to set up a political slush fund? Why? Mr. Chomiak: The Hydro debt equity ratio has, in fact, gone down, Mr. Speaker. If we continue to have the positive years and positive management of Hydro that we have had, the debt equity ratio will be much better than when members opposite were in power. Secondly, Mr.

Speaker, I am very proud to be part of a government that the David Suzuki Foundation has said is the best on climate Kyoto in Canada, and which Newsweek Magazine rated Manitoba as the top regional government on climate change in the entire world. I am very proud of the government that started those initiatives in 1999, continues to grow them and continues to be a world leader in dealing with energy efficiency, particularly because we are a province that has potential growth for our Hydro export revenue so that Manitoba can again. Mr. McFadyen: Mr.

Speaker, the amendments introduced and tabled by the government to Bill 11 put the power in the hands of the minister to establish the size of this political slush fund. It is a recipe for blatant political manipulation and interference. The other ill-advised e ffort on the part of the government through these amendments is to highjack the public examination of rate increases through the PUB by bypassing the PUB with a backroom piece of legislation that allows the minister, in the privacy of his or her office, to set the size of the political slush fund. Why is the minister cutting out the public process?

Why are they using legislation to bypass and disregard the Public Utilities Board? * (13:45) Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, first off, the PUB is the party that suggested in the first place at its hearing in October that we be more aggressive in meeting these DSM targets, that is demand side. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, KAP suggested a fund. The inner city residents, education residents, asked for a fund to assist in dealing with energy changes and demand-side energy, particularly, because the federal government has pulled out of the energy programs. We are waiting for new programs in the fall.

This is one-time bridge funding, subject to the PUB. I will take the example of what we are doing on energy efficiency which was ninth in the country and is now No. 1 in the country, versus taking the Crown corporation like the MTS, when he was working on MTS and it was on his Web site, and selling off the entire asset. Manitobans have had a 60 percent increase in prices since. Manitoba Hydro Export Revenues Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): In 2004, the PUB asked the Province to stop taking money from Hydro's coffers until it decreased its debt, a debt, Mr.

Speaker, that has gone from $7 billion to almost $9 billion today. Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Hydro: Is he bypassing the Public Utilities Board because he is afraid, once again, that the Public Utilities Board will tell him to keep his hands off Hydro export revenues, money that they should be using to pay down their debt? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister charged with the administration of th e Manitoba Hydro Act): The short answer to the question is: No.

The answer, as I indicated to the member at committee when we went and had presentations from KAP, who said, you should have a fund for energy efficiency; from the inner city residents who said, you should have a fund fo r energy efficiency; and from those presenters who said, you should have a fund for energy efficiency, particularly in light of the federal cutting of its program on energy efficiency, Mr. Speaker. The debt to equity ratio has gone down, Mr. Speaker, and it is projected to be down to its 75:25 percent target as per the last Hydro report. So the debt to equity ratio has gone down.

The difference is, Mr. Speaker, we are building Hydro, we are not selling it. Mrs. Mitchelson: In reference to taking further draws from Manitoba Hydro, the minister from Hydro; back in 2004, this minister's predecessor said, and I quote: It is unlikely to the point of absurdity that we would do such a thing in the face of the current situation. We know we had a huge problem last year. We know we have rate increases. It would be pretty imprudent of us in the short run to say, well, we have a huge increase, let us take it. That would be silly in terms of policy. Mr. Speaker, that

June 7, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3079 was in 2004 after the Public Utilities Board chastised this government. Mr. Speaker, how can this minister now propose to take more money from Hydro, a move that his predecessor called absurd? Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, not one cent is coming from Hydro to the Province of Manitoba. Hydro is setting up a fund with specific legislative category on energy efficiency which, at Hydro's direction and would be under Hydro's control, to deal with energy efficiency at a time when all Canadians know– [interjection] Go to the gas pump.

Have members not filled up their cars with gas? Have they not seen the price of natural gas go up? Have they not seen Hydro Québec rates go up 7 percent? Have they not seen the rates go up in Toronto 30 percent? And Edmonton, 40 percent? We have been able to have the lowest electrical rates in the country and still have export revenue and still make money. Contrast that with taking the private corporation like MTS and selling it to their broker friends. That is the difference. They want to sell off Hydro for their broker friends. We want to keep it for all Manitobans. * (13:50) Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr.

Speaker, Manitoba Hydro is not setting up this fund. They are being directed by this government and this minister to set up the fund. Mr. Speaker, during the cost of service hearing before the Public Utilities Board last month, a Hydro official said that, and I quote, the importance of achieving the 75:25 ratio and having an adequate level of equity cannot be overstated. He went on to say, given this circumstance it could be argued that there should be no sharing of export revenue until target equity levels have been obtained. Mr.

Speaker, I ask the minister: How can he ignore the advice of Manitoba Hydro officials and force Hydro to create another slush fund? Will he not now come to his senses and withdraw the bill? Mr. Chomiak: The PUB that sets rates asked Hydro to be more aggressive in energy management. That is a key, Mr. Speaker, all provinces are doing it, every jurisdiction is doing it. In fact, Ontario is subsidizing industrial rates. We can do both. We can build Hydro for the future so that Manitobans can keep their electrical prices low, which we are doing. And, Mr.

Speaker, we could also be energy efficient to both help the economy and to help the environment, unlike the pattern of practice before, not one dam built, not one kilometre of transmission line built. I might add we are bringing down the debt equity ratio and could have it down to 75:25 in a couple of years. Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between the political parties. They are this mothball party; we are the build Hydro for all Manitobans party. Health Care System Emergency Services Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr.

Speaker, a CIHI report that was released today shows that Manitoba is the second-biggest spender in health care in the country. I would like to ask the Minister of Health: With all of that spending, why are our ERs in such crisis and why is patient safety being put at risk? Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with the fact that we are in fact able to reduce waiting lists. We have reduced them to historically low levels in areas of cancer and heart. They are coming down quickly in hips and knees.

We do have, as every province in Canada, a challenge in regard to our ERs, but they are open. We are now pleased that Rivers is re-opened, Deloraine is open, Boissevain is open. We have made progress in Arborg and Ashern. We will continue to make sure that Manitobans have available to them the emergency care that they deserve and need. We will strengthen our system and we will bring down our waiting list. We can walk and chew gum at the same time, Mr. Speaker. Mrs.

Driedger: If the minister was more aware of what was happening, he would see that Seven Oaks emergency was almost closed because of a lack of physicians. Mr. Speaker, Manitoba is the second- biggest spender in health care in Canada. We are also rated dead last in health care in Canada, and we have a disaster waiting to happen in our Winnipeg community ERs. I would like to ask this Minister of Health: Will we see rotating closures in our Winnipeg emergencies throughout this summer? Mr.

Sale: I would just remind the member opposite that she represents the party that wanted to close Seven Oaks Hospital completely and, Mr. Speaker, close Misericordia acute care hospital, 308 beds. We

3080 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2006 did not close Misericordia. We are not closing Seven Oaks Hospital. Our emergency rooms are open in the city of Winnipeg. Last summer there was a challenge. The summer before there was a challenge. They stayed open; they will stay open this summer. Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, this summer there is going to be a 42 percent vacan cy rate of doctors in our community hospitals and what we have in front of us is growing from a crisis to a disaster. It is just going to be a matter of which hospital and when.

I would like to ask the minister, knowing that this crisis is getting worse, we are heading to a disaster if he is saying there is not going to be closures of any of our ERs. What is he going to do to ensure patient safety in these hospitals? Because I can tell you as a nurse, patient safety is going to be at risk. * (13:55) Mr. Sale: Mr. Speaker, as we have always done in the summertime, we have sat down with our officials.

We have sat down with the Manitoba Medical Association, we have sat down with the ER docs, we have sat down with our staffs at the various emergency departments, the seven, or eight, I guess, emergency areas in our city, two urgent care and six hospitals. We have looked at the problem. We have allocated resources and we are managing the problem, as we always do every summer, every holiday period. They get up and cry wolf. They cry hysteria. They talk about patient safety. We manage the problem. Our patients are safe. Our ERs are open.

Our doctors and nurses pr ovide wonderful care, and those are the stories I get back from Manitobans every day. Westman Regional Laboratory Technologist Shortage Mrs. Leanne Ro wat (Minnedosa): What does the Minister of Health have to say to his good friend, MGEU president, Mr. Olfert , who says in a letter that I received today, and I will table the letter if the minister so wants. Mr. Olfert quotes: The medical laboratory technologists of Westman Regional Laboratory are very disappointed in remarks made by the honourable member of Health in recent weeks. Mr. Speaker, Mr.

Olfert is referring, among other things, to the minister's repeated assertion that the lab is not short-staffed. Those are Mr. Olfert's words, not mine. Is the minister finally willing to acknowledge the technologist shortage at the Westman Lab is reality? Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Well, the numbers that I have already prepared and shared with the members opposite show that we have hired to date 152 more technologists than were in the system in 1999. We restarted the training programs that side of the House cancelled when they were in government.

The vacancies that occur at Westman Lab, the seven technology vacancies, are filled with return-of-service grads who have just graduated from the course at Red River College that they cancelled and we reinstated. I have great affection for Mr. Olfert, but I just remind all of us that collective bargaining is underway, and I am not about to collective bargain through this Legislature or through the media. Mrs. Rowat: I am just wondering if these are the numbers that he is using, are from December 31, 2005, or are more current.

One of the potential grads that he is speaking of has sort of looked at this $8,500 incentive but is actually going to Alberta to apply for a job, so, Mr. Speaker, this minister is way off base. Mr. Olfert said that it has been common knowledge for years that Westman Lab in Brandon suffers from a severe staff shortage forcing current staff to work mandatory overtime to cover vacant shifts, and that since 2000, Westman Lab has lost 50 technologists. He also states that 40 percent of the lab technologists are eligible to retire in the next five years. Mr. Speaker, I will ask the exact same question Mr.

Olfert asked in his letter. Why is the minister seemingly unaware of these issues? Mr. Sale: Mr. Speaker, we are hardly unaware of the issues. We came into government and found that the previous government had cancelled $7 million in necessary improvements to the Westman Lab. We are doing it. We found the previous government had cancelled the training prog rams for technologists. We reinstated them. So, yes, there are still challenges in our technology area, but 152 more technologists today than in 1999 and quite a few more than there would have been if that program had stayed closed, which was their plan.

Finally, how in the world were they going to deal with any of the issues that they get up daily and talk about when they promised 1 percent in the 2003

June 7, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3081 election to cover health care needs? They have no credibility. Mrs. Rowat: Mr. Speaker, we are looking for a long-term strategy from this Minister of Health. When he said that he is hiring more technicians, he is not. He is not hiring more technologists. He is not. They are being trained a nd they are leaving the province to find employment elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, the minister's friend, Mr.

Olfert, has said, and I quote again: It is time for the Minister of Health to get his facts straight and finally to address the longstanding staffing problems at rural Manitoba's main laboratory. Will the Minister of Health stop playing with the numbers and acknowledge the technologist shortage, or is he saying that Mr. Olfert, DSM and the technologists are wrong, Mr. Speaker? * (14:00) Mr. Sale: Well, I think that it will be very useful to have the records show that now, today, this being Wednesday, the Conservatives want to spend considerably more money on health care.

I think it was Tuesday when they were talking about too much money being spent on health care, Mr. Speaker. The original definition of a windshield wiper fits very well over there. It is a flip and a flop every day, and the vision does not get any clearer when you are a Conservative. It just gets cloudier and cloudier. Now, Mr. Speaker, we put the program back. We have hired 152 more, we filled the vacancies at the lab, we are putting $7 million in to rebuild it which they cancelled. What is their problem with understanding that? Children in Care Premier Apology Request Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr.

Speaker, yesterday the Premier (Mr. Doer) stated that the 31 children who died while in care or shortly after being released from care were not homicides. He said and I quote: "The 31 number tied to homicides is inaccurate." The Winnipeg Free Press represented this total on March 18, 2006, based on information from the Chief Medical Examiner which I would like to table today. I would like to give this Premier the opportunity to correct the record, apologize to the families of these children, to this House, to the Chief Medical Examiner, to the Winnipeg Free Press and to all Manitobans. Hon.

Rosann Wowchuk (Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, when you have a child death, any number of child deaths, it is an unacceptable number. It is always one too many deaths. The members opposite continue to talk about the number of deaths that there have been under this administration. I want to share with the member opposite, in case she is not aware, some statistics that go back to 1999, 1998, 1997. In 1999, under

section 10 cases, there were 69 deaths. In 1998, there were 72 deaths. In 1997, there were 69 deaths. The members opposite talk– Mr. Speaker: Order. Child Welfare System Public Inquiry Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Well, Mr. Speaker, if she is talking about reported deaths in children in care in

section 10, she should know that in 2002 this government changed the reporting requirements to one year after post-care inst ead of two. We are not talking the same thing at all. Of the 31 homicide deaths of children in care under this Premier's watch, nine occurred under this present minister in 2005, th e highest recorded. In the terms of reference of the internal review received under Freedom of Information, again that is how we have to get the information, we learned how the department will examine the circumstances sur- rounding the death of Phoenix Sinclair and the other children that died.

While we respect the work of the people doing that internal review, we need to get right to the facts. We need a public inquiry. Will the minister ask the Premier (Mr. Doer) to call it today? Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, any death is unacceptable and we should not be playing politics with the death of children who are in care. The member opposite continues to play politics and does not want to accept the fact that there are reviews going on and there is an investigation going on to all of these deaths.

I would ask her to bring it to the proper level here and let the officials, the people in charge, the Children's Advocate, the Ombudsman and the outside expertise do their work and bring some dignity to this rather than trying to lower the standards.

3082 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2006 Mrs. Taillieu: We do respect the work that the people are doing in the internal reviews. What we do not respect is this government and the way they are treating the deaths of chil dren in the child welfare system. This Premier did not even know how many children died as a result of homicide. That is proof that this child welfare system is not a priority for this government, Mr. Speaker, and the protection of children should be the highest priority of any government.

I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services to prove to Manitobans that protection of children is of the highest priority and ask the Premier to call a public inquiry into the delivery of child welfare in this province. Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Within a week of the situation of such concern, I called two reviews; one external dealing with caseloads, one internal with a

section 4. Now when there were concerns about caseloads during the 1990s, and caseloads were 45 to 80, and there was no support as reflected in Judge Gregoire's report, I would like to see the member opposite table the press release as to how the former minister was dealing with it. It will be a long search because she did not issue a press release. Her response to Winnipeg Child and Family Services when they raised this issue? She sent them packing saying it was not her responsibility. She was not willing to work with them.

The protection of the children are very important to this government which is why we have two reviews underway, and we are taking it very seriously. Water Quality Regulations Re-evaluation Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, in committee this week we heard from numerous Manitobans on water quality issues. They have clearly indicated that regulations should be developed using common sense and be based on sound science. The regulations proposed under The Water Protection Act clearly do not meet these criteria.

Will the Minister of Water Stewardship please now re-evaluate his position on these particular regulations? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): Mr. Speaker, it has been increasingly obvious that the approach of members opposite on terms of policy is to go back to the 1990s with such winning policies as curtailing public sector wages, workfare and, dare I say, doing nothing in terms of water quality. Their leader on the campaign trail said he would scrap water regulations. By the way, if he is referring to The Water Protection Act, it was actually passed unanimously by members of this Legislature.

The one difference is we believed in it and we are consulting with Manitobans. We will protect water quality. We are not going to go back to the 1990s when they did nothing. Mr. Cullen: The minister has obviously refused to listen during his much-touted consultations. If he had, he would have recognized the widespread objections to his plans proposed under the water quality management zone regulations. In fact, 18 agricultural commodity groups have opposed the direction this minister has taken under these proposed regulations. When is the minister going to start listening to the people of Manitoba? Mr.

Ashton: Speaking back to the 1990s, 10 years ago as we speak, how many consultations did they h a v e w h e n t h e y s o l d o f f M T S ? Z e r o . W e h a v e h a d 35 meetings on the water quality management zones, and I want to tell members opposite that many Manitobans came forward in those meetings and said, yes, they wa nted to see some changes in the particular regulations. But, Mr. Speaker, they recognized that we are protecting water quality. There is a choice for Manitobans.

It is back to the 1990s under the Tories, a do-nothing period in terms of water, or it is a government that does care about our water regulations and when it passes

an act it implements them. We brought in water quality management zones. They voted for them, but we are going to put them in place. Mr. Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the minister has had this position paper, signed by 18 of Manitoba's agricultural groups, in his possession for over a month. This document outlines 11 issues that they want addressed. There is considerable, and certainly out in Manitoba in terms of the implications of these regulations he has put forward. The minister claims to be consulting. Why is he refusing to listen to these 18 organizations that have put forward their names on this document? Mr.

Ashton: I know I have said this before, I will say it again. The C in PC certainly did not stand for

June 7, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3083 consult when they were in government in the 1990s. We make no apology for having no less than 35 public meetings. What you do when you have consultations, you look at the results and you do listen. Well, let us make one thing very clear. The do- nothing Tories would do nothing to protect water quality whether it be Lake Winnipeg or lakes, rivers and streams throughout the province. We must move forward to protect water quality. We will listen to Manitobans but we will not be like the Tories, the do-nothing party of the nineties.

Water quality matters to Manitobans, and it is a top priority for this government. * (14:10) Emergency Room Physicians Recruitment and Training Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, we have a ludicrous situation in this province with a government spending millions of dollars on feel- good ads to cover up their own drastic shortcomings. For days the Minister of Health, when asked about long waiting lists and problems in the emergency room, has blamed everybody else instead of taking responsibility.

In more than six and a half years, there has been ampl e time to recruit and/or train emergency room physicians. I ask the government: Why has the government done so poorly in recruiting emergency physicians and in training adequate numbers of residents through the residency program in emergency medicine? Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we have the same number of emergency-trained physicians as we had in 1999. We would like to have more. Canada has 500 certified specialists in trauma medicine, in emergency room medicine, 500. We have about 4 percent of the population, a little less.

We have about 4 percent, 19 of the 500 specialists, so we are holding our own in that regard. Every province has a serious challenge in regard to training emergency room specialists. We have the same number we had in 1999. This year we have five residency positions for emergency medicine, up from one or two when the previous government was in place. If you want to talk about accountability, Mr. Speaker, the single greatest lack of accountability was when the member opposite sat and made cuts of $7.5 billion in health and higher education. Mr. Gerrard: Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Health talks about five residency positions when there is a shortfall of 15 emergency room doctors, not even a third of what is needed an d that is only recently as the minister himself says. My question, it is no wonder that we are behind. The government had an opportunity to do something in 1999. The government goofed badly when it failed to dramatically increase the number of residency positions when it was first elected in 1999.

I ask the government: Why did the government not act in 1999 to dramatically increase the number of residency positions, because the government knew full well that there were critical needs in emergency medicine and there was a critical need to pay attention in the emergency departments? Mr. Sale: Well, the government knew full well that there was an even more critical shortage of nurses, and this member opposite fought against the expansion of the nursing program, but my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology (Mr. Chomiak), reinstituted it in Manitoba.

That program has led us to have 1,300 more nurses than we had in 1999. Yes, there were shortages in specialists when we came into government, because the enrolment in the medical college had been cut to 70 from 85. There were shortages in quite a number of areas. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we have 150 more specialists in Manitoba today than we had back in 1999, because we have been successful in recruiting specialists in a number of critical areas. Our neurology program and other programs we have in cancer and heart lead the nation. Mr. Gerrard: Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Health avoids the central issue, that is, the quality and the availability of critical emergency room services in this province. You know, there are today real concerns about some of the quality issues in emergencies, and we saw this with an individual who came twice and was turned away at an emergency room. Now, not speaking to the specific instance, but people have got– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order.

3084 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2006 Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, on a point of order? Mr. Sale: Mr. Speaker, it is critical that a member of this House not put incorrect information on the record. The information is in the paper. The member attended at Grace Hospital twice and was treated twice. He was not refused treatment. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. A dispute over the facts is not a point of order. * * * Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for River Heights, to continue with his question. Mr.

Gerrard: I did not say "got no service." What I said is that he was not able to get the quality of service which he probably should have had. This minister is not doing his job. I ask the minister: When there is so much concern about the emergency room service, why he has done such a terrible job of making sure that emergency services were provided with high quality in this province? Mr. Sale: Well, the member takes a false premise and then constructs his argument on a false premise. Dr.

Balachandra, whom I have a lot of confidence in, pointed out that when somebody is punched or hit in an area of their chest or chest cavity, they can sustain an injury that is life- threatening and cannot be easily diagnosed, Mr. Speaker. He said that in the paper. The member knows that. It is in the front page or the second

section of the Winnipeg Free Press today. He ought not to use a false premise to construct his argument. We are working in our ERs. We are providing more residency training. We have something like 47 more nurses in our ERs today than we had in 1999, because my colleague reinstituted the registered nurses training program which he opposed. He has two points of view on every subject, whichever one is better for him today. Family Centres Resources Mr.

Bidhu Jha (Radisson): The Minister of Family Services and Housing attended the annual general meeting of the Family Centre this past Monday where she announced an expansion of the Woodydell model of family associates in housing complexes in Winnipeg. I had an opportunity to attend a meeting with several residents in my area for developing such a centre on Plessis Road. I congratulate the minister for this particular project and her leadership in developing this model. Could she inform the House about these new sites and where these resources will be available? Hon.

Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): I was indeed happy to attend the AGM of the Family Centre to support this unique model. It is a partnership between Manitoba Housing, the Family Centre and the tenants of Manitoba Housing complexes. I was very pleased to announce that what had been pilot project funding has become permanent for 565 St. Anne's and Woodydell, on St. Anne's, as well as to announce our expansion onto Plessis Road.

I would just like to quote Marcel Baril, who is the executive director of the Family Centre, who said this program is helping them stand up, feel good about themselves, change their community, feel good about their community, sup port each other and feel safer. I am very pleased to be a part of this very positive initiative in Manitoba Housing. Charleswood Family Resource Centre Closure Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear that the minister is pleased with the opening of two family resource centres, one in Transcona.

I would like to ask her why she is closing, though, the one in Charleswood. In the Manitoba Housing complex in Charleswood, at the Westgrove area, we have a very, very serious crack cocaine problem. We also have a lot of very, very serious family issues. A teacher at one of the schools is so upset with the closure of this unit because of the high poverty needs in the area, the number of children that go to school hungry every day. I would ask the minister why they are closing this one particular family resource centre in Charleswood. Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Mr.

Speaker, just to clarify, these are two programs at 565 Woodydell and Plessis. We are looking fo r further expansion. If the member has concerns–

June 7, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3085 Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. * (14:20) Ms. Melnick: It would be nice to be able to give an answer without–[interjection] When there are concerns in public housing, I encourage all members to come forward with those concerns in writing. The department will work with these communities. They work with them. They work with Manitoba Housing throughout the province. She should make her concerns known to myself and we will be working with them. But, to look at a situation that is of concern, we have to know the information. Mrs. Driedger: Mr.

Speaker, her department knows the information. People in the complex have phoned her department. They have said drug use is so bad here we need these resources, we need help and can we move to another Manitoba Housing complex. Her department is saying, no, you will just move to another Manitoba Housing complex where the problem is the same, so you might as well stay where you are. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if she is prepared to look into why they are closing this family centre in Charleswood. It has been open for years. There are a lot of ch ildren in that area that need it.

There are a lot of parents in that area that need it. I would ask her if she would please look into it and try to find a way to keep it open. That area needs it. Ms. Melnick: Well, certainly, Mr. Speaker, when there are issues raised in a particular complex, Manitoba Housing does work with the tenants. We have seen turnaround at 565 Woodydell. We look forward to more work in Plessis. The Manitoba Housing department will work with individuals. We will work with the property managers program of safety. We work with Winnipeg Police Service.

We work on issues of safety within individual units as well as the complex as a whole, and we will certainly be working with any group that comes forward with those concerns. Again, if the Member for Charleswood has specific concerns, I encourage her to put it in writing. Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, residents have contacted her department and I do not understand why she cannot understand this and do something. People have now given up phoning. They have started to call me. I have brought the police in to my office to meet with residents from Manitoba Housing because her department is doing nothing.

Crack cocaine dealers have shown up seven to eight times a day in this area and yet she is closing this family resource centre. Needles have been found in the playground next to the basketball hoop. We have families that are here in distress. We have families that are scared to death to come forward and speak up. Yet she is asking, please put your name in writing, when they are phoning the department, and nothing is happening. Will she commit today to look into this and keep that resource centre open in Charleswood? Ms. Melnick: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I can commit today and any day that the department will work with any Manitoba Housing tenants or complexes that are having concerns. It was in 2002 that we brought in, for the first time ever, a manager of secu rity and loss prevention. There has been a security audit ongoing for the last number of years. There have been improvements to many complexes. Again, I encourage the member to put in writing her concerns and certainly the department will be working with any group that is needing to be worked with around the issues of safety. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Forrest School Crosswalk Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to sp eak on a serious issue that concerns the safety of the children at the Forrest School within the Rolling River School Division and the questionable decision of the Minister of Transportation and Government Services (Mr. Lemieux).

In September 2005, the minister was contacted by the superintendent of the Forrest School, within the Rolling River School Division, who requested that a solution be found to the issue of elementary students crossing Highway 10 in order to use the gymnasium at the high school. Highway 10 is a very busy transportation corridor, and although there is a school zone indicated for this

section of road there have been several reports of vehicles passing one another in it. Furthermore, statistics indicate that

3086 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2006 approximately 5,000 vehicles travel this route on a daily basis. This includes heavy truck traffic. School representatives requested that a lighted crosswalk be established to allow students to traverse the highway. The minister's solution to this was to bus the children to the opposite side of the highway. The school representatives and parents considered the minister's idea ludicrous. He had effectively sloughed off the responsibility of the matter on to the school board and refuses to take a hand in ensuring the safety of the school children.

Many parents are objecting to the minister's so- called solution and have voiced their concern through a series of letters. I have over 30 letters outlining the views of parents on this issue, and I would like to table these for the House today, Mr. Speaker. Given the volume of traffic on Highway 10 and the ongoing need to protect the children, it seems a small matter to install a crosswalk to ensure their safe passage. This minister is renowned in the House for withholding large portions of his Transportation budget. Surely his lapsed funding has room for so small a request, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, I urge the minister of highways to show some leadership, stop blaming others for his lack of solutions and provide safety for the children of Forrest school. Thank you. Community Safety Forum Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, this April 25, I was pleased to sponsor a community forum on personal and public safety organized by residents of my constituency of St. Norbert at La Barriere Crossings School. With over 60 people in attendance, the St. Norbert Community Safety Coalition meeting discussed many ideas and action plans to help improve the safety of their homes and community.

Dave Lyons from the Winnipeg Police Department was the first sp eaker of the evening, and he did an excellent job providing information on home security and personal safety. Block Parents was represented by Tanya Comeault who provided a wealth of information on the need for a safety program and how successful it is in helping children. It provides them with a sa fe and easily recognizable location in the community, staffed by a friendly face, when they feel threatened on the street.

Riel Dion, from the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, shared important information about the Citizens on Patrol Program which is a crime prevention program where community members act as extra eyes and ears for the local law enforcement. As a result of the work done that night, St. Norbert can now boast of a new community on patrol group in our area. Mr. Speaker, it was my pleasure to assist in organizing this community forum. This event would not have been possible, however, without the participation of Karen MacDonald, Laureen Van Elwyk and Chris Rutkowski.

I want to thank them for organizing the event and the child care, as well as ensuring the event was well publicized. I would also like to thank the staff at La Barriere Crossings School who provided the facility at no charge for this community event. I would like to commend all the people who attended the event and thank the many volunteers and professionals in attendance who made presentations. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 12th Manitoba Dragoons Cadet Corps Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr.

Speaker, last night, I had the pleasure of acting as reviewing officer for the 12th Manitoba Dragoons Cadet Corps of Virden at their 52nd Annual Ceremonial Review. The annual review is an opportunity for the cadets to showcase their skills and receive awards for excellence by participating in a formal parade before th e corps winds down for the summer. The 12th Manitoba Dragoons pride themselves on their regimental affiliation. They are the only cadet corps in Canada to wear the insignia of the dragoons, which they adopted in 1994.

This pride was evident last night as the cadets exhibited skill and self-discipline in drill and uniform standards. A number of cadets also received awards for their excellence in various elements of the cadet program. I would like to thank the many sponsors of these awards which are a source of great pride and a symbol of accomplishments to the cadets themselves. Congratulations are due to all the award winners for their dedication to the program.

I was also pleased to be accompanied by retired Colonel Don Berry, who brought greetings to the annual review and presented the Army Cadet Service medals to a number of cadets. I also met with Commanding Officer Captain Tutthill and Deputy CO 2nd Lieutenant Craig Russell, as well as their staff.

June 7, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3087 The corps staff and volunteers provide invaluable leadership and mentorship to all of the cadets on a weekly basis. They are a dedicated bunch, and I would like to thank them for their efforts. In closing, I would also like too recognize the four cadets recognized on the corps graduation honour roll: Chief Warrant Officer Mitch Bohrn, Warrant Officer Travis La nglois, Sergeant Treasure Sparks and Sergeant Alyssa Russell.

On their 18th birthday, these cadets will be granted full legion membership, and I would like to thank Branch No. 8 of the Royal Canadian Legion for this special recognition. The 12th Manitoba Dragoons are a group of dedicated and exemplary youth, and I was honoured to be their reviewing officer last night. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Scholars Night and Value of Education Mr. Bidhu Jha (Radisson): Recently, I was pleased to attend the 10th Annual Scholars' Night at the Manitoba Club.

This night honours outstanding graduates who have earned the highest academic achievements in their programs of study at the University of Manito ba. The celebration was attended by many graduates, professors and instructors, parents, along with the President of the University of Manitoba, Dr. Szathmary; the Chancellor of the University of Manitoba, Bill Norrie; the Dean of the I. H. Asper School of Management, Dr. Glen Feltham; and many other distinguished guests. I took great pride in addressing these scholars who will one day be the leaders and builders of our province and our country.

I can identify with their hard work and dedication in achieving academic distinctions. My late father was a scholar of Sanskrit. I took the occasion to pass on a theme of his words of wisdom. I quote: Education is the most precious wealth that one can possess. Material things can be stolen or robbed, but knowledge and wisdom are gifts for life. Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes this important value of post-secondary education. Since '99, we have maintained a 10 percent tuition reduction for students. This has led to an increase of a 30 percent increase enrolment in our post- secondary education institutions.

Budget 2006 provides further investment with the largest funding increase to the universities and colleges by a three- year commitment of $60 million. We believe that investment in Manitoba's young people is an investment for the future of our province. I would also like to congratulate the forthcoming graduates of all Manitoba schools and post- secondary institutions this year. I wish them well in their future endeavours and encourage them to use their academic skills to promote education and a love of learning as an important asset of a healthy society. Thank you. * (14:30) Emergency Room Shortages Hon.

Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, a Winnipeg man was severely beaten last Friday morning near his Victor Street residence. He went to hospital twice, was discharged twice from hospital, and then later collapsed and died at his home on Sunday. This man, Dale Stephen Spencer was 48, is an unfortunate victim of circumstance perhaps, of problems perhaps, in our emergency rooms or elsewhere. We are all saddened by this death and wish that it had not happened. Clearly, under circumstances where there is blunt trauma, there can be circumstances where it is a little bit more difficult to pick up medical problems.

I know, for example, that a very good friend of mine and of the MLA for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), Mr. David Iftody, had blunt trauma to the abdomen and ended with a bleed, I believe, from his spleen and died, stressing the importance of being able to recognize the subsequent problems associated with severe blunt trauma. But the concern that we all have here also extends to the problems within our emergency rooms, when you have a shortage of 15 emergency room doctors. Why do we have a residency training program with only five emergency residents?

We need clearly not only to train physicians but to retain them, and that means having a really good environment within our emergency rooms, having things working well, being able to see people and treat illness quickly and to do it well. Mr. Speaker: Order. ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bills

3088 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2006 34, 42, 33, 41, 28 and 38, and then report stage bills in the order they appear? Mr. Speaker: We will deal with bills in this order: 34, 42, 33, 41, 28 and 38. Then we will do report stage as listed on the Order Paper. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 34–The Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on Bill 34, The Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet, who has 19 minutes remaining. Mr.

Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): I look forward to resuming debate on Bill 34. The principle of the bill, being whistle-blower legislation, certainly is supportable, but the point I made during the debate that I started yesterday was there does not appear to be any substantive content to the bill. That is our concern about this bill, but certainly the principle is supportable. We would want to protect whistle-blowers across this province, whether they turn in members of government or otherwise, or they stop the waste that possibly is occurring throughout government.

We want to ensure they have the support and they have the protection that is available to them to ensure that they do come forward, first of all, and, secondly, when they do come forward that something is actually done. We have to ensure that we have legislation to do both of those things, to encourage people to come forward and to have the ability not only after they come forward, but have the ability to be able to protect themselves from reprisals by government or others. So it is important that we introduce whistle-blower legislation.

However, as I mentioned earlier, the legislation itself does have many, many shortcomings, but at this point I would hope that we would move it to committee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about The Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act, and to put a few words on the record with respect to this act.

Clearly, we need in this province whistle-blower protection, but we also need to make sure that it is adequate, that it serves the public interest and that it allows people who have felt intimidated by this government to be able to speak much more freely about the improvements which they see are so clearly needed. Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski, Acting Speaker, in the Chair We have some quite significant concerns with this act as it is designed.

First of all, the act allows individuals to go to the Ombudsman, and in this light there needs to be a process whereby the Ombudsman can adequately report the co ncerns, the issues that are raised, if not reporti ng about the individuals themselves. Clearly, where there are problems within the Civil Service, we need to know something about the nature of those problems. Where there are problems that related to what happened with the Crocus Investment Fund, we need to make sure that we can allow individuals to come forward and talk about those.

We are having a significant problem not only in these areas, but in the areas of, for example, the Child and Family Services. We see this bill as a small step toward what we need to have, but we are concerned about what is also the potential to hide or to cover up problems because the ability to disclose to the public, the ability to disclose to MLAs, to the media is severely restricted under this act. That should not be the case. What should be the case is that there needs to be a broader opportunity for issues that can be publicly disclosed.

In this, we see that all that can be publicly disclosed is where there is an imminent risk of a substantial and specific danger to the life, health and safety of persons or to the environments. We need to go much more than in terms of an imminent risk.

We need to go to circumstances where there may be criminal actions, where there may be problems which are against the law of the land, and where individuals have concerns that actions being taken may be breaking the law. * (14:40) Certainly, in order to have good operating situations for civil servants and for the province, we need to have a more open style and type of government. We are dealing with a government which has chosen time after time to clamp down, to close up, to not hold a publ ic inquiry.

Those are the sorts of things that we need to be able to change in order to improve the nature and the quality of government, the nature and quality of participation of citizens in what is happening. Clearly, one of the concerns here is the intent, it would appear, on the part of this government to limit the protection when people talk publicly. I think that this is something

June 7, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3089 which is to be regretted, and certainly we would hope that the government would be open to some amendments which might make some changes in this area and make sure that there is a more open opportunity for reporting. We are dealing at the moment with circum- stances under The Child and Family Services Act where there are major problems, where people within Manitoba's Child and Family Services are feeling very much constrained by the situation, by the circumstances under whic h they are operating. Certainly, what is badly needed are improvements.

We are not going to be able to get adequate improvements without a system which is much more open than we have here. There needs to be an ability where individuals have taken issues to the Ombudsman and to others that have not been able to get effective change that they can take these forward publicly. There has to be a time period in a way for people to be able to take issues publicly rather than being so fully restricted.

Certainly, that is needed in terms of improving the openness, transparency, the workings of government and, done well, does not constrain or inhibit people from doing the very best that they can on a day-to-day basis. We want to remove some of the fear that people have when they bring forward issues or the fear that they have in speaking out. I will give you, Madam Acting Speaker, an example.

Just the other day I was at 170 Hendon, and there were people there who are afraid of coming forward with issues, afraid of bringing out the reality of the problems of living in a housing building operated by this government because this government has been a rather bad landlord. This government has had a housing building operated, and maybe many housing buildings operated, where there are problems with drugs, prostitution, violence, intimidation, and so on. People are afraid of sp eaking openly of these problems, bringing them to light so that in fact they can be dealt with and corrected.

It is time to change that, but this bill clearly does not go far enough, but certainly it is a small step. We see as one area where there is a significant shortfall here the area of not public government activities and the civil service but the broader community. We would like to be assured that this bill will apply to regional health authorities, universities, various other institutions where there are large amounts of government funding. We would like to be sure that in fact this–or I think it would be similarly related but a little different legislation–covers whistle- blowing in the private sector.

In the wake of what happened with Enron and what has happened in other corporations, it is time to have ways and means for people to bring forward issues in the private sector as well as in the pu blic sector. It is time to have a more open style of government instead of having the kind of closed shop that we have seen for most of the last six and a half years under this government. So, in talking about this bill, in providing some level of support for this bill to enable it to go to committee stage where we can get input from citizens, we are ready to express concerns.

We are ready to look for improvements because we feel that substantial improvements are badly needed if this is going to move forward. So, Madam Acting Speaker, there are many things that are driving legislation of this sort. Clearly, one of those is th e real need for a Crocus inquiry for an understanding of what happened and for efforts to change the way that this government has been working. Clearly, we need to set a future pattern for how to attract and build venture capital in industry, the private sector in this province.

The government sadly is going far too far in trying to cover up and trying to squelch and suppress efforts to have a public inquiry. We regret that, but we see this as one small tentative step, and we are ready to support it going to committee stage. Thank you. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Acting Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill 34.

I think that Bill 34, in principle, is a positive bill, even though as my leader as talked about, there are a lot of con cerns in terms of just to what degree this whistle-blower legislation is going to be as effective as Manitobans would like to see whistle-blower legislation. Mr.

Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair In fact, I think what we would recognize is that this legislation actually falls short of what we believe is in the public's best interest to ensure that there is protection of those individuals who have the integrity to be able to come forward in a situation which ultimately is in the best interests of the broader population. That is why in one sense Bill 34 does address in part the issue, but in the much bigger way it could have been so much better. I would anticipate that there is even a very good likelihood that there will be

3090 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2006 some amendments brought forward to this piece of legislation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in hopes that the government will see its errors and recognize the need to make the changes that will, in fact, make it a better piece of legislation. There is this mindset th at is out there, and the government tries to come across as if it is addressing an issue by saying that it has brought in whistle- blower legislation, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

In fact, if you even go to the title of the bill as printed, Bill 34, The Public Interest Disclosu re Act, well, for a great deal of our population that particular explanation is not as popular as being able to say whistle-blower legislation. People understand and appreciate when someone says whistle-blower legislation as to what it is and what it is about. What I see is the government has recognized that there is a public appetite for whistle-blower legislation, and, as a result of that appetite, the government has brought forward this bill. * (14:50) This bill is flawed.

This bill could have been a whole lot better to ensure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is that much more teeth to the whole concept of whistle-blowing. But, unfortunately, the government has not seen the merit of bringing in more comprehensive legislation that would allow for and encourage more people to do the right thing and bring to the appropriate attention of the person who is going to be able to be most effective at being able to address the issue that that particular whistle- blower might want to raise, and that causes a great deal of concern.

One has to ask the question why it is the government has taken that route. I suspect it has more to do again with the political spin of wanting to look as if they are being tough and they are wanting to address negligence, whether it is in the Crown corporations, arm's-length groups, government agencies, government departments, by saying that we brought in whistle-blower legislation. Well, I would have much preferred to see whistle-blower legislation with a lot more strength, with more teeth that would have enabled and encouraged more people to be able to feel comfortable in coming forward.

I say that because I do believe that if you look at the government's record in dealing with important issues you will see that they have indeed been negligent. The one that I think that I would be negligent in if I did not refer to in speaking to this bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would be the whole Pat Jacobsen affair and what had taken place there. So I would like to put a few words on the record in regard to Ms. Pat Jacobsen. Ms. Pat Jacobsen is an individual that came to our province and started working for Workers Compensation a number of years back.

She came to Manitoba with incredible credentials, had a lot to offer. Quite often you will see advertising of how we ll Workers Compensation is doing, and that in itself is somewhat debatable, I guess, if you talk to some of the individuals going through the appeal process of Workers Compensation. They will tell you it is not going all that well, but the individual that kind of headed this whole area and had the support of the government and the board was Pat Jacobsen. Best I can tell is that Ms. Jacobsen administered the government's and the board's policy in regard to Workers Compensation.

The mistake that she had made was a number of years ago she raised concerns in regard to Mr. Wally Fox-Decent. She had raised those concerns to the person that she felt would have been most appropriate in terms of being able to deal with conflicts of interest in regard to Workers Compensation and Crocus. Well, the letter that was drafted to the then- minister, Becky Barrett, pointed out some concerns.

Ultimately, if the government would have dealt with those concerns, there could have been a number of changes done at Workers Compensation along with the potential of millions of dollars that were lost through the whole Crocus fiasco could have been saved, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But what actually took place was that the then-Minister of Labour indicated that, well, she has no interest in this and she just passed the letter on to Wally Fox-Decent and the Workers Compensation board. It was shortly thereafter that Ms. Jacobs en found herself looking for another job.

Fortunately for her, because of her credentials, it did not take long for her to find something. I understand now that she is running transit out in Vancouver and doing an admirable job as a top-end civil servant over there. It is interesting in terms of how the government has responded to this issue. When we have raised the issue of Pat Jacobsen and the manner in which she was treated by this government, it is amazing how this government stands by Becky Barrett and the actions that she had taken against Ms. Jacobsen. That is why one has to really question is this government's heart in

June 7, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3091 protecting whistle-blowers or potential whistle- blowers, because, if you look at what happened with Pat Jacobsen, the conclusion I believe that most Manitobans would come to would be, no, they are not, the reason being that when we raised the issue of Pat Jacobsen, the now-Minister of Labour (Ms. Allan), when I raised it in Question Period, what she had to say was, well, Workers Compensation is arm's-length. It has nothing to do with us. We do not want anything to do with Workers Compensation when it comes to the hiring or firing, that this is a board.

She does not mention in terms of who appoints the board or the fact of the matter is that Workers Compensation is under the jurisdiction of the Province of Manitoba. They just do not want anything to do with it. When you approach the government on the issue of–well, Pat Jacobsen wrote a letter to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Labour gave it to the employer of Pat Jacobsen and then was relieved of her responsibilities, the response, then, that the government gets is, well, we would have done the same thing. There is no acknowledgement that Becky Barrett made a mistake there.

How does that contrast to the public perception? Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have had discussions, whether it is on radio, whether it is one-on-one, whether it is in other public forums in regard to Ms. Pat Jacobsen and the way in which she was dealt with. What I saw is that the public is way offside with the government's position in dealing with Pat Jacobsen and the ignorance of this government in not acknowledging that there was a mistake here. I do not understand why it is that this government, and in particular the Minister of Labour and the Premier (Mr.

Doer) of our province, cannot talk to any other Manitoban and put the facts on the table and try to justify to them that in what happened there, that there was nothing wrong with what took place. I believe, and I believe a vast majority of Manitobans, would support that what happened to Pat Jacobsen was not appropriate and that the government and the minister were wrong in doing what she did, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Further to that, it was interesting, it was back on December 6, 2005, that Ms. Jacobsen had written a letter, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, an affidavit from the province of British Columbia which she made under oath, and it lists a number of issues. I know this document has been tabled before, but I want to make reference to No. 9.

This is what Pat Jacobsen said under oath, and I quote: I believe that had the government conducted an independent audit in 2001 of Workers Compensation Board, as I requested from the Minister resp onsible for Workers Compensation Board in 2001, both Crocus and the Workers Compensation Board would not have lost millions of dollars and eight senior executives of the board would not have been fired in the subsequent year. End of quote. * (15:00) Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that is a very, very serious allegation that has been put against this government, and the government's response is they put their hands in the air and they say, wh o cares. They do not care. Here is an individual with incredible credentials. Here is an issue that has dealt with millions upon millions of dollars, over 33,000 Crocus shareholders, thousands of injured workers, and the official response from this government is, who cares. This government does not care. I say shame on this government. Mr.

Speaker in the Chair I cannot believe that a government of this sort of a background, on paper, would take that sort of an attitude in regard to an issue of this nature. Where was the Status of Women's minister on this issue? Where is the Minister responsible for Labour? Where is the Premier (Mr. Doer) or the Deputy Premier (Ms. Wowchuk) on this critical issue of what has taken place?

When you bring in a bill that deals with whistle-blower legislation, I would like to think that the government would talk about why it is that we need more Pat Jacobsens and what it is and how this bill is going to deal with people like Pat Jacobsen into the future. It is questionable whether or not Pat Jacobsen would have even had benefited with this bill. So, if one can argue that Pat Jacobsen would not have benefited with this particular bill, then what benefit is this bill to Manitobans?

If the government would have been obligated, or if this legislation would have been there back in 2001, would Pat Jacobsen have been covered? I do not believe to the degree that it would have prevented her from having ultimately to leave Workers Compensation, and that is why we say this legislation is in need of amendments. There is a need for change on this bill, Mr. Speaker. If the government really wanted to do a

3092 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2006 service for the province, what it should do is have this bill go to committee and encourage individuals to contribute during the committee stage as to what could be done to make this bill even that much better, that much healthier so that civil servants and others would feel comfortable in reporting on issues that are of critical interest for all Manitobans when it comes to neglect or gross neglect that they see and that they observe, that they do not have to be in fear of losing their job because they did the right thing by bringing it to the government's attention.

That is what should have happened. That is what we should be seeing, but that is not the priority of this government, unfortunately. What we have witnessed over the last little while is a government that sees its own legislation, wants it passed so that ultimately, in the next provincial election, they can go around and they can say, well, we brought in whistle-blower legislation. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ad d one word to that. They brought in flawed whistle-blower legislation.

If they had credibility on this issue I believe that they would be open to amendments, they would be open to having feedback from the public. It is one of those bills that they should be encouraging people to participate, to offer ideas and thoughts because obviously, and I know that the Minister of Labour (Ms. Allan) likes to talk about, well, who did you consult with, who did you consult with?

I do not believe they consulted with anyone outside of their own spin doctors, outside of their own election readiness committee because I believe, that, had they consulted with individuals who wanted to see strong whistle-blower legislation, we would not be seeing this bill. There would be a bill that would be far more effective, far more reaching out to protect the interests of a lot more people. We would have seen legislation that would have indeed protected individuals like Pat Jacobsen. Mr.

Speaker, I had indicated that we wanted to see this bill passed to the committee stage, and at this point in time I will conclude my remarks in favour of it actually being passed unless of course there are others who want to speak to the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded–[interjection] Leave– Mr. Speaker: Are there any other speakers? Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 34, The Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] SECOND READINGS Bill 42–The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2006 Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh), that Bill 42, The Budget Imple- mentation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2006; Loi d'exécution du budget de 2006 et modifiant diverses dispositions législatives en matière de fiscalité, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has been advised of this bill, and I table the message. Motion presented.

Mr. Selinger: I am pleased to present for second reading Bill 42, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2006. Bill 42 enacts the tax reductions announced in the 2006 budget which I had the pleasure of delivering to the people of Manitoba and to the Assembly on March 6. It also includes several other measures which I will highlight. The 2006 budget reflects the advice and suggestions received during our pre-budget consul- tations held throughout Manitoba. This budget continues to meet and exceed commitments that we made to Manitobans. We are implementing a sound fiscal plan.

Budget '06 invests in Manitobans' priorities of health care, education, social services while delivering sustainable tax relief. This is the seventh consecutive budget that our government has provided tax relief for Manitobans. These tax decreases amount to total annual savings of over $600 million for both individuals and businesses. Mr. Speaker, I would fi rst like to direct the members' attention to

Part 5 of Bill 42 which amends The Income Tax Act. This

section introduces nearly $100 million in new personal property and business tax reductions to Manitobans. Combined with the elimination of the education support levy on residential property which is detailed in

Part 9 of this bill, Budget '06 increases the total annual personal and property tax relief provided to Manitobans to a whopping $472 million since 1999. Budget '06

June 7, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3093 reduces the personal income tax, middle bracket rate, from 13.5 to 13 percent and increases the basic personal amount by $100 to $7,834, both effective for 2007 and later years. Our government wishes to promote investments by Manitobans in Manitoba businesses. Bill 42 takes two important steps in this direction.

First, building upon the recommendations made by the Crocus Investment Fund implementation team, amendments made last year and further improvements being introduced this year in Bill 37 respecting the governance and reporting requirements for Manitoba labour-sponsored funds, I am pleased to announce that investors in newly registered funds will be eligible for a higher contribution limit, $12,000 versus $5,000. Second, we are complementing federal changes to the dividend tax credit as presented in the federal government's May 2 budget.

Now there will be two dividend tax credits for individual shareholders: a credit of 4.87 percent on dividends received from private Canadian-controlled corporations with income under the small business limit and a new higher credit of 11 percent on dividends paid by publicly traded corporations and those private corporations whose taxa ble income exceeds the small business limit. These changes will result in a more balanced tax treatment between corporations and income trusts. We are introducing an adoption expenses tax credit similar to the federal credit.

Part 5 of this bill will also exclude the federal universal child care benefit from family income when calculating Manitoba refundable personal and property tax credits. We are making the odour control tax credit available to individual farmers in addition to corporations. Farmers will be able to use the credit to offset not only Manitoba income taxes but also their farmland property taxes.

The credit will be extended for three years in order to further promote investments in the control of odour from organic waste. * (15:10) The co-op education tax credit introduced in 2003 will now be available to all employers, charities, non-profits and other employers who may not pay income tax but employ a co-operative education student will now benefit from this credit. However, our government not only wishes to encourage students to gain valuable workplace experience in Manitoba, but we want to promote the retention of these graduates in Manitoba.

Accordingly, we will expand the tax credit to include not only co-operative education students but graduates of these programs. Our government is committed to offering a competitive business cost environment including taxes. The general corporate income tax rate will be reduced to 14.5 percent on January 1, 2006, and to 14 percent on January 1, 2007. The small business corporate income tax rate will also be reduced from 4.5 percent to 3 percent on January 1, 2007. This is a 67 percent decrease in the small business rate since 1999.

Since Budget 2005, the Canadian dollar has continued to strengthen against the U.S. dollar affecting Manitoba's manufacturing sector. To support our province's largest industry, Budget 2006 extends the manufacturing investment tax credit by three years to June 30, 2009, and increases the refundable portion of the tax credit from 20 percent to 35 percent. Bill 42 also makes technical amendments to The Income Tax Act to permit the flow-through of various tax credits where a corporation is a member of a multi-tiered partnership.

This will ensure that corporations will be able to access our tax credits regardless of the way they choose to organize their businesses. In total, this bill introduces $17 million in new tax decreases for Manitoba businesses. Combined with the reductions implemented since 1999, our government has reduced the tax burden for Manitoba business by an enormous $146 million. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the members' attention to other parts of Bill 42.

Part 1 of Bill 42 amends The Corporation Capital Tax Act to increase the deduction from $5 million to $10 million for fiscal years commencing after January 1, '07.

Part 2 of Bill 42 amends the regulation-making power under The Environment Act to enable the Province to recover hearing costs from proponents of a planned project that may have any impact on the environment.

Part 3 amends The Financial Administration Act to better align provisions with the government's accounting policies. With the government's commitment to fully implement accrual accounting, the legislative authority for appropriations needs to recognize not

3094 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2006 only cash payments recorded in a year but also non- cash expenses such as amortization and accruals consistent with the main Estimates of Expenditure. In addition, the act has been updated for recent accounting policy changes re lated to accounting for inventory and long-term liabilities. Mr. Speaker, new standards for financial statement presentation that require the recognition of assets held for resale, such as inventory, to be reflected as a financial asset impacts the government's accounting fo r cottage lot inventory and sales.

Also, new public-sector accounting standards require that government recognize liabilities in its financial statements when it is obligated, or likely obligated, to pay future amounts to settle a current obligation. This change impacts the government's accounting for environmental liabilities and other obligations that meet the liability recognition criteria outlined in the public-sector accounting handbook. Parts 4 and 7 amend The Gasoline Tax Act and The Motive Fuel Tax Act to expand the exemption for fuel used in commercial logging operations.

Part 8 of Bill 42 amends The Property Tax and Insulation Assistance Act to provide further property tax relief for farmers by increasing the farmland school tax rebate from 50 percent to 60 percent for 2006 and following years. Many farmers rent land and a number of landowners have expressed an interest in allowing renters of farmland to qualify for the rebate. Accordingly, legislation is being introduced that will allow for the assignment of the rebate by a landlord to a farmer tenant. In 2002, our government made a commitment to phase out the residential education support levy. We gradually reduced the levy from 2002 to 2005.

Part 9 of this bill amends The Public Schools Act to eliminate this levy on residential property, fulfilling our commitment.

Part 10 makes several changes to The Retail Sales Tax Act. First, the exemption for diabetic supplies has expanded to include lancets, lancing devices and blood glucose monitors and meters. Second, as part of our action to develop a clean energy alternative to fossi l fuels, Manitoba-produced biofuel that is sold in Manitoba as biodiesel will be exempt from the sales tax. In addition, to the extent that we cannot not remove completely the use of fossil fuels in our daily lives, our government is interested in supporting the development of this industry in Manitoba and minimize our dependence on imports.

The current record-breaking growth in oil and gas exploration in Manitoba is being supported in Bill 42 by providing a sales tax exemption on drilling or well-serving rigs and geophysical survey equipment used for oil and gas exploration or development in Manitoba. Finally, The Retail Sales Tax Act is amended to provide the sales tax refund available on the purchase of a mobile, modular or ready-to-move home as a point of sale exemption.

Part 11 of Bill 42 amends The Tax Administration and Miscellaneous Taxes Act to authorize Manitoba to enter into tax administration agreements with Manitoba First Nations that choose to levy their own sales and commodity taxes. This complements changes in the federal budget that will provide broader taxation authority for Manitoba First Nations. Mr. Speaker, Bill 42 outlines several provisions in greater detail than what has been discussed during the budget debate and Estimates process. I encourage the members to refer to the committee notes and to consider this bill carefully. Thank you. Mr.

Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to put a few words on the record, a few brief remarks with respect to Bill 42 that was presented by the Minister of Finance. We, of course, I would like to put it clearly on the record, voted against the '06-07 budget for a couple of very, very good reasons. First of all, this government had a responsibility to clear the air on Crocus and the Crocus scandal and they chose not to do it, in spite of the fact that their fingerprints were all over it.

The political interference was all over the Crocus scandal and that is one very good reason why we voted against this budget. The second, of course, is the fact that this government has a history–it has a long history–of spending money without results. I think the record speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the amount of spending that this government had over the last seven years and no results to show for it. So those are two very, very good reasons why we would have voted against the budget.

But, with respect to this bill, this bill in fact deals essentially with the tax cuts that were announced in the budget. We certainly would support the principle of this bill. Before he pats himself too much on the back, I would remind

June 7, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3095 the minister that the cost to these tax cuts that are implemented in Bill 42 in 2007 are much higher than they are in 2006. Most of those tax cuts that he is talking about take effect January 1, 2007. The cost to the Treasury of the tax cuts that the minister has indicated that he is implementing in the budget are minimal in 2006. So, to a certain extent, in terms of patting himself on the back, I would say that he has made Manitoba less competitive in 2006. Other budgets in other provinces across this country have done substantially more in 2006 than we have.

He introduces a budget, instead of introducing tax cuts that are meaningful today to Manitobans, he prefers instead to wait until 2007, 2008, perhaps 2009. I merely have to point to the explanatory notes on Bill 42 to get the point across when I look at the corporation capital tax for fiscal years beginning after January 1, 2007, when I look at The Income Tax Act reducing the middle income tax bracket for 2007, not for 2006, Mr. Speaker. When I look at the same explanatory note it says that we are increasing the basic personal exemption by $100 in 2007, not 2006.

We have among the highest personal exemption, or the lowest personal exemption, I should say, in Canada and clearly more has to be done to keep more money into the hands of Manitobans. It is not the case of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) not cutting taxes. We acknowledge that he has made some inroads in terms of cutting taxes, but he has not cut them fast enough. He has not kept up with other Canadian provinces across this country. * (15:20) When I look at some of the other explanatory notes it indicates that the general corporate tax rate goes to 14.5 percent in this year.

That is the first I have heard of a tax cut in 2006 and then he talks about 2007. When we talked about the small business tax rate, he is cutting in 2007; in a 2006 budget he is cutting next year. So in reality there are very little tax cuts available for Manitobans in 2006. The tax competitive issue is, first and foremost, an issue of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. They want tax cuts now because other provinces are cutting taxes now. They are not cutting taxes in 2007, 2008, 2009.

They are doing it now. Because we are not doing it now, we are not remaining competitive with other provinces. How do we stack up with other provinces? We are always two years and about three or four steps behind. We are losing our competitive advantage that we had, if we had any at all. Clearly, what we are doing is ensuring that more young people, more young families are going to leave Manitoba. They are going to continue to go to Alberta, as they have done in the past, and this minister is responsible for that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr.

Speaker, it is a good opportunity for me to be able to express a few thoughts in regard to the budgetary policy of this government and what this government has been attempting to do and how they try to put spins on things and mislead the public. Mr. Speaker, there are certa in aspects to this bill that I find, or the whole budget process I have found quite interesting. You know, shortly after the budget was first introduced, we saw this $100,000-plus out on the TVs and radio and newspaper ads, talking and giving glowing marks about this government. Then, in reality, at the end of the day you spend $8 billion.

You better spend some of that money wisely. There are bound to be some good things to be said. If you take a look at their most recent promo campaign on health care, they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars again, brochures to every household, television advertising. They even get the NHL hockey commercials in there, I understand, Mr. Speaker. They spare no cost, no cost. They realize it is not coming out of their own personal pockets; it is coming out of the taxpayers'. They abuse those tax dollars and send out the propaganda.

They have plenty of spin doctors that are out there to try to say how wonderful things are and in some areas the economy is doing well, and so forth. Even in health care one might be able to argue that there are some things that are going well, but when you look at the bottom line, and that is something which I like to be able to do, Mr. Speaker, to look at the bottom line as to what is actually happening, and what I find is that this government has more to do with spin than anything else. It is interesting that it was not that long ago that the provincial auditor caught the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Selinger) and this government misinforming Manitobans, misleading Manitobans. All we have to do is take a look at the provincial auditors. So, when the Minister of Finance says rubbish, he knows full

3096 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2006 well that is not the case. The provincial auditor clearly indicated that we had a deficit, several hundred millions of dollars in deficit in the year 2004. I believe it was 2004, Mr. Speaker, in that budget. What do this Minister of Finance and the Premier (Mr. Doer) go around telling Manitobans? That we have a surplus, we have a $17-million, I believe, surplus back then. So you have the reality and you have the spin. Mr. Speaker, this government has made an art of spin. They talk about how wonderful things are.

You know, if you listen to what the government says you would think that the province of Manitoba was doing far superior than any other province in Canada. They invest a million-plus dollars in political spin. It is not like they have enough in terms of the other opportunities that they have through their own MLAs and circulating of materials to put spin. They go far beyond that in putting a spin that is not reflective of reality. They were caught doing that by the provincial auditor.

They know because the provincial auditor's office is an independent office of this Legislature, that in fact they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, as the saying is often quoted. Well, what about this particular bill in this budget? Well, one can talk about the greatest expenditure which is that of health care. How is the government doing in managing health care when health care makes up such a significant percentage of this budget? How are they actually doing in reality? Reality is, Mr.

Speaker, we are probably, if not at the top, very close to the top on a per capita of spending on health care in the country. Yet we are at the other end in terms of the quality of service that is being delivered, and that is no reflection on the nurses and doctors and other health care providers. They have very limited resources that they are actually working with, that they are expected to work with. Mr. Speaker, while other provinces have seen more merit in terms of providing care at the grass roots level, at the bedside, this government has grown an empire.

That empire is better known as the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. They have invested millions, tens of millions of dollars into bureaucracy, while lineups and people are sitting in emergency wards not being tended to in a timely fashion. They are not meeting the public's expectations of quality serv ice. It is not because of the health care providers. It is because this government has made an intentional decision over the last number of years to fund bureaucracy as opposed to the health care bedside services.

We are not talking about a few million dollars, we are talking about tens of millions of dollars, well into the hundred-plus millions of dollars. So it is a question of how effective is the government spending on health care when you pose a question on health and you say, what about this? It could be the emergency services. It could be a waiting list. The Minister of Health (Mr.

Sale) has his standard list of answers that he goes to, and most of those answers are actually cited in that promo piece that has been circulated to all Manitobans, and he will list off well, we have cut waiting lists here, here and here, and avoids answering the question that has actually been placed to him directly, Mr. Speaker, but rather just looks at ways in which he can pat the government on the back and try to give the impression that health care is actually improving in the province of Manitoba. Most Manitobans do not believe that health care is better today than it was in 1999.

I do believe that to be the case because I have canvassed my constituents on this issue, Mr. Speaker. I think that what we need to do is to see far more co-operation amongst different levels of government, different political parties, to start taking a more apolitical approach at dealing with health care issues. Why is it that there are certain areas that we have not moved more aggressively on: issues like nurse practitioners, issues like emergency doctors in our services, issues like supporting our RNs, BNs and LPNs and all the other health care professions, our health aides?

Why is it today we still refuse to be aggressive in addressing the credentials that immigrants bring to our province, especially in the health care field? This government has failed at being able to recognize the credentials in a very real way that would have seen these people practising medicine, that would see them providing care at the bedside to individuals who are in need of that care, Mr. Speaker. Why does the government continue to fail in these substantial issues that have to be addressed?

Because they are more interested in feeding that bureaucracy, in playing in areas in which that has very, very little result when you start talking about the size of that bureaucracy. * (15:30) I would go as far to say that we need to overhaul, replace, get rid of. There needs to be a change of the way in which we are administering health care. The greatest th reat to health care in the province of Manitoba is a government that ignores

June 7, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3097 the need for change and the managing of that change. This government has done worse than that. They have actually invested more and more into paper than, as far as I am concerned, into that real care. That causes a great deal of concern on my part. So, if the government wants to say that I voted against the budget so that means I oppose X millions of dollars going towards this and I oppose X millions of dollars going towards that, Mr.

Speaker, I am voting against this budget b ecause I believe that the government is not doing the type of job that it could be doing, and I am talking about the overall expenditure of this government. That is what it is that I disagree with. That is dealing with the issue of health care. Mr. Speaker, one could go on in terms of just the level of taxation. You know, it is interesting, if you look back to '98-99, the last Progressive Conservative budget, you will recall that the New Democratic Party voted in favour of that budget.

I believe I am the only one who is currently inside the Chamber who did not vote in favour of that budget, but this New Democratic government voted in favour of that budget. What did they vote in favour of? Well, they had voted in favour of individual income tax of $1.48 billion. Where is that today? Today, in the '06-07 budget forecast, $2.4 billion. That is about $524 million more that this government has achieved through individual income tax that is now going into general revenues. If you want to talk about squandered opportunities, this government has squandered opportunities.

When you get that sort of an increase in individual income tax, you have not dealt with the issue in an appropriate way of education tax, as an example. From virtually since I was first elected in 1988, people across this province have talked about the education tax that is on their property bills. In fact, I had one individual who wanted to do a petition. I had written up a petition, and this individual took it upon himself, indicated that I would circulate the petition. I would like to table this one, and, maybe just prior to tabling it, I would like to read it on the record.

It was: To the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The background of this petition is as follows: 1. At one time the school portion of the property tax bill was much lower than the municipal portion. 2. Today the school tax portion is greater than the municipal portion of our property tax bills. 3. That funding public education should not be so dependent on property taxes. We petition the Legislative Assembly as follows: 1. To request the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to consider the need to establish a time frame that will seek to put in place a formula that will reduce the amount of school tax on property. 2.

That any formula developed would ensure that as a minimum at least 80 percent of the total cost of funding kindergarten to Grade 12 would come from provincial general revenues. That was signed by a number of Manitobans, Mr. Speaker, but because it is out of order I was not able to present it, and I know that there is yet another petition that is actually out in the constituency that I represent trying to deal with the property tax issue.

There are people who feel very passionately that we should not be having education tax on our property tax, and I think, in particular, this petition talks about at the very least acknowledge and set up a time frame where we can see in a very tangible way property tax being reduced. What the Province has done, and I will give the Province some credit, they have addressed the provincial levy portion, and I think that is a positive thing. What we would like to be able to see is some sort of a strategic time line that is going to see the education tax dealt with on the property tax bill.

What this particular petition refers to is that as a minimum 80 percent of the funding of public education should come from general revenues. There are some who would even ultimately argue it should be more than that, Mr. Speaker. So, when you talk about that '98-99 last PC budget that they voted for to the '06-07 budget that we are talking about today and the amount of personal income tax that has been generated, in excess of about half a billion dollars, Mr. Speaker, could not more of that money have dealt with the issue of the inequities on the whole property tax issue? What about retail sales tax?

Retail sales tax in '98-99 was $846 million. Today, in this budget, we are talking $1.244 million, hundreds of millions of dollars more in retail sales tax that has actually been created. Again, it is the issue of priorities. What is the government doing with those extra revenues? I will just finish listing off the ones that I have made a note of. Manitoba Lotteries, from $227 million to $267 million. Remember, Mr. Speaker, when this government was in opposition and its thoughts and

3098 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2006 opinions and comments in regard to gambling problems and the social impact that it is having. What have they done to alleviate some of those concerns? I say that tongue-in-cheek because I do not believe that they have done anything. Sure, they might have done some token things, increased a bit of funding over here in order to provide a little bit more counselling and so forth, but they have not addressed the real issues, the real social costs of gambling in the province of Manitoba. Yet in opposition they talked at length about those social problems.

When I talk about social problems, you are talking about everything from suicides as a direct result of gaming to family break-ups to bankruptcies to individuals who are actually in jail because of gambling problems. So we are paying for it in another way. Talk about lotteries, the other day I was talking about tobacco tax, and I indicated that we would be better off to surrender the tobacco tax because of the amount–a lot of people think that we make more tax on tobacco than we pay on health care because of tobacco-related diseases. That is just not the case.

We pay far more money on the cost of tobacco- related diseases and having to deal with those than we actually collect in tobacco tax. The same principle could apply for Manitoba Lotteries. More and more we are seeing that there is a huge cost to the gambling problems that have been associated with it. There really has not been a legitimate–what I would argue as a legitimate– consultation throughout the province dealing with some of those consequences because the government is more focussed on the revenue side than they are on the social cost of Manitoba Lotteries. Gasoline tax has been somewhat stagnant, Mr.

Speaker. You know, in '98-99, it was $155 million. What we are predicting in this budget is $155.3 million. I would like to comment on that particular point because again, you really have not seen any increase. Yet if you talk to Manitobans, what you will quite often hear is you will hear, well, the price of gas has gone up, meaning that the government benefits by it. * (15:40) There is one thing that always surprises me about, in particular, this Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger). I am going to have to go back to the Estimates, the Finance Estimates.

You will see the relevance to what it is I am going to talk about on this when I make reference to the gasoline tax because in the last Estimat es with the Minister of Finance, I asked him questions in regard to the gas tax. That is not the first time I asked him the question in regard to the gas tax. I asked the minister to provide me some informat ion in regard to the amount of tax that is applied to gasoline, and the minister was not–that was not the first time I asked the minister the question. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, I had asked him on two previous occasions, months earlier, and in fact the minister, in one of those months earlier when I had posed the question, indicated that he would get me the information in regard to the gas tax. I waited and waited, never received anything from the Minister of Fina nce (Mr. Selinger) or his office.

Then, when I had the opportunity in Estimates, I raised the issue with him once again, and the Minister of Finance indicated, well, you know, that he could in essence get the information, but gave me the advice: Just read what it says on the pump; they all have that little sticker there that indicates how much gas tax that people are paying. Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister of Finance needs to put some gas in his own car. Maybe, if he saw the little stickers and he was doing the job that he is being paid to do, he would have a better appreciation of what the consumer is actually thinking.

The little sticker that he made reference to is wrong. Those little stickers that we see at the gas pumps are wrong, and yet the advice that he gave me was to look at those stickers. At the committee meeting, I gave the Minister of Finance the advice that those stickers are wrong, and maybe what we should be doing is asking our gas companies, Mr. Speaker, to put the right number on those stickers or do not have the stickers at all because it helps mislead Manitobans. I do not even think the Minister of Finance, in fairness to the Minister of Finance, realized it.

That is the reason why, months prior, I asked the Minister of Finance to look into it. Mr. Speaker, the minister, kind of tongue-in- cheek, indicated, well, you go and see; just look at the pump. Well, the pumps are wrong, and I asked the Minister of Finance, and the minister, jokingly– as I referenced it jokingly the other day when we were in the Finance Estimates–that, you know, it was interesting to hear the actual numbers. I had given the actual numbers, as was conveyed to me from the federal government and the provincial government. But I went out and did the work, even though the

June 7, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3099 Minister of Finance has a hundred times the resources that I have. I went out, I did the job, and my leader says it is probably closer to a thousand times the resources that I have. But I went out and I did the job, and I believe that the Minister of Finance should have done that. We are not too late. Mr.

Speaker, when I talk about this, I see another private member's bill in the possible making, and that private member's bill should maybe mandate our gas stations that, if they are going to put a label on the pump, that label better be accurate because, if it is not accurate, it is garbage and it is providing misinformation. Maybe the Minister of Finance can prevent this particular private member's bill from coming forward by taking some action within his own department. I raise this issue because we have seen no increase in the taxes on gasoline. Well, Mr.

Speaker, there was another issue that I raised with the Minister of Finance in Estimates, and I say this issue because this is a very important issue to Manitobans. The Minister of Finance made a commitment to me to get this information. After we talked about the gasoline tax, he made a personal commitment to get me this information, and I am going to have to read Hansard. I think the time line might have already gone by because I was anxious for the Minister of Finance–I said to the Minister of Finance: How long is it going to take before I get the information? He said: Do not worry.

I assure the Member for Inkster eight days or 10 days or something of this nature. He gave me his personal assurance. So I am going to give him a reminder right now, because he is sitting in his seat, to review the assurance that he gave me during the Finance Estimates in regard to the Crocus Fund and amount of tax dollars that have gone toward the tax rebate portion of the Crocus investment. We as a Legislature approved a proc ess that guaranteed those individuals tax benefits if they invested in the Crocus Fund. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a very important number to know. The Minister of Finance (Mr.

Selinger) gave me his word in committee that he would get me that number, and I am asking and appealing to the Minister of Finance to do what it is that he said to me in that committee and provide that information in a timely way. As has been pointed out, the Minister of Finance has a great deal of staff compared to me, as one has pointed out, a thousand times the resources I have. He knows what those numbers, and he can get those numbers. I ask the minister once again to provide me that number, Mr. Speaker.

For those staff that I believe might even be listening, and I suspect there are, the Department of Finance staff that are indeed listening because we are debating the minister's bill, I would suggest that what they do is that they look at the Finance Estimates, and they will see the commitment that was provided. I am not 100 percent sure in terms of the actual number of days. I would not be surprised if we have already exceeded those days, but I will give the Minister of Finance the benefit of the doubt believing that he still might have more opportunity to find out. Mr.

Speaker, I believe that there are a number of t h i n g s t h a t w e n e e d t o l o o k a t w h e n w e t a l k a b o u t taxes. The government likes to say that it has not increased taxes. In fact, in the opening remarks from the Minister of Finance, he talked about corporate tax breaks. I always enjoy hearing the Minister of Finance and the Premier (Mr. Doer) talk about corporate tax breaks and so forth because I listen to them, and then I listen to their federal leader, Mr. Jack Layton, condemning whether it is federal Liberals or federal Conservatives about corporate tax breaks.

So I always find it interesting to listen about corporate tax breaks. The co rporate tax breaks is an interesting way of approaching it. I know, we in the Liberal Party, my leader has talked about the payroll tax and how that has turned out to be a tax on jobs. Where is the government's commitment in dealing with that particular tax? But, Mr. Speaker, I think that we need to be a little bit more transparent with Manitobans as to where it is that we are in fact increasing their taxes because they try to give the opinion that Manitobans are better under this administration because they have reduced their taxes.

Well, I guess it is what it is that you might want to call a tax. Remember when they expanded the provincial sales tax to include other fees? Well, that is actually an increase in tax. When you take a look at the retail sales tax which increased by hundreds of millions of dollars, that is because, in part, now if you buy a house or you do other transactions in some of those service areas, you are paying more in taxes. That is a provincial sales tax increase by this government. That is the reality. So you get those direct taxes that are talked about, and then you get maybe some of those indirect taxes, Mr.

Speaker. Then you get the whole tax avoidance increases. Let me talk a little bit about both of those ones. I better make a note of tax

3100 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2006 avoidance so that I do not forget to comment on that. So you have those hidden taxes. I will give a better definition of the tax avoidance right away, so, for the Member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), it will make a little bit more sense for him. * (15:50) Oh boy, only two minutes to go, Mr. Speaker, this is going to be really difficult. I will start off with tax avoidance because I know this is what the Member for Selkirk is interested in. When we talk about avoiding increasing taxes, there is another tax.

It is called the ancillary f ees that they charge for university students. They say they are going freeze tuitions in which they freeze the tuitions, and then it forces students to pay higher tax ancillary fees. Well, to those students, that means more money. So, in a way, they can say that, we ll, we have avoided a tax increase, yet they have generated another form of revenue, albeit for the univ ersity, in which they are not adequately resourcing and disallowing the tax freeze. That is what I mean when we talk about those tax avoidances. When I talk about those indirect tax increases, Mr.

Speaker, what about speeding tickets? You know, they say it is all about safety. Well, more and more we are seeing these tickets up and up in terms of cost and the government justifies it by saying it is all about safety. Well, I am beginning to believe, as many of my constituents, that it has a lot more to do with the generation of additional revenue for this government's appetite in spending than it is to do with safety. That was, by the way, one of the other questions I had posed through the Minister of Finance to get some of those original fines back in '99. I suspect, Mr.

Speaker, what you will find is that it will give even that much more credibility. There are many different ways in which the government has been able to increase overall government revenue, and it searches. You know, it is like one of those heat missiles. It is out there, it puts out that scan, and if it identifies a place to tax, it increases that tax. So it might not be on your personal income tax, but it is out there. The government seeks and finds and taxes. Thank you. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr.

Speaker, I want to speak for a few minutes on Bill 42, the budget implementation act, and to talk about where there is clearly a need for better planning, better expenditure and better taxing. Sadly, this government has not been doing the right sort of job when it comes down to that. Let us start with the situation with respect to the Crocus Investment Fund.

This is a situation where there were some $75 million of provincial and federal government tax credits, which were allocated, but, in spite of the allocation of such expenditures and use of tax credits–some people call them tax expenditures–this government failed to do the appropriate due diligence.

We said at the end of last year, my colleague and I from Inkster, that we need to push for a public inquiry to get to the bottom of these problems and to make sure that we have a much better circumstance in the future where we are not wasting, losing not only $75 million of taxpayers' dollars, but we are losing $60 million-plus of money by 33,000 Manitoba investors. Clearly, we should have had much better accountability than we had in this area, and this government, in spite of repeated requ

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-4-85
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 4th hansardpdf 85.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	445cdb9179a38acb683003f289c447b9d149da48

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