Manitoba Hansard — 4 July 2000 (Sitting 55, 37th Legislature, 1st Session)

37-1-55

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session -T hirty-Seventh Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. L No. 55- 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, July 4, 2000 ISSN 0542-5492

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

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

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

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

3439 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, July 4, 2000 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Income Tax Federal Reductions Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (Interim Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier (Mr. Doer). On July 1, Canadians celebrated, with enthusiasm, the birthday of our great country. For most of the country, it was not only a time to celebrate our nation's birthday but also a time to celebrate the first round of federal tax cuts. Needless to say, Manitobans had nothing to celebrate.

We had the unique distinction here in Manitoba of being the big losers. Can the Premier please explain to Manitoba taxpayers why his government clawed back $30 million in income tax cuts and robbed Manitobans of more money in their pockets so they could make the choices on how to spend their hard-earned dollars? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely shocked that the Leader of the Opposition would say that we in Manitoba had nothing to celebrate on July 1.

I think the negative tone of the Member opposite certainly is opposite to the people that members on this side encountered, Manitobans that we en countered over the holiday weekend. Manitoba has the lowest unemployment rate in Canada. We can celebrate that. Manitoba has just been recognized as reducing hallway medicine better than any other prov ince in Canada. Let us celebrate that fact. Manitoba has some of the cleanest water anywhere in the world; surely we can celebrate that. Manitoba has some of the greatest festivals of anywhere, again, in the world. We were out at those festivals.

Surely we can celebrate that fact. We have a lot to celebrate, Mr. Speaker. Maybe the Tories do not have anything to celebrate, but Manitobans do. Mrs. Mitchelson: It is obvious that the Premier does not understand the impacts of his clawback tax policy, Mr. Speaker, but Manitobans do know that they are now the highest taxed Canadians as a result of his government's budget. That is a pox on all our houses. It is clear that his government fai led to acknowledge or even understand that keeping Manitoba's income tax competitive will allow Manitoba to meet the demands of the future and the new economy. Mr.

Speaker, can the Premier please explain how we are going to be able to keep our much needed prof essionals like nurses and doctors and computer specialists when Manitoba has the highest income tax across Canada? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, this is the Member who fired over a thousand nurses in the last four years in office. This is a member opposite who .was opposing the reinstatement of the RN program which has made up 85 percent of the dedicated nurses here in Manitoba working on front-line medicine.

That is how we plan on recruiting and retaining nurses, by training nurses and doing something the members opposite did not do, by keeping them working in Manitoba hospitals instead of firing them. That is a dif ferent way of approaching this challenge. Mr.

Speaker, the $10 2 million in income tax cuts on top of our election promise to reduce property taxes with the property tax credit we introduced-over the period of time that those $10 2 million in income taxes have been announced, we certainly will be presenting much more than members opposite did in their so called 50-50 plan, which was not believed by Manitobans. Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, this is the Premier and the Government that promised to end hallway medicine and failed. They did not live up to that promise. This is the Government that promised to reduce wait lists for diagnostic

3440 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 2000 tests and failed. This is the Government that prom ised to reduce wait lists for cancer treat ment, and not only are they sending more people to the States, they are sending doctors to the States. This is the Government that promised to hire more nurses and has failed to do that. This is the Government that promised to open more permanent beds, and they have failed to do that. * (13: 35) This is the Government that had made all kinds of health care promises during the election campaign, and they have not lived up to one election promise.

I am ashamed to admit that we have to sit in this Legislature day after day with a government that has failed to live up to their election promises. I would expect that this premier and this government would be a little humble when we are seeing other prov inces right across the country that not only passed on the federal tax cuts but implemented tax cuts of their own.

Even their own polls indicate that 82 percent of Manitobans say that lower taxes would help Manitoba keep more of its residents and attract more new business, or almost 60 percent of Manitobans say that there is no reason why Manitoba could not cut taxes the way Ontario and Alberta did. Mr. Speaker, what does this premier have to say to the condemnation that was expressed by Manitobans in their own poll? Mr. Doer: Well, as the fanner premier used to state, the only poll that counts is the one on election day, Mr. Speaker, and I will use that as our measure for our future.

But the Member opposite, in her rambling, incoherent

preamble, made a number of inaccurate comments. Mr. Speaker, we have announced the new prostate cancer centre as part of our cancer strategy, and we are proud of that. We have made announcements on cardiac care, which members opposite were opposed to. We are going into the next century with improved cardiac care. We have announced plans to train nurses, which members opposite are opposed to. They fire nurses; we train and hire nurses. Some 1500 young people have applied for the new RN program. That is the optimism we see every day.

We have kept our election promise to reduce property taxes by- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we have kept our election promise to lower property taxes by the $25-million investment in property tax credits. Beyond our election promises, we have introduced tax reduction measures of $10 2 million more than the members opposite ever did in a budget that they introduced in this Chamber. Thirdly, we have also provided hope to young people.

When I was at a graduation ceremony last week, young people who want to go to com munity colleges, who want to go to universities, who do not want to be denied those oppor tunities based on family income alone, were delighted to hear that we were reducing tuition fees in universities and community colleges. That is the balanced approach Manitobans want, and that is what we are giving them. Income Tax Federal Reductions Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, on July 1, the majority of Canadians began to benefit fr om the federal tax cuts that were passed along from all of their respective prov inces.

The exception, of course, is Manitoba. Thanks to this NDP Government's unwillingness to pass on the full benefits as a result of their decision to delink a year early and set rates that meant Manitoba's taxes would go higher-that was done by the Finance Mini ster-Manitobans were not among the group that received this tax relief . My question to the Minister is: Can he explain to Manitoba taxpayers why he decided to withhold the full benefits of federal tax cuts, or does his leader's pledge that a promise made is a promise kept not apply to this situation? Hon.

Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Once again, we have lived up to our promises, and the fir st one was to bring a property tax

July 4, 2000 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 344 1 credit relief of $75. That was the promise we ran on. That was the promise we delivered. * (13 :40) Over and above that, we shifted to a tax on taxable income system this year. In so doing, we passed on $10 million of changes from the federal government in the base. As well, the Member opposite has continually made the allegation that taxes have gone up, and in fact all the independent evidence shows taxes have gone down. Mr. Loewen: Mr.

Speaker, I would ask this minister, when over 80 percent of Manitobans have clearly told this government that they believe reducing taxes will help keep people fr om leaving Manitoba for greener pastures, why did he decide to set the tax rates so that Manitobans would pay $20 million more in personal income tax than if he had done nothing. Mr. Selinger: Once again, Mr. Speaker, the evidence is clear. Taxes have been reduced in Manitoba. and unlike during the 12 years of the members opposite, people are coming to Manitoba in greater numbers than they ever had in the last decade. Mr. Loewen: Mr.

Speaker, given that the recent Dimark poll shows that 61 percent of people feel that this government should give a much higher priority to tax relief, I would ask this minister when he is going to make a decision to pass along the full benefits of this year's and next year's and the year following's federal tax benefits. When is he going to pass that on to Manitobans? Mr. Selinger: It is amazing how the Member selectively chooses questions fr om the poll. The No. 1 priority in the poll was to address the health care and education issues, and that is what we have done.

Manitobans know that in the following years, starting in the years 2000 and 2001 , they will receive significant personal income tax relief . School Divisions Amalgamations Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, both the First Minister (Mr. Doer) and the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) have said they will force school divisions to amalgamate. The Minister said this even though on December 14 , 19 99, when asked by the Member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gil leshammer), he told this House he would not force school divisions to amalgamate. Mr.

Speaker, Manitobans are not sure the Minister of Education can keep juggling so many issues without dropping the ball in education here in Manitoba. Does the Minister stand by his statement of December 14 when he was asked by the Member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer) if he would be forcing Manitoba school divisions to amalgamate and he catego rically said no? Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Educa tion and Training): Mr. Speaker, of course the whole issue of school division boundaries and amalgamations has been one in this Legislature that has been active for the better part of a decade.

In the province of Manitoba right now, it is recognized that, in some sectors, classroom delivery is suffering because of issues of sustainabili ty. The position of the Government has not changed. We encourage amalgamations of a voluntary nature. We will be pursuing that more aggressively in the years to come. But we do have, in this province, a desire to have resources fr eed up for the classrooms of the province of Manitoba.

The next opportunity to have a restructuring of the constellation of school divisions in this province is the fall of 2002, and we are determined that resources will be fr eed up by that date. Mrs. Smith: Mr. Speaker, what evidence does the Minister have that this move will increase the quality of education and reduce the cost of education in Manitoba, and will he table the evidence he has for this House? Mr. Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, the best evidence is the Prairie Spirit School Division and the St. Bonif ace School Division. Mrs. Smith: Mr.

Speaker, could the Minister please outline specifically what has changed his mind so critical ly in the past six months to cause this flip -flop without explanation to Manitobans?

3442 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 2000 Mr. Caldwell: Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is no flip -flop. Of course the position of this government has been consistent since day one. Members opposite may want more school divisions in the province of Manitoba. I suppose they are not really concerned with classroom deliveries, but we on this side of this House are determined to have the best quality of education available for all Man itobans, and part of our agenda is to make sure effi ciencies take place within divisions. First Nations Casinos Operations Managers Mr. Jack Reimer (Southdale): Mr.

Speaker, since the selection committee of Mr. Nadeau and Mr. Freedman released their report, three of the five proponents have changed their managing partners that were presented at that time. We have seen management groups fr om North Dakota, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and also fr om Miami in the United States. * (13 :45) Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Af fairs: Does he not see the contradiction in proposing these casinos where support-management fees are as high as 60 percent?

This money will travel outside of the province of Manitoba and not back to the proponents where it was intended to go. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): No, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Reimer: I did not hear any answer, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry, there was- Mr. Speaker: Order. I am having difficulty hearing the question. Mr. Reimer: Why? Mr. Doer: If the Member opposite reads the report, he will find issues such as commissions as one of the conditions to still be developed. Mr. Reimer: Mr. Speaker, the report, the "bible" that Nadeau and Freedman went by says, pursuant to

section 207 of the Criminal Code of Canada, only a prov incial government shall manage and conduct a lottery scheme which is operated on or through a computer, video device or slot machine. The RFP says that they, pursuant to

section 207- Mr. Speaker: Order. The Honourable Govern ment House Leader, on a point of order. Point of Order Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): On a point of order, this is the second supplementary question of the Member, and Beauchesne's Citation 410 says that supple mentary questions require no

preamble, a rule that is well known to the Member, Mr. Speaker. Would you please ask the Member to succinctly put his question. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the Honourable Government House Leader, he does have a point of order. Beauchesne's Citation 490(2) advises that a supplementary question does not requir e a

preamble. * * * Mr. Speaker: I would ask the Honoura ble Member for Southdale to please put his question. Mr. Reimer: I did start the question with "Can the Minister," but I will ask then: Can the Premier not understand and not agree that, according to the Criminal Code,

section 207, only a prov incial government may conduct and manage a lottery scheme which is operated on or through a computer, video device or a slot machine? Why is outside management looking after these casinos when clearly the "bible" of Nadeau and Freedma n says it has to be conducted by the prov incial government? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the Member has read the report properly. Chief Electoral Officer Annual Report Review Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier. I am

July 4, 2000 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3443 concerned about the state of democratic processes in Manitoba. A variety of problems have emerged, including ignoring The Sustain able Development Act. Today, I would ask the Premier about the requirement under

section 10 of The Elections Act and subsection 99 of The Elections Finances Act: If an annual report contains recommen dations, it must be ref erred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections within 60 days after the report is put bef ore our Legislative Assembly. Since it is now the 67th day since the tabling of the annual report of the Chief Electoral Officer, when will the Government stop breaking the norn1al democratic rules of this House and call the committee together to review this important report? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, we are working and implementing changes that had been made by the Chief Electoral Officer years ago. For example, third-party issues were raised by the Chief Electoral Of ficer. Year after year, the Chief Electoral Officer recommended that the Cabi net be removed fr om the appointment of returning officers and in fact that those returning officers be hired by the Chief Electoral Officer, a recommendation that we are implementing with the proposed changes in the election laws themselves.

I will take as notice the specific question on the days and the privileges, the matter being referred to the privileges committee. Mr. Gerrard: Ma question supplementaire au premier ministre: Quand est-ce qu'il suivra le processus democratique de notre legislature? [Translation] My supplementary question to the First Minister: When will he follow the democratic process of our Legislature? * (13 :50) Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I will take the specifics as notice in terms of the Committee on Privileges and Elections. Having said that, we are following through on specific recommendations.

It is a very major recommendation to remove Cabi net fr om the appointment of returning officers and then to allow returning of ficers to break the tie. We have taken the Cabi net out of appointment of returning officers, as recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer. In terms of breaking a tie, it is democratic because the people will break a tie. Regional Health Author ities Board Elections Hon.

Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Au premier ministre: [Translation] To the First Minister: [English] In the interests of better democracy, since we seem to move fr om the music of the Guess Who to the Government of the guess when: When will the Premier carry through his other election promise to elect members of the boards of the regional health authorities? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Je voudrais repondre au depute de River Heights. Nous sommes en train de developper un processus pour faire �a. [Translation] I would like to respond to the Member for River Heights. We are developing a process to do that.

Rural Recovery Coalition Meeting Request Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Today the Pre mier waxed eloquently about all the celebrations that he had attended in Manitoba, as most of us did. However, there are a group of people, farmers and businessmen in this province, that were not celebr ating. There are some that have lost their farms, and there are some that have leased their farms, and there are some that do not know whether they will be able to pay their bills this fall or not. Will the Premier explain to this House why it has taken eight months bef ore he and his

3444 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 2000 Cabi net have decided to meet with the Disaster Recovery Coalition in this Legislature? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Highways and Government Services): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister responsible for emergency measures, along with the Minister of Agricult ure (Ms. Wowchuk), we have met with numerous groups. We have responded positively to requests for meetings. We have met in this Legislature and outside this Legislature with groups in the aff ected area.

In fact, when I was in Ottawa a number of months ago, I made a point. as minister responsible for emergency measures, of not only meeting relevant federal government officials but also the group that was there from the southwest. In fact, the Member for Arthur Virden (Mr. Maguire) was part of that delegation. We do take very seriously our obligation to meet and talk to all Manitobans. and we have done that in regard to groups in southwest Manitoba. Flooding Agricultural Disaster Assistance Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): I would like to ask the Premier why he and his government have not taken any actions at all.

When the Swan River flood was on in 19 88, when the fires in the Interlake were on in 19 88-89 and when the '97 flood was on, the Province of Manitoba made a decision. Why has this premier failed to recognize the disaster that happened in 19 99, and why has he and his Cabi net not made a decision to support those families that are still suffering and suffering severely because of those floods? When will he stop blaming the federal government for not being partners? * (13: 55) Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Highways and Government Services): I am very disappointed, once again, at that member opposite who, in his

preamble to his question, put on the record a number of incorrect statements. First of all, southwest Manitoba has been declared a disaster by the provincial government. That has in fact been confirmed by the federal government. What has happened is, despite the fact that the Province of Manitoba has put in $70 million, $20 million of which is 1 00-cent dollars, we have seen the federal government refuse to act on the DF AA designation beyond the $23 million that is there for damage to property.

The fault lies not with the prov incial govern ment but with the federal government that has not gone as far as they did in 19 97, the Red River. Rural Recovery Coalition Meeting Request Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): I find it very interesting that the Premier will not get up and answer questions on this very fundamental and important question. the livelihood of th� peeple of his province. Will the Premier confir m to this Legislature that he is going to be part of the delegation or the Cabi net that is going to meet with these people, and is he going to give them an answer?

Regardless of the outcome of discussions in Ottawa or in eastern Canada today when the ministers meet, is he going to assure these people that Manitoba will come to the table and that Manitoba will provide funding for those people in the southwest? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): There are about four questions in the statements made by the Member opposite. Will I be at the meeting? I believe, if I am not mistaken, that last Thursday the Member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Maguire) asked the same question in the House, and I believe I affi rmed that I would be there.

I believe we are scheduled to meet today, if I am not mistaken. at five o'clock, and I will be at the meeting with the Minister responsible for disaster assistance. I also believe that the Member opposite asked the question would we be at the table. Manitoba has been at the table, and I think it is important to note that. Thirdly, I have raised this with the Prime Minister; the Minister has raised it with the federal Defence Minister. The Cons ervative Member for Brandon-Souris has raised it with Mr. Eggleton. In committee, Mr. Eggleton gave the Conservative member, Mr. Borotsik, an

July 4, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3445 answer in a negative answer. He would not provide any more funding. The Member for Brandon-Souris, I believe, if I recall Hansard, asked would it be under the 90- 10 formula. The federal Defence Minister said no to the Conservative Member of Parliament. Then he asked him, Mr. Speaker, would there be anything available under the 50-50 program. The Conservative Member for Brandon-Souris asked the federal Defence Minister; the Liber al federal Defence Minister answered no. So I think it is- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker, we believe in a national disaster assistance program. We believe that people in southwest Manitoba should be treated in the same way as the people in the Saguenay and the people in the Peace River, the people in the ice storm in Ontario and Quebec, and I hope our voices can be united that the federal govern ment cannot have a federal disaster assistance program unless southwest Manitoba is treated the same way as people are treated in Quebec and Ontario. Minister Responsible for Gaming Control Act Conflict of Interest Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr.

Speaker. we notice whenever a government has something to hide, they put out a press release during Question Period. We just received a copy of a news release in which the Premier now has had the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Mr. Lemieux) relieved of his responsibility for gaming as this side of the House has been asking for for weeks. * (1 4:00) Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier to confirm that the legal advice he in fact received was such that the Minister was in violation of the conflict-of-interest legislation. Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, the legal advice we had received, the advice certainly has been that the Minister, and I have made this statement in the House bef ore, was not in a conflict of interest. Mr. Praznik: If the Premier has in fact received that advice, as he now tells the House, we would ask him to put his words where his mouth is and table that advice to this Legislature. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the independent committee was an arm's-length independent body from the Minister, made the recommen dations on sites. They were clearly recommen dations made by Mr. Nadeau and Mr. Freedman independent of the Government.

I think it is very important. I believe strongly that the Min ister was not in a conflict of interest. I also know that the allegations of conflict have-[interjection} Members opposite have no difficulty in smearing individuals, but members opposite should know- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The request for the change in assignment came as a result of the Minister and his spouse discussing the impact that the allegations were having on her business as a lawyer.

I certainly honoured the Minister's recommendation to me. but I am confident that the Minister has always, always, always exercised his duties as a Cabinet minister of this government completely in compliance with the conflict-of-interest laws of Manitoba. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, given that this minister had been assigned to negotiate those contracts, which is not the issue the Premier skates around, I would ask the Minister again, for the sake of everyone concerned. He said to this House he has a legal opinion. Why is he hiding it?

Why will he not table that legal opinion that, just a few minutes ago, he admitted to all Manitobans he had? Point of Order Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am just surprised the Member reiterated that question. I am sure it is well known to him that you cannot ask for a legal opinion to be tabled in this House. That is contrary to a long-established convention and tradition in this House and, as well, the rules of parliament.

3446 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 2000 Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne is very clear that Question Period is about seeking of information, not about opinions. Beauchesne's Citation 408 says "questions should ... not require an answer involving a legal opinion. Citation 409 says a question asked "ought to seek information and, therefore, cannot be based upon a hypothesis, cannot seek an opinion, either legal or otherwise." Then Beauchesne's Citation 410 says "Questions should not seek a legal opinion or inquire as to what legal advice a Minister has received." The rules are clear. Mr.

Speaker: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet, on the same point of order. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker. this is a case where the First Minister (Mr. Doer) of this province has just told the people that he had legal advice that his minister was not in violation of

an act. We have asked him very simply to table that information, to provide it to the people of Manitoba, to say very clearly that the Premier is in fact telling us the truth. If the Premier is not prepared to do that then let him say that to this House. But to say that it is not within the rules of this House for a Cabinet minister, the First Minister, to be asked to table a legal opinion he says that he has that apparently tells us that his minister was not in conflict after his minister has now resigned is preposterous and not within the rule that the Government House Leader has brought out. Mr.

Speaker, I would ask you to look at this very carefully and canvass all the authorities before you rule. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Minister of Health, on the same point of order? With new information? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker. on the same point of order. The Member was wrong in three statements he made during the course of his diatribe. First he denied the fact that it was a rule in this House that dealt with that. Secondly, he said that the Premier said he had a legal opinion; the Premier did not say that.

Thirdly, he said that the Minister resigned, which is not in fact factually correct. I think if the Member is going to try to argue points of order, he should at least try to argue the points of order factually. Mr. Speaker: Order. The Honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on the same point of order. Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Opposition House Leader): I can see damage control in this House happening in a big-time way here. Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to peruse Hansard. I think once you peruse Hansard you will see clearly what the First Minister put on the record.

It was very clear that he said he had received legal advice. I would ask you, before ruling on this point of order. that you peruse Hansard to see exactly what the First Minister did say. Mr. Speaker: Order. On the point of order raised by the Honourable Government House Leader. I thank all members for their advice. I will take the matter under advisement to peruse Hansard and consult the procedural authorities. and I will report back to the House. *** Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker.

I recall, I think it was. going by memory, the former Minister of Finance moved a file from Linnet Graphics from one person to another. one Cabinet minister to another. I recall also that the Member opposite did not move the golden share until a later Cabinet shuffle. Mr. Speaker, this was a decision made by the Minister and his spouse in a recommendation to me. I challenged members opposite to utilize

section 20 if they felt that there were any decisions that the Minister made that were wrong. I said last week, and I will say this week, that the Minister has always, always followed the advice and followed the law of conflict of interest. Members opposite disagree. They have the recourse of

section 20. This minister has practised an independent process with the appointment of Mr. Nadeau and Mr. Freedman. He has done an exemplary job. It is very unfortunate, I believe, that his wife has been drawn in by members opposite. I regret that. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet, on a new question.

July 4, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3447 Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, on a new question to the First Minister. It is important that the First Minister set a tone for his Cabinet. I want to ask the First Minister a very simple question. Is the First Minister fully aware that within his government there is an outside counsel who is available to all Cabinet ministers and MLAs to seek advice on any potential conflict of interest? If he is aware of that, I want to ask him why he did not have his minister seek that consultation on this particular issue. Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker, I say to the Member opposite that, if he believed last week on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday there was any violation of The Conflict of Interest Act in Manitoba, he could have used

section 20. He did not because he cannot. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I have to ask this premier, given that he is the First Minister, he is in charge of his Cabinet, why he did not ask his minister to seek that advice that is available to all members of Cabinet, and is this the kind of standard that he is setting for the future? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the Minister and his spouse, having gone through the allegations and what I would consider, not he. smearing from members opposite, decided to ask for a change in the file. even though there was never a conflict of interest for that minister.

I am proud of the work he has done. and I regret the allegations have affected his family. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet, on a new question. * (14:10) Mr. Praznik: It is unfortunate for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lemieux) that the Premier (Mr. Doer) has put him in this position, because, Mr. Speaker, the Premier could very easily have had this matter dealt with several weeks ago, to no one's embarrassment and pressure, if he would have simply used the lawyer that is available to all of us.

I want to ask the Premier: Why would he not have availed himself of that particular service, and if he did, if he now says he is, will he make that report available to all members? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I recall when the matter of the golden share was being debated in this House, I do not think I saw a golden legal opinion tabled in this Chamber, because- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: And maybe, Mr. Speaker, stock options will be a matter in the future in this House, given the new standard established by members opposite. First Nations Casinos Public Consultations Mr.

Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker, the recent poll finds that two-thirds of Manitobans oppose this government's aboriginal casino plans. The pollster indicated there was a substantial "level of deep-rooted opposition to the Government's proposal." Given this high disapproval rate and the Government's complete mishandling of this issue, the need for public consultations on expansion of gaming is crjtical and long overdue. Mr.

Speaker, will the Minister responsible for gaming, whoever that may now be, define what this government considers to be an adequate level of public consultation with affected communities before any casino project will be allowed to proceed? Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I remember the same polling company finding I think the number was 51 percent of people did not believe the 50-50 plan of members opposite. Even Tories did not believe the 50-50 plan. One of the- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order.

I would like to remind all honourable members again of Beauchesne's Citation 168: When rising to preserve order or to give a ruling, the Speaker must always be heard in silence.

3448 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 2000 I would ask the co-operation of all honour able members. Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is that many of the promises and commitments we made in the election campaign we are following through on. We believe, over a number of issues, some of them popular, some of them unpopular, over the long run. if we make a promise and we keep a promise. there will be credibility with those that are responsible in government to keeping our promises to the people. That is our long-term goal.

We made a commitment in the election campaign, and unlike members opposite, we are going to keep that commitment. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. Speaker's Ruling Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling for the House. During Oral Questions on June 21, 2000, I took under advisement a point of order raised by the Honourable Government House Leader (Mr. Mackintosh) concerning the use of the word "hypocrite" by the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) while addressing a question to the Honourable First Minister (Mr. Doer).

The Honourable Government House Leader expressed the view that the word was unparliamentary and requested that the word be withdrawn. The Official Opposition House Leader (Mr. Laurendeau) spoke to the point of order and indicated that the word was not out of order because it appeared on the list of parliamentary words contained in Beauchesne's Citation 490. The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet also spoke to the point of order. I took the matter under advisement in order to ascertain the precise words that were used and the context that the words were used.

I thank the honourable members for their contributions to the point of order. As I had ruled in the House on June 8, 12 and 19 of this year, a word is not in or out of order simply because of the appearance of the word on a list of parliamentary or unparliamentary terms. Much depends on the tone used, the context of the situation, and the amount of disorder generated. The guiding principle for Manitoba Speakers to primarily follow is Manitoba precedents in conjunction with the context of the usage of the word.

The words in question spoken by the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet were: "I ask him not to be a hypocrite." The word "hypocrite" has been the subject of interventions in the past by Manitoba Speakers. On April 29, 1993, the word "hypocrite" was voluntarily withdrawn after a point of order was raised. On June 23, 1993, Mr. Speaker Rocan directed that the word "hypocrite" be withdrawn, while on September 20, 1995, Madam Speaker Dacquay similarly ruled that the word "hypocrites" be withdrawn.

I would like to caution the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet that he had used the word "hypocrite" for a second time in speaking to the point of order that was raised. I would like to advise that it is not good parliamentary practice to be repeating language complained of when speaking to a point of order, especially when the language is the subject of the point of order.

Given that the word in question was directed at a specific member, and given that the word has been ruled unparliamentary by previous Manitoba Speakers, I would respectfully request that the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet withdraw the word. Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, I would withdraw that word. Mr. Speaker: I thank the Honourable Member. * (14:20) MEMBERS' STATEMENTS H. P. Tergesen & Sons Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on a Gimli business that has received numerous accolades over the last year for its remarkable longevity.

July 4, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3449 H. P. Tergesen & Sons has been in business since January 1, 1899, spanning 101 years and four generations. The store has been located in the same location on the comer of Centre Street and I st A venue. The building has been designated an historical site. This was not the only historical accolade that the business has received. Last year H. P. Tergesen & Sons was named one of Manitoba's century businesses by the Manitoba Historical Society. Hans Pjetur Tergesen, an Icelandic settler who arrived in Manitoba in 1887, founded this family business.

In time, he was joined by his sons, Joe and Robert, and the business added "& Sons" moniker. Over four generations, the Tergesen family owned and operated the store in one form or another. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Terry Tergesen; his wife, Lorna; their son, Stefan; and their late son, Soren, for their effort and vision to ensure that H. P. Tergesen & Sons remains an institution in the Gimli community. Thank you. Day-care Workers Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (St. James): Mr. Speaker, our government gave special recognition to day-care workers in its budget this year.

The Budget adopted a new funding model which enabled centres to improve salaries for early childhood educators, ·a move which demonstrates the respect we hold for these people. One day-care worker received special recognition in quite another way last week when the Governor General awarded him a medal of bravery. Ron Blatz, the director of the Discovery Children's Centre in my constituency of St. James, saved the life of a woman in very hazardous circumstances. He was skating at The Forks on Christmas Day, 1997, with his wife and three children, when he noticed that a woman had fallen through the ice.

Instinctively, and without any thought for his own safety, Mr. Blatz went to the rescue. He stretched out on the unstable ice and crawled forward to pull the woman out of the water while another Good Samaritan, Gordon Holloway, held him by the legs. Only after several tries did they succeed in rescuing the woman. "You just do it, " said Mr. Blatz afterwards, "you do not think about it until it is all over." His colleagues in early childhood education circles say he is the type of person you would always describe as just an all-round, really nice, good guy. On behalf of the caucus, I would like to congratulate Mr.

Blatz on his decoration for bravery. I know that all day-care workers have a selfless streak in them or they would not be in that profession. It is good to see that selflessness brought to the attention of all Canadians through this award. Thank you. Dr. George Dow Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to rise and put a few words on the record about a doctor in the community of Killarney who retired in the new year. The community has had a couple of celebrations. I just wanted to put on the record that Dr.

George Dow has retired after years of service to the Killarney and area community. A large group of community and former doctors that worked in the community attended a social evening in his honour. It was a very interesting story to hear the history of George Dow and his accomplishments, not only as a medical professional in the community of Killarney but also in his community services. He has been involved on school boards, town councils, has served as the mayor, was the chairman of the committee that built the new hospital in Killarney.

One of the comments that was made at his retirement recently was the fact that he is a vanishing breed in the province of Manitoba. Very, very rarely again, I think, we will see people of his calibre enter our communities and spend their entire lifetime offering health care and services to the people of the community and the surrounding community. It was of great note that the doctor with whom he opened his first practice in Killarney, when he came to

3450 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 2000 Killarney, returned home for the weekend from B. C., British Columbia, and told the stories of George and getting his first start into practice. I, too, on behalf of all the people of the constituency of Turtle Mountain, the town of Killarney-and I would think I would be safe in saying on behalf of all Manitobans-we just want to thank Dr. George Dow for his lifetime of service to the community and wish him and his wife, Ruth, all the continued good health and success in their future endeavours. Thank you. Flin Flon Constituency Events Mr.

Gerard Jennissen (Fiin Flon): Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, my wife, Lisa. and I were both honoured and pleased to participate on three separate days in the superbly organized celebrations in Flin Flon. Flin Flon's 50th annual Trout Festival coincided with the Year 2000 Homecoming. The population of the city almost doubled as an estimated 6000 visitors, many of them former residents, joined us in a weekend of joyous celebration.

There was a huge agenda of events, to name a few: Main Street Days events, Phantom Lake events, Beaver Lake Days events, Homecoming block parties, Millennium Madness Dance Party and Rock Revival, Bigger than the Bigger than Boxing Day Bash, numerous contests, including the Queen Mermaid Contest, two performances of the unique musical Bombertown, a wine and cheese party, a homecoming cabaret, a huge home coming social, a teen dance, a voyageur rendezvous, and much, much more. The Canada Day Parade was the biggest ever.

All kinds of records were broken as Flin Flon and the surrounding area hosted a giant party in the finest of traditions of northern hospitality. All of us had a great time. There were numerous games and events and entertainment for youngsters. There were endless barbecues and fish fries and singing and dancing. It was undoubtedly the largest party in the history of Flin Flon, and it was well deserved. We have many reasons to be thankful in the Flin Flon area. We live in one of the most scenic places in Canada. We are marching into a new millennium, and the future of our region appears secure.

Our people are industrious, creative and generous. We work hard, and we celebrate hard, too. An Honourable Member: And modest. Mr. Jennissen: Yes, and we are modest, too. Well done, Flin Flon. A big thank you to the hundreds and hundreds of volunteers who made Homecoming 2000 and the 50th annual Trout Festival such a smashing success. Trans Canada Trail Relay Mr. Frank Pitura (Morris): Mr. Speaker, would just like to draw the attention of all members to a series of landmark events that took place in the Morris constituency in the communities of St. Malo, St. Pierre-Jolys and Otterbume this past weekend.

What it encompassed was the welcoming of the Trans Canada Relay 2000 team and the carrying of the Arctic and Pacific Ocean water carriers coming into their communities. But what was really significant about the whole event is the dedication of that portion of the Trans Canada Trail, which is known as the Crow Wing Trail on that side of the river. This trail has a lot of history to it. As the development of the Red River settlement took place, the Metis and the Red River oxcarts used that trail to transport goods and services from the Red River settlement to St. Paul, Minnesota, and, in turn, brought goods back.

In fact, I think if you look into the history books, Louis Riel used that trail many times. I believe that after he was elected as an MP for Provencher, he had to make his way into the United States to avoid arrest by the arresting officers here in the Red River settlement. I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate all of the organizing committees for the three communities and the host of volunteers that were required to put an event like this together so that we could celebrate this historic occasion in that part of the province.

July 4, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3451 Mr. Speaker, just in summing up, this trail, your Crow Wing Trail, has a lot of historic significance for the province of Manitoba. I know that many individuals, when they are using the Trans Canada Trail for recreation purposes, will sense the history and be able to relive the history of this great province as they sojourn along this trail. Thank you. ORDERS OF THE DAY * (14:30) Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please call debate on second readings on Bill 46.

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 46-The Interim Appropriation Act, 2000 Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), Bill 46. The Interim Appropriation Act, 2000 (Loi de 2000 portant affectation anticipee de credits), standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Morris (Mr. Pitura), who has 15 minutes remaining, and also standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), who has 15 minutes remaining. Is there leave to keep it standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Morris? [Agreed} Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Mr.

Speaker, just to finish out my remarks, I guess what I would like to do is perhaps summarize what has been discussed throughout the past several days in regard to Bill 46. I think at the point where we finished I was talking about agriculture. We have a Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) who just fails to recognize the issues facing the southwest region and the other regions of the province who suffered from the immense moisture conditions.

It is sad that we have ministers of the new government who constantly stand and tout a position of understanding and consultation and recognizing situations and the issue and yet fail to act and fail to respond to those needs and even fail to recognize by meeting with the people, going to their communities and hearing some of their issues and some of their concerns. I think that is a sad day.

I think it reflects very poorly on a government, particularly a new government, that portrayed itself as a kind and caring and compassionate government that was going to go out and listen to the people and offer concrete solutions to some of the issues that they are facing. We all recognize government cannot be all and end all, but it certainly can be a big

part in a catastrophe situation that the people in southwest Manitoba have faced. In the government of the day we have an Education minister that in the dark of the night cut a deal with a small group of union representatives and brought forward a new bill into this House that I think and I believe they are going to find that there is huge opposition to, not only from this side of the House. The one thing that the Government failed to do. that the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) failed to do, was to go out and consult with the taxpayers. He has cut a small deal.

I challenged him in the House the other day, and I will do it again. If one of the members opposite can produce any election campaign material that said that they were going to repeal this bill, that they campaigned on this issue, I would like to see it, because we have been unable to find that type of information. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the deal was made in the dark of the night and is being foisted upon the people of the province of Manitoba unbeknownst to them.

The message I am hearing from the communities that I represent and have visited is the fact that there will be strong opposition to this. It will not be from this side of the House necessarily, but from the taxpayers of Manitoba. Again, going down the list of failed opportunities, as much as anything, we have the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Lathlin), who talks about open consultation, talks about going out and meeting with the people and talking about the opportunities that people will have to put forward their ideas on the new bills that he is representing, goes as far, Mr.

Speaker, as organizing consultation meetings, sets the dates.

3452 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 2000 We probably should find out if the halls were booked and paid for or just booked and the advertisements done, because the message certainly was clear to the people of Manitoba that they would be consulted and they would have an opportunity to speak on these issues. Then what does the Minister of Conser vation (Mr. Lathlin) do?

Again, in the middle of the night, like many things done on the opposite side, he recognized that there was opposition to what he was doing, and rather than go out and face the public, hear their concerns and work to resolve the issues, he cancels the meetings. Again, is this the type of government that the people of Manitoba voted for? I suspect not. We have a Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak), Mr. Speaker, who made several promises during the campaign. Several of those campaign promises have been broken. and we have brought that to light and put it on the record.

But, again, I think the biggest failing of this government and its ministers, and it is recognized, I think, particularly again by the Minister of Conservation, the Minister of Health. is that they failed to go out and talk to the people that their policies are impacting the most. We have a minister who has got a board appointed in southwest Manitoba and fails to meet with them. They have made several requests, numerous requests, I am told, and the Minister ignores their pleas. They are facing severe budget restrictions this year, Mr.

Speaker, and I think they want to have the ear of the Minister to discuss some of these issues. Again, he seems to duck the issues, but not only that, he hides behind the mask that he is in legislation, the Legislature is sitting and he cannot get away. Well, we have been kind enough on this side, Mr. Speaker, to offer those opportunities to him. I spoke with several members of the board this weekend and explained our position, that if the Minister was prepared to go out and meet with them-1 would offer to them, too, that they suggested that they would come in here if the Minister is too busy to travel.

I said that we would certainly, on this side of the House, make the necessary arrangements possible so that he could meet with them. This is a group of people that are delivering health care to a large population in rural Manitoba, and they are being ignored by the Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak). Again, I think that is very reflective of what the Govern ment of the day is putting forward. They are a government that is afraid to go out and meet the people. They are afraid to go out and talk to the people because they will hear the truth.

They will hear not what their spin doctors are putting in front of them, but they will hear the actual truth of what the impacts of their policies are, how they are impacting the people in Manitoba. They may not like the news. That is the very, very difficult part of being government, is not bowing down to self-serving special interest groups which they have done on a continuous basis but to go out and represent the larger population in the province of Manitoba, the population that demands and deserves the same type of health care that is being provided to people throughout the province. Another example. Mr.

Speaker,-and 1t 1s amazing as I make this list and I talk about the ministers and some of their behaviour, it certainly becomes evident that there is a pattern here: Call a meeting; cancel the meeting; do not meet with people; do not talk to people; do not go out and consult; do not go out and discuss the issues with the people that the policies are impacting; sit in your ivory towers and write your policies. Yes, with the majority that you have, you will be able to implement them, but, again, I think you are totally neglecting the people of the province of Manitoba and their concerns.

I hate to keep bringing it up, Mr. Speaker, but another issue which to some extent today was resolved, the issue of the casinos. The new Government of Manitoba in September and August campaigned the election on health care. Everyone in this House knows it. My colleagues know it. The members opposite know it. What was the first priority after becoming elected, after the Cabinet was sworn in on October 5? What was the first priority of this group of people? Let us build casinos in the province of Manitoba. Tripling the number of casinos in the province of Manitoba was their first and foremost priority.

July 4, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3453 The people of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, are disgusted with this type of performance. They have seen it time and time and time again. We talk about the casino issue and what was brought to light today. The Premier (Mr. Doer) of Manitoba puts the former minister of Gaming in a predicament where he has to offer his resignation. It is unthinkable that a premier or a leader of any party would put a member in such a position.

I feel compassion for the former minister responsible for gaming, because I think that had he been given the right information at the time, he probably would have sought the information himself, but I think he was dealing with bad information and bad advice from his caucus and from his leader. Stay quiet on it; do not say anything; this, too, will pass and the people will ignore it. Mr.

Speaker, it is a very sad day today that we have a minister who has to resign part of his responsibilities because of the position that his Premier and this government have put him in, but it is not unlike the entire approach of this government. They move forward without fore thought, without thinking, without a plan. Every thing that we have discussed since this Legislature has opened has been trying to determine the plan of the Government, and they have none.

They talk about, well, it is in the next stage, it is in the next stage, it is in the next stage, and the people of Manitoba, although willing to give them the time to prove them selves, are starting to become leery and are starting to become weary of the fact that the information is not going out to them the way it should, not the way it has in the past, and they are very concerned that many of these issues are going to be brushed over and forgotten about, and I think that is bad. * (14:40) What does it all boil down to, Mr. Speaker?

We have Agriculture, we have Education, we have Conservation, we have Health, we have gambling, we have casinos, we have a leadership crisis in the province of Manitoba, and it starts right at the Premier's chair. He has allowed these ministers to go out on their own without thought or without direction, and he has failed the people of Manitoba. He has put people into positions that are untenable, and it is something that as we gaze into the crystal ball and look into the future, we can only see more opportunities for failure on the government side.

We can only see more opportunities for ministers to present themselves to the public of Manitoba for what they truly are and what they truly represent. It is a sad statement that this has gotten to this point, and I think that, unfortunately, what we have seen today is probably just the start of things to come.

As I said earlier, I have com passion for the Minister. the former minister of gaming and his family, because I do not think any minister should have been put in that position, and I do not think any minister should have been put in that position by a premier or by a leader who thought that the public would just close their eyes and ignore these issues. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you this opposition is going to challenge this government on every move that they make. We are going to expose to the public every poorly laid plan that they have out there.

In fact, it may be hard to uncover the poorly laid plans, because what we have found day in and day out is that this government does not have a plan. What they do is they respond to the self-serving interest groups that they represent on a one-off basis, and when you do that and when you continue to do that, they will find out that it will fail. A government of the province of Manitoba has to govern for the people of the province of Manitoba. not for the individual groups that each one of them brings to the table and represents. With that, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to close just by saying that I look forward to the next few years with this government as they continue to move forward and offer no new alternatives to the province of Manitoba, and we will hold them accountable every step of the way. Thank you. Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add a few words and comments to this important debate in this Chamber today.

Today we witnessed what was for, I am sure, the individual minister involved a very difficult day in which he had to resign, the first minister of the Doer government to tender a resignation over an issue of conflict, and I am sure it was very d;fficult for him.

3454 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 2000 Mr. Speaker, what that event was indicative of is a deeper problem within this government, and that is its lack of respect for Manitobans, for democratic institutions, for the law that it has demonstrated. The real shame of it for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lemieux) having to tender that resignation to the Premier for the gaming area was that it need never have happened if the Premier of this province had been doing the right thing in the first place.

That resignation was the result of sloppiness on the part of the First Minister, and, you know, it is a very interesting thing when you dissect it. It is all about we do not do any wrong, spin, spin, spin. We are perfect. We are politically perfect, and my goodness we can never admit to Manitobans that we made mistakes. Well, I wiii tell you, Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Conservative Party, we know that our party has made mistakes. We know what happened in the Interlake back in 19 95 was wrong, and we have accepted that responsibility.

We took action against the individuals who were responsible for it, and, yes, we are embarrassed by it as a party and should be. But when we look at members opposite, when we look at this administration, we see a government so caught up in control of information and spin that it is prepared to sacrifice doing the right thing, even the cautious thing, even prepared to sacrifice the law of this province for saving some spin. Let us just look at how this resignation took place today. Did this press release get issued in the morning? No, it got issued during Question Period.

What a great time to hide it from questions that day. I mean, just to look at the spin doctors in the Premier's Office, like somehow this is going to be hidden. Even how they released the information of a minister's resignation, they had to try to hide it again by putting it out during Question Period. Mr. Speaker, in the resignation itself, the Minister says for personal reasons. Well, I am not going to challenge him on that, but I am sure that this past weekend the Premier (Mr. Doer) and his spinners finally said, you know, we had better check with a lawyer.

We had better actually ask some of the Legislative Counsel if there is a problem here. I am sure, and I would speculate that that is what happened. On Friday or over the long weekend, the Premier and his staff did a little checking and were told what we recognized when we read the Act. It was not a point that the Minister's spouse was not working on casino issues or that the Minister had not yet made a decision on them or that he had filed under The Conflict of Interest Act that his spouse was a lawyer. Those were not the issues.

The real issue was the Act, and the Act said very, very clearly that the Minister could not act where a dependent-[interjection] The Minister of Family Services (Mr. Sale) talks about

section 20, and I am going to get to that in a moment because he should be ashamed. He should be ashamed that the people of Manitoba have to rely on

section 20 because his own leader will not do the right thing and still is hiding to this day. Mr. Speaker, so here is the Act. It says very clearly that if you are acting with an outside interest and your spouse is employed by that interest, you have to refrain from doing it. That is what the Act says. and the Minister admitted that was the situation and those were the facts. The Premier (Mr.

Doer) even today somehow insisted that he was not in breach of the Act because he never read it. never read it, and all of his answers to questions in this House would certainly make any observer say that the Premier had not read it or was trying to deny it. So what do we think? What did the public see today?

What they see is probably over the weekend the Premier finally chatted with some one in authority who understood the Act, had a strong sense that they were in big trouble and this was about damage control, and you know the shame of it is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is a new minister in this House, and, as we have said over and over again, and I as someone who has worked with his spouse, they are honourable people. Nobody has accused them of doing anything untoward but that they have been in breach of the Act. This could have been easily dealt with by this Premier (Mr.

Doer) a week or two weeks ago if this Premier had just done what is available to every MLA in their own circum stances. consulted with the outside counsel that is made available to all of us. The facts could have been put to that counsel. They would have

July 4, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3455 had a legal opinion. If the Minister had come back and said, you know, we have checked with our lawyers, and, yes, there is a potential problem here, and I am asking to step aside fr om this portf olio, we would have hailed him fo r doing the right thing, and, you know what, no blemish on his career. But, no, the Premier of this province, just stubborn and arrogant, dug in and said, no, no, no.

Then today, in the House, we hear, well, we have consulted with the legal authorities, but we will never table that, because it probably confirms what I am suggesting here today, that when the Government finally got a legal opinion, it was very, very clear that they were in trouble, and this was about damage control, right down to spinning out the news release during Question Period so they would not have to fa ce questions about it today. The Member fo r Fort Rouge (Mr. Sale) talked about using

section

Section 20 is there when you have a stubborn government who ref uses to do its own work, and that is what we now have. You know, Mr. Speaker, every single MLA and Cabinet minister, by simply picking up the phone and speaking to Shirley Strutt, can get the name of an outside counsel, who for no charge to that individual minister and member will review the fa cts and provide them with a confidential legal opinion, with a course of action.

Even if the Minister or MLA made a mistake fo llowing that opinion-opinions are not always the be-all and end-all-they could say, well, listen, I took the proper step ; I consulted with that outside lawyer and I am fo llowing the advice that was given. * (1 4:50) You know what? I think the public and this House would accept that, but it takes the step, the first step of a Cabinet minister and an MLA to go down and do the right thing, pick up the phone, speak to Shirley Strutt and get the opinion. What did we have here?

A minister who would not do it, I suspect being told by the Premier's Of fice not to do it, and a premier who refused to have it done. Well, Mr. Speaker, their reply is, well, you can go and do it under

section 20. So what does that say to Manitobans? That Gary Doer, the First Minister, really, quite fr ankly, will never check on conflict of interest. He will not be cautious. He will not use that lawyer. He will not instruct his ministers or MLAs to do it, because the Premier is always right, he tells us. He knows, but he will not table an opinion. So, Mr. Speaker, that is what is so horrific about this, is that the First Minister is setting a tone that he will not be cautious in cases of possible conflict.

He will not check and use such a simple, confidential procedure as the one that has been provided fo r years in this House. That is really the crime here. That is really the shame. That is really the insult to Manitobans, is that they will not use that counsel to check. That is what speaks volumes about this Premier and this administration. Then, Mr. Speaker, we go a little fu rther. We go to how does this government deal with freedom of inf ormation, a party that in opposi tion cried out for greater fr eedom of inf ormation, cried out for a privacy commissioner? The Member fo r Lord Roberts (Ms.

McGiff ord), then the member for Osborne, day aier day in this House said we need a privacy commissioner who can clamp down when there are abuses, when government does not provide the inf ormation, who will have teeth to punish. Well, you know, I understand her commen ts better today. She knew herself and her own colleagues. They would need to have that heavy hammer over their head to do the right thing. That is why she wanted it. Now I understand, Mr. Speaker. So what do we see?

Manitobans are treated to the spectacle last week of the First Minister getting up in this House, not even really knowing that his own staff, his most senior staff, were in violation of the law. Then, when he learned about it, what did he say? Well, his staff, they said: The problem is not with us breaking the law; the problem is with the law. Well, is that not interesting. So what does that say to us? If we do not like a piece of legislation that their government passes, we can break it. We do not have to fo llow it because the problem is not with us breaking the law; the problem is with the law.

Does that mean that any hog producer out there who does not like the environmental regulations can break it, because the problem is not breaking the law; the problem is the law? This is the new

3456 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 2000 standard that the Premier of Manitoba and his senior staf f are taking. Again in this House, when he was ques tioned about this, the First Minister, well, he got very def ensive. He did not know about it. He sort of hemmed and hawed. Then he walked out of this Chamber, got a microphone put in front of his fa ce, and what was the first thing he said? I am taking steps to make sure this does not happen again. Okay, fine. So we come into the House the next day, and we ask him a simple question. What step s are you taking?

Well, I am not really taking any now, he says. There is no microphone in front of me. The media are not hounding me; I do not have to do anything. My people are right. What is this, Mr. Speaker? What is this? Is this a premier who is going to set a standard and strive to keep it a high standard, or is this a prem ier who is going to spin, spin, spin? Well, we should not be surpri sed that the architect of the now slogan of this government-the problem is not with breaking law, it is with the law-is the chief communicator, the chief press secretary to the Premier.

Well, has the Premier done any thing to reprimand him or his Clerk of the Executive Council who was involved in this? Has he put a letter of reprimand on their file? Has he disciplined them in any way? Not at all. Not at all, Mr. Speaker, because in the world of this Premier, it is the spin that is right. There is no other right or wrong. That is the message that they are sending to Manitobans. That is the message. Now today, we saw it happen again. The Leader of the Liberal Party, the Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard), asked a very good question in this House.

He said, under the law, upon receipt of the report of the Chief Electoral Officer, the Government is obliged under the law within 60 days to call a committee to hear the report. It is a right of every one of the members of this Legislature to have the law respected by the Government. As the Member for River Heights pointed out, today was the 67th day, and he asked why was the Committee not being called. Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair Well, you know, the Premier (Mr. Doer) could have got up and very easily said an oversight on our part. We are a new administration, we are busy, lots going on.

It is an oversight. We will have a committee called by the end of today. You know what? There would not have been an issue. But what does the Premier say? Well, we do not have to obey the law again, because we are bringing in some changes on our own. We do not have to obey the law, because it is not the way we want to do things. That is what the First Minister said. Well, we do not have to call it. We have a bill bef ore the House, so we do not really have to have the report. Besides, you did not take his recommen dations fr om previous years. Well, what does that have to do with it, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Recommendations are there. They come to the Committee. They can be accepted or rejected, but they came to the Committee under the law. So, even if this committee was called together and it had no recommendations, or it did not accept the recommendations, at least it was acting within the law, and the rights of every member of this Assembly who sits on that committee to speak to those recommendations would have been respected. but heavens to Betsy, the Premier would actually want those rights respected. So we are-[interjection] Well, the Member for Brandon West (Mr. Smith) says you can go and challenge it under

section 20. Well, for his edification, I just want to remind him again that

section 20 is there to protect the people against a premier who will not do the right thing. It is there to protect the public when you have a dictatorial government who will not do the right thing, that they can be dragged kicking and screaming into court when they should have done it on their own. The Member fo r Brandon West who, again, is new to this House should just realize how easy it is fo r him or myself or any member of the Cabinet or any member of this Legislature just to check. You pick up the phone and call Shirley Strutt, and she gives you the name of the independent counsel.

You run the issue by them, and they provide you with a written opinion. It takes three, fo ur, five days. That is all, a very simple and easy proc ess. But the Member fo r

July 4, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3457 Brandon West says: We will not do that. You have to drag us into court. Citizens cannot expect this government to actually check on themselves. Drag us into court. Well, you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would suggest that the new members of that party, they do not have to listen to me. Listen to the Member fo r Thompson (Mr. Ashton). I learned a great deal from that member in my years in the House. He always reminded me that if you may be a bit wrong or you are accused of being wrong, just check. It does not cost anything.

If you are, just admit it and take the right steps. It is always easier than being dragged fo rward until finally what was a relatively small issue becomes a big issue. You know what? This is a classic case. The Minister of Consumer and Corpor ate Affairs (Mr. Lemieux) and the Premier (Mr. Doer) who were fa ced with this issue some weeks ago could have easily dealt with it if they had gone and got an opinion. In fac t, we went to the Committee and we said that to the Minister.

We said to him that we understood, we were not accusing him of pocketing money or any of those things, but we said to him, just go get the opinion. If it says there is not a problem, we will respect that. If there is, he will take the ap propriate corrective action, issue over. * (15:00) But they would not, and he would not I susp ect-! think he wanted to. I think he wanted to do the right thing, but the spinners in the Premier's Of fice, we can never admit we are wrong, and dragged the thing on and dragged it on until damage control. Well, he should be thankful.

At least he is out now because we were going to pursue

section 20. We would have been going to court, and the first decision would have been a judge ordering it to a hearing. The Government would have had a very bad story that day as it said: Judge orders hearing. That would have been the headline, and then they would have had the hearing. Point of Order Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Family Services and Housing): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure we are all enjoying this ramble by the Member opposite, but the matter under debate is the question of Supply and the Budget.

The Member at least occasionally might pay ref erence to the subject he is debating at the present time which is not conflict of interest, it is not aboriginal gaming, it is not anything to do with the change in respo nsibilities. So I would ask you to ask him if he could at least be momentarily relevant to the matter under debate. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am glad that the Member fo r Fort Rouge (Mr. Sale) is enjoying my comments, although I suspect deep down he really is not. But I want to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what I am saying is highly relevant.

This government is coming to this House for a vote of Supply. This House has a right to debate and discuss the demeanour of the Government, the way in which the Government acts, the arrogance of this government. We have a right to discuss how this government operates, because if we do not think it is fit to govern, I as a member of this House have a right to vote against its Supp ly, so what I am speaking about is absolutely relevant to whether or not we should be voting the Supply. Mr.

Deputy Speaker: On the matter raised on the issue of relevance, normally we may have some leeway, but at least the Member should touch on the financial aspects of the issue. *** Mr. Praznik: I will. Any government that behaves this way is not worthy of the Supply granted by this Legislature. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am attempting to demonstrate that this govern ment is not worthy of having these dollars voted to them. I keep hearing members opposite saying, why not use

section 20 in a smear campaign? I want to say very clearly here that no one on this side of the House accused the Minister or his spouse of gaining any benefit out of this. In fa ct, I would be the first to def end him. I know, I got to know the Minister. I have worked with his spouse. They are honourable people. His spouse is one of the best land claims lawyers in the province of Manitoba. What we

3458 LEGISL ATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 2000 accused them of is on a reading of the Act of being in breach of the provisions with respect to spouses and indirect pecuniary interests. The Act is there. It is the law of the province. Quite frankly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the whole incident would have been ended if the First Minister (Mr. Doer) had just done the right thing and got the legal opinion. It was members opposite who have inflicted great personal pain on the family of their colleague, because they would not do the right thing because they were too stubborn and too arrogant to do the right thing.

That is the reputation that they will come to be held for, that is the reputation that they will come to be known for. That is the real shame. So here we have it. We have the breach of The Conflict of Interest Act, we have the breach of The Freedom of Information Act, we have a breach of The Elections Act with respect to the calling of the comm ittee, and we have a premier who just simply will not get up and say we have made a few mistakes here, we are going to correct them. Oh, no, this premier can do no wrong. This premier is Mr. Perfect in his own eyes-and there go the clapping members.

But some of their colleagues know what went on last week, some of the veterans who have been here before who saw this party suffer some of the same pains whenever we failed to admit we were wrong when we were wrong. That is the lesson to all of us, because all governments are not perf ect, all governments make mistakes. But the question is when you make them, are you prepared to discuss them, admit them and take the corrective action? That is the real issue. What the Premier has proven in the last few weeks is that he is not capable of admitting a mistake. He is not capable of taking corrective action.

He is not capable of doing anything else than digging himself in and being stubborn and arrogant. Who paid the price for it? The Member for La Verendrye (Mr. Lemieux) and his family, they paid the price for it. They paid the price on what could have been a relatively small matter. I will tell you I am actually pleased that the Minister got out when he did because when we had filed

section 20, and members often talk about it-[interjection] The Member says we would not do it. Well, I say to the Member for Dauphin-Roblin (Mr. Struthers) that the Act provides for an application. One has to obtain counsel, one has to prepare that application. We are in the process this week of doing that. We have even had discussions with the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gerrard), because he believed how important it was as well. Do you know what?

I think why we had this happen today-and, again, this comes back to the demeanour of the Government who is asking for Supply of this House; it comes back to the demeanour. I think why we saw the events of today was pure damage control. They finally checked with a lawyer because, you know what, we were already hearing from the lawyers within government who were already whispering to us that they knew that the Minister had a problem. They knew, so maybe this premier opened his ear just enough to hear those whispers. They realized that we would go forward with a

section 20, and it may be joined by the Liberal Party, so now you have two parties taking them on. You would have had the first judge's decision, which would have ordered a hearing, so you would have had one big bad headline saying minister ordered to hearing. Then you would have had the hearing. Then you would have had a decision against the Minister. * (15:10 ) At that point, it simply would not have been a matter of giving up the responsibility for gaming. At that point, that minister would have had to resign as a member of the Executive Council.

Because at that point, it would have been demonstrated how bad his judgment was and the judgment of the Premier (Mr. Doer) not to have even checked this. It would not have been a matter of simply giving up responsibility as the Act required; it would have been a matter of leaving Cabinet. So I am glad that-[interjection] Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is the Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) who has the floor. Mr. Praznik: Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am glad because I am sure that minister has been

July 4, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3459 following the advice of his Premier's Office and the spinners on what to do, and he has learned a very hard lesson. This is a lesson that every rookie in that caucus should learn, too: that when you are serving a premier whose spin is more important, who is not prepared to do the right thing, you will be the one who is sacrificed, not him. You will be the one who is sacrificed, not him, and that is the lesson for the rookies who get up today like pawns to defend their Premier in the hope of a Cabinet portfolio no doubt.

We see it today, you know, members getting up to defend the Premier when the Premier was wrong. Part of that please-put-me-into-Cabinet routine. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to use the few minutes remaining to me to make a few comments about health. Because I know the Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) has, in Estimates debate, suggested that perhaps I might want to join the Estimates at some point to have some discussion with him. I am certainly looking forward to the chance to do that. I would say to him just a few observations.

He was very critical of, I think, my criticisms of his announcements with respect to the heart program. I just want to say that my concern with that announcement with respect to the heart program was that Dr. Brian Post!, who served the Winnipeg Hospital Authority, was appointed to his then-position as head of medical services when I was minister, sat in my office on numerous occasions and made the very strong argument for one program, one site.

In fact, we brought him to Cabinet and he made that recommendation with his program team, not him alone, with his program team, in consultation with the various providers of that service, with not only the physicians but the nurses, the allied health workers on his team. He came and made that presentation to Cabinet, just as it was his recommendation with respect to the changes at Misericordia.

We accepted them because they were based on the premise of doing what is best for health care delivery in the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba and not on the politics within the hospital system that provides that health care. Now, what is interesting is during the election campaign, we understand that the New Democratic Party candidate in St. Boniface, now the MLA for that area, promised heart surgery would return to St. Boniface. After the election, it is obvious work was done to then change that proposal of Dr. Post!. Of course, Dr.

Post! now comes up with, well, a few of these things change and are positive, but the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) would not have known that when he made the promise back during the election campaign. So it is very evident that the Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) and the Government made a decision based on the politics of the Winnipeg hospital system and of St. Boniface, rather than what is best for health care. That is my criticism. Now, if Dr.

Post! is comfortable in working under a minister and a government who would rather deal with the politics within the Winnipeg hospital system than what is best for health care, then so be it, but I am very disappointed in Dr. Post!. He is not the individual I thought he was. What is interesting is he seems to have distanced himself now from that argument. He said very clearly to the media it was a political decision. He did mention that the fact that St. Boniface is buying this program for $6 million is part of it. So it is obvious what has happened here, a political decision, St.

Boniface buying the program with $6 million, and the Government going along with it. If that is what the Government is comfortable with, that is fine. Manitobans will pay the price for it in the long run, but I just say this to the Minister of Health, one bit of advice from someone who has been there. That is, at the end of the day, the politics within the Winnipeg hospital system will bring down whatever he wants to do. It will bring it down. At some point, if members truly believe in a public health care system that is publicly administered, they are going to have to come to grips with that issue. We tried.

We were not as successful at it as I would have liked. I admit that. Yes, there are a lot of interests there that work against it, but this government has now sent a signal to every other board of directors in

3460 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 2000 the city that services are for sale, that this government is prepared to deal in politics, not health care. Although the Minister will take his credits from the Grey Nuns and the people at St. Boniface and their board of directors, every other hospital facility now knows that the decisions made by this minister are based on politics. If they can come to the door with a piece of cash to buy what they want, his door is open. What is best for health care delivery in Winnipeg is only secondary.

I do not believe that this Minister of Health is entirely comfortable with this. I think he understands that, but, again, I think his Premier, his calling from St. Boniface, and the politics of the moment have led to this course of decision. Time will tell, but the signal sent to everyone else is that health care in the City of Winnipeg is now determined by the political agenda set by the eternal politics of the hospitals and their organizations and not by a long-term vision of what is best for the patients, what is best for health care delivery, but, rather, what is the politics within that system.

I will tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there wili be long-term repercussions from that signal. Now, maybe the Minister will pick another place to draw a line in the sand. Maybe he will pick another place to stand up for what is best for the system. Sometimes those interests converge, but many times they do not. He will have to choose. But I can tell him there will be a path beat to his door by everyone else wanting their piece for their political interest, small "p" political interest, in the health care system. Perhaps we can have this discussion in Estimates.

Perhaps it will have to wait until he is no longer minister. When that time has come, with the kind of second thought that being out of that office can bring, perhaps he and I someday can commit our respective thoughts to pen for the benefit of those who watch this health care debate. But that is the warning I make to him. I think deep down he understands and appreciates those comments. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have taken most of my time. I am very pleased to have contributed to this debate. I just want to say to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lemieux) that it was a difficult day for him.

We certainly felt what he must have gone through. I am personally pleased that it has not gone so far, that he can remain in Cabinet, because I do believe that as a new minister he is a very capable individual. It is regrettable that his colleagues let it go so far that it came to the point that it did. Thank you. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): I, too, am pleased to rise today to add some words to this important debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it is a very significant debate in the House. Interim Supply is not something that any member in this House takes for granted or takes lightly.

It gives us an opportunity to be able to express our thoughts and our opinions with regard to how the government, indeed, is conducting itself and how it is living up to its obligations as a government. This House has now been sitting for some time, and we have seen a government bringing in a budget that, I think, has surprised and shocked many Manitobans. Indeed, many Manitobans today are wondering what has happened to the good stewardship of this province and where it has gone, especially since the Budget was introduced in this House.

I say that quite seriously, because for the last 12 years, we had a government in this province who believed in balanced budgets, who believed in spending within our means, and who believed in getting the financial house of this province in order. I remember very clearly when we came into government, the kind of situation that was inherited, and, no, I am not going to blame any members on the other side of the House for that situation, because although it was an NDP government, it was a different government and one that I think this particular government wants to distance itself from.

Nevertheless, it has to be said that that particular administration left one of the worst messes, financially, that this province has ever seen in its entire history. * (15: 20) It took our administration a significant amount of time to get the financial house of this province in order. I think it is recognized even beyond the borders of our province. Even

July 4, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 346 1 beyond the borders of our province, it is recognized nationally. I believe that indeed there was a government in this province that did get this financial house in order. As a matter of fact, it has been recognized by the lending institutions, the lending houses, if you like, of this nation and of America. When this government took office, I think it did itself a disservice in many ways.

One of the more significant ways that it did itself a disservice was by launching into a campaign to try to discredit the former administration in terms of its financial accountability. They launched into a review of the fin ances of this province, and even before that review was done, there were utterings about a $400-million deficit that was left by the Conservative administration. Time proved that indeed this was a falsehood, that it was an attempt to hoodwink the public, if you like, about the true finances of the province, because there is nothing truer than the audited financial statements of a province.

When the Auditor comes out with his quarterly reports, which show that, instead of the deficit this province enjoyed a surplus, it does show a little bit of the kind of witch hunt that this administration was on in terms of its first action as a government. I think Manitobans recognize that. No matter where you go and you talk about this, Manitobans recognize that this was a government that tried, but failed to run a deficit when there was not really a deficit there. This government ran on five promises, as it calls them.

One of the most important promises that it ran on was health care, and it was a promise to, No. 1, do away with waiting lists, do away with what is termed "hallway medicine," and to put in place adequate staff and to put in place adequate hospital beds to deal with the issues. The Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak), who was then campaigning, said that they could do it all for $15 million. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think the Minister of Health has failed miserably in terms of addressing the issues of health care in the province because waiting lists still exist. Hallway medicine still exists.

As a matter of fact, I have, unfortunately, several constituents who today have been forced to seek medical help in the United States because of the fact that they were on such long waiting lists that they would not have had their medical situation dealt with probably before life ended for them. Secondly, I have a family member who has now been obliged to seek medical assistance outside our province because there is no room in our province today. So has it become better? As a matter of fact, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, an elderly person who just broke her second hip, unfortunately, is now in a position where she may not get her situation looked after for several days because of the fact that there are such a number of waiting lists out there in this area. Now, I am not blaming this administration for that because waiting lists are waiting lists. We try to do what we can in a province to try to deliver services to people. But I think what happened was there were some false promises made by this administration in terms of what they thought they could do. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, in health care remember the Connie Curran issue? That is one that our government took significant criticism fr om the members who were in opposition at the time. As a matter of fact, the now Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) would become so animated about Connie Curran, there were times when we felt he might need medical attention himself. Well, as time passes on, what do we find has now happened? Well, the new Minister of Health who was so opposed to the American health care system is now sending patients where? To the United States.

He is sending patients as the Minister of Health to the United States because our health care system cannot look after them. Now, is that not a tragedy, Mr. Deputy Speaker? The man who himself said that we were trying to Americanize our health care system is now sending our patients to the United States. He was the one who headed the opposition to Connie Curran and the recommen dations that were made by that firm to the health care system in Manitoba. So, I hate to say this, but it appears that sometimes people speak with

3462 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 2000 a forked ·t ongue in terms of how they address issues within our province. Mr. Deputy Speaker, let us look at education. Now, true, the education system in our province is one which has always been one that has had the interest of the public. Indeed, the new Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) came forward with a budget to the education system that pumped additional dollars into the education system to ensure that indeed the quality of education would be maintained.

However, after his announcement, when the analysis was done, many school boards around the province would tell you today that indeed the amount of money that was injected into education was cert ainly not near what the announcement was that had been made by the Minister. We know how that works because on both sides of the House we have had people who have worked in the education system and understand how the finances work in the education system. It. again, is not an easy system to administer. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the most devastating area, I think, is in the area of post secondary education.

Now, this government said that it wants to double the spaces in our com munity colleges, a laudab le goal. But let us be realistic because we know that you have to have the inf rastructure in place, you have to have staffing in place, and you have to have programs in place if , indeed, you are going to double the number of spaces in our community colleges. We do not have the capacity right now to be able to do that. But what is even more dramatic is the effect that this government's budget has had on post secondary education in the university area. Now, we have always prided ourselves as Manitobans, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that we have a high quality, a high calibre of university education in our province, that the Univer sity of Manitoba, a research facility, one that deals with complex issues in many faculties has been able to attract not only to its staff but indeed to the students of our prov ince some very high-calibre individuals. What has happened is the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) tried, or this government, I would say, tried to deal with the issue of student tuition fees.

Unf ortunately, they did not project their thoughts far enough, and they got caught by it because they have frozen tuition fees all right for universities. They have decreased tuition by I 0 percent for students, but what does that do when the university cannot affo rd to offer the programs that they once did because they no longer have the ability to increase the revenues for that university to maintain the high quality of staff, to maintain the programs and to maintain the equipment that is so needed? Now, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, you yourself know that area because you are a member of a faculty at the University, so therefore you understand the importance of not cutting the tuition levels to such a point where universities have no flexibil ity, and they have to cut programs. have to cut staff, they have to cut equipment. Now maybe that is okay for one year, but what does that mean down the road? What does that mean five and ten years down the road? What does that mean to students who are looking for world-class institutions to enrol in?

It means that the University of Manitoba is not going to be able to compete, as our other universities will not be able to compete with other universities in other provinces for the high quality staff, for the high-quality faculty mem bers and the high quality of students. *( 1 5:30) So it also impacts on that student who got a I 0% decrease in his tuition fees, because where is that student now to go to seek those programs and those opportu nities that they are looking forward to? That means that they will be leaving our province.

Unf ortunately, for my family, we have two young men who have decided to seek their educational opportunities outside our province. It saddens me, because I am very proud of our prov ince. I am very proud of the institutions of our prov ince. But that is happening not only to me. It is happening to many families in Manitoba. So the Minister of Education (Mr.

Caldwell) is going to have to answer to students in this province, to our universities and to the people in general, what negative impact his fr eeze on tuition fees and his reduction of 10 percent on a tuition fee is going to have on students who are looking for an education in our pro vince.

July 4, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3463 Mr. Deputy Speaker, what about the doubling of tuition fees or doubling of atten dance to our community colleges? What plan has this government come forward with to show us how they are going to implement the doubling of enrolment at our post-secondary community college institutions? Now we see Red River was talking about and had plans for a downtown campus. Today, the Government is politically trying to manoeuvre that building of that structure to be linked with the University of Winnip eg.

Now, I have to ask myself what is the real plan here, because the Government has not laid out a plan in terms of what it wants to do with, for example, our universities and our community colleges. Now, our administration had a plan. We had a plan that we shared with everyone, and it was to ensure that the universities articulated with the community colleges that indeed we were able to offer post-secondary education through the video or the computer link. It was through distance education. There was a plan, and we moved on that plan on a continuous basis.

But I am still waiting for a plan from this Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) with regard to post-secondary education, because all we see is a knee-jerk reaction to some pressure that was put on by some people with regard to tuition fees and a knee-jerk reaction in terms of capping the tuitions of univer sities. Where is that going to lead us in the long term? I do not think it is going to provide for the opport unities for those students who are seeking post-secondary education in the province of Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker in the Chair I want to spend a few moments in talking about agriculture, because the area that I represent is certainly one that is quite heavily dominated by the agricultural business, and, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we have not seen any kind of policy or direction in a positive manner from this government with regard to agriculture. Now, we know the kind of hurt that is being experienced by farmers in the southwest part of our pro vince.

We know that, as a result of the 19 99 flood, there are producers out there today who still have not been able to seed some of that land, who today are still suffering the results of the loss of income in 19 99. The only glimmer of hope they have had was that little bit of assistance that they received fr om the former administration of $50 per acre. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is an obligation fr om the federal government to insure that these farmers are treated in the same way as farmers south of Winnip eg were treated.

But having said that, this administration has an obligation to those farmers, to those producers as well. All we have seen from this Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) is the fact that she continues to put the blame and put the responsibility on the federal government without accepting any responsibili ty for this government by the Minister of Agricu lture. That is sad because the people of Manitoba voted this government in to look after those urgent needs of Manitobans when they are struck by such disasters as a flood or a fire or whatever that might be.

So, when this government was elected, I remember very vividly the now Mini ster of Agricult ure during the election campaign would meet with groups of farmers, and because her constituency and mine were neighbours, I know what she was saying to those producers. She was telling them that she would look after them. She was telling them that if her government was elected and if she were the Minister of Agri culture, she would insure that those farmers were treated fairly and equitably.

Now, once again, I said the Minister of Education has failed, the Minister of Health has failed, and now the Minister of Agricult ure has fai led, as well, Mr. Speaker, failed to address those very impor tant issues that are being faced by many Manitoba families. These are families that work hard, and they are out there on the land every day trying to make sure that they can provide the needs for themselves and to produce a high quality of food that we are noted for throughout the world. These people do not have the time to be sitting up in our gallery and to be lobbying the Minister on a day-to-day basis.

They know that they have sent the message to the Government, and that the Government has an obligation, but to date the Government has fai led in every way to respond to those pleas fr om

3464 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 2000 these Manitoba families to come to their assistance. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agricult ure is meeting with her counterparts across Canada today, and she is also meeting with the federal minister.

Before she left, she told me that she would be addressing this issue once again, but it is not good enough just to call in the federal government for assistance without putting your own money on the table, and to date we have not heard, we have not seen anything that would give us any comfort that this government is serious about addressing the needs of south western Manitoba. As a matter of fact, my colleague the critic for Agriculture, the Member for Emerson (Mr. Jack Penner), has called on this minister to come to southwest Manitoba. The Member fr om Turtle Mountain (Mr.

Tweed) has asked this minister to come out to the southwest comer of Manitoba. I have asked this minister to come out to the southwest comer of Manitoba to deal with our farmers. [interjection] Well, the Member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) says she was there during the flood, but where has she been since she became the Minister of Agriculture? I recall that when the disaster hit in the Swan River Valley-that was in, what, 19 88?-we were there. The Minister of Agricult ure was there. The Minister responsible for emergency measures was there. The Minister of Conservation was there.

The Minister of Rural Development was there. The Minister of Education was there. The Minister of Health was there. Mr. Speaker, every minister who had any responsibility to try and improve and tried to help with the situation as far as it relates to families was there. I call on this government to do the same, to show some compassion for the people of southwestern Manitoba, who have suffered immeasurably.

It is not very difficult to forget when you sit in this Legislature or when you are in the city of Winnip eg about what the people outside are experiencing, because I know firsthand, when I come into the city of Winnip eg and I am involved with the issues here, it is not dif ficult to forget about the pain that people outside the city in a particular part of Manitoba are experiencing. You know that, Mr. Speaker, because you come fr om an area outside of this city and you understand those issues. I call on the Minister of Agricul ture (Ms.

Wowchuk) and the rest of the members of this government to show some compassion for those people. I call on the Minister who is responsible for emergency measures and for disaster situations, the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), to indeed go out there and talk to the people first-hand about what their needs are. * (15: 40) It is not what their wants are; it is what their needs are, because if we as a governing body, as a government, cannot address those issues in a time of crisis and a time of need. then I submit that we are not doing our jobs as stewards of the prov ince of Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, when we talk about Interim Supply, we have to look at issues in the various departments. Another issue that I have to talk about is the issue as it relates to the government Department of Conservation. Now, this used to be the Department of Natural Resources, now changed to the Department of Conservation. Indeed this minister made a commitment to Manitobans that he failed to live up to. He said to Manitobans that before he would introduce legislation into the House with regard to the penned hunting, if you like, that there would be consultation throughout Manitoba.

As a matter of fact, he set up the meetings, he advertised the meetings. He said this is where I will be to discuss this very important issue with all Manitobans. I want to put something on the record that I have not spoken about bef ore. That is that governments across this country asked rural people to diversif y their economy. They asked rural people to get away from growing simply one commodity and to diversif y their economy. So in my area, where I live in an area which could be described as parkland in a part of my area, people diversified into what they called hunt farms. Now, this is not penned hunting.

These are hunt farms. Now, you have to go out to a hunt farm to be able to understand it.

July 4, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3465 You cannot understand it sitting in the Legislature. You cannot understand it in the city of Winnipeg. You need to go out there and walk through a hunt farm and take a look at what actually happens. In the province of Saskatchewan, where there was an NDP administration, they allow for hunt farms. They allow for people to come in and hunt on these enclosed areas where only a selected animal can be taken, not just any animal, but a selected animal can be taken. That is a boost to the economy of those rural areas.

Now, every time you attack an issue like this, you are attacking the livelihood of people in rural Manitoba. But this government does not seem to care about that. I do not know if the Minister understands what the issue around the hunt farms is, but there were some lobbyists and some activists who came to this government and said, you have to do away with penned hunting. Where did that phrase come fr om? Well, it certainly did not come fr om the industry. It certainly did not come fr om the people who were engaged in that activity.

But you tell me the diff erence between luring an animal by setting out some bait and sitting up in a tree and waiting for it to come to that bait and then popping it in the head. I think there is more hunting skill involved when you go to a hunt farm where you have to actually pursue the game, and your chances of getting it are not necessarily guaranteed. So, Mr. Speaker, I have an issue about that, but this minister refused to go out to the hearing. As a matter of fact, he cancelled all of the hearings. Why did he cancel them?

Because I think he was afraid of the pressure that he might be getting into when he went out to these meetings. Then he changed his tactic and he said, well, everybody will have an opportunity to come and make representation bef ore committee. We know that. That process is always open to the public. But he was the one who committed himself to public meetings before he would put the bill into the House. Mr. Speaker, another promise broken, another commitment not kept, another failure by another minister of this government. An Honourable Member: One after the other. Mr.

Derkach: It goes one department after the next, if you analyze it carefully. Look what happened in the Department of Highways. Talk to any of the contractors out there today. They ask you: What has happened to the Department of Highways budget? Why is it cut back by $10 million? Well, I live in an agricultural part of the province where we depend very heavily on truck transportation because our railways have been let go. Our railways have been abandoned. So, therefore, the municipalities for years have been struggling to try and address the deterioration of our road system.

They have called on govern ment to help them to try and restore the transportation routes especially for these heavy trucks that find their way on our highways. I am going to talk about a couple of highways. One of the highways is Highway 16 that leads through our prov ince, and it goes right through my community. I travel that highway at least twice a week. I will take Highway 16 once, then I will take Highway No. 1 once. The traffi c on Highway 16 is just unbelievable. It keeps increasing by the day. If the Minister of Highways (Mr.

Ashton) checks his statistics, he will know that the percentage of truck traffic is highest on Highway 16 . It is higher than it is on No. 1. If we look at the condition of that high way, we have to address it on a yearly basis. We cannot let it go for a whole year without adding a chunk of reconstruction to that highway or else we will be in great difficulty down the road. Why would we cut back the Highways budget by $10 million, especially when the revenues of this province are going up? An Honourable Member: And increased the northern spending by 20 percent. Mr. Derkach: It is obvious.

This minister will understand in a couple of years what he has done but not just now. [interjection] He says we have increased spending in the North-by how many percent? An Honourable Member: Twenty percent. Mr. Derkach : Twenty percent increase in the North. That is great. You know, I have driven

3466 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 4, 2000 those roads in the North. I know they need addressing, but if you are going to do that, then increase the global budget of Highways. Do not take from one, do not steal from one, to give to the other. Increase your global budget. You know that the spending is required. Highways spending is good spending. [interjection] Mr. Speaker, we hear from across the way: How much did they put into equipment? How much did they put into that?

We have 17 -year old graders out there; we have old equipment out there, but the reality is that the money was going into the infrastructure where it should be going. [interjection] We have been through that. We have been in the middle of snowstorms, and nobody in this House drives more kilometres than I do with regard to going back and forth. I have been in storms and I have had the High ways Department out there pushing the snow. I have been out in the middle of the road, and they have done a good job, Mr. Speaker, but it is the priorities of government.

This govern ment has decided that its priorities are dif ferent. They are not maintaining the infrastructure for the highways that carry the traf fic. Their focus is not on ensuring that indeed those important links continue to make our communities viable and make them survive. So department after depart ment, we can see how there is deterioration in the state of our economy in Manitoba. Now we go to the first priority that this government chose for itself as a new govern ment, and that first priority was to build casinos. It was not to look after the health care system.

It was not to look after the education system. It was not to look after the social services of our prov ince. It was not to look after the economy of the prov ince. It was to look after building more casinos in the province of Manitoba. That was his first commitment, his first priority, to expand the casinos in our province by threefold. Mr. Speaker, what kind of thinking is that? If we continue to listen to the lobby groups that press for things and if we keep responding to them by allowing for things of this nature to take prio rity, we are going to end up in an awful mess in a few years. Mr.

Speaker, yes, I have been in the Minister's Estimates where we question the Minister with regard to the conflict as it related to the allocation of casinos. I have to say, as well, with my colleague fr om Lac du Bonnet, we said time and time again that we did not fault this minister's wif e nor this Minister for that situation, that, indeed, this minister found himself in a situation because his Premier put him there.

All we were asking for through the Estimates debate was to get the Minister to get some legal advice and to table that legal advice and then to take the appropriate action whether it was to carry on. And as the legal advice would have indicated, there was no conflict. That was fine, we were prepared to move on. We told the Minister that. We told him we were giving him time, we were flexible in our approach. We were not demanding his head at the time nor have we done that to date. Now, the government, as it should, should have looked at this issue and asked for legal advice.

The Member for Lac du Bonnet has laid out very clearly what that path is, how you would determine whether or not there is a conf lict on an issue. *( 1 5:50) Somewhere the Government has had to receive some advice that said this could be an issue for the Government down the road, so the Minister has done the honourable thing. He has given up that file, as he should have done some time ago because of the perceived conflict, or, in fact, it could be a r eal conflict. We still do not know. We have asked the Premier to table that advice.

But, you see, this Premier takes the attitude that he is right about everything and that we cannot question him on anything because he is right about everything. When we look at the FOI issue, again, the Premier says he is right. The law may be wrong, but he is right, so he is above the law. Well, Mr. Speaker, I tell you that this Premier is going to get himself in a lot of hot water if he continues to take that approach, because he must listen to the law, he must abide by the law, and, indeed, it is his responsibility to ensure that his ministers do not find themselves in situations as this Minister did.

I do not fault this Minister. As a matter of fact, I have a lot of time for this Minister because I think he shows that he has a lot of potential in being able to

July 4, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3467 contribute not only to his government but being able to contribu te to the people of Manitoba. So it is a dif ficult issue for this Minister and I respect that and I know that. I know that he will move on and still continue to contribute in a positive way to the people of Manitoba and to his Cabinet because he has taken the right steps at this time. What is so regrettable is the attitude that this premier has about this issue and about issues like this. I do not fault anyone except the Premier of this province, because I think he is setting a poor standard.

He is setting a very low standard. He has continued to indicate that his attitude toward the law is one where the law does not necessarily matter. Indeed, it is his view of the situation that matters. I think that is going to land this Premier in hot water down the road. Mr. Speaker, the Government is asking for Interim Supply now. It is asking of this Legis lature to pass this bill so that indeed the economy of the province and the business of this government can continue. But there are some issues that will not go away.

One of those issues is some of the approaches that this government has taken on issues like health care. There was a time when a government approached the prof essionals in health care to give advice to government and then that adv ice was followed. But nothing was more politically blatant, Mr. Speaker, than the reinstatement of the cardiac unit at St. Bonif ace Hospital. I think every Manitoban knows what really happened on that issue, that this is not a prudent administrative decision, that indeed this is a politically motivated decision where the Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) and his

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	37-1-55
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	37th 1st hansardpdf 55.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4ca8fe0ba2b2340f510838088b91256745196b4c

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