Manitoba Hansard — 10 March 2005 (Sitting 17, 38th Legislature, 3rd Session)

38-3-17

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session - Thirty-Eighth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LVI No. 17 - 1:30 p.m., Thursday, March 10, 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Transportation and Government Services (Mr. Lemieux) consider paving Highway 200 between highways 205 and 305 to ensure a smooth, safe and uninterrupted use of Highway 200. Signed by N. Doerksen, Jean Bilodeau and R. Sorin. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House. Riverdale Health Centre Mrs. Leanne Ro wat (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legis- lative Assembly of Manitoba.

These are the reasons for the petition: The Riverdale Health Centre services a popu- lation of approximately 2000, including the town of Rivers and the R.M. of Daly, as well as the Sioux Valley First Nation and the local Hutterite colonies. The need for renovation or repair of the Riverdale Health Centre was identified in 1999 by the Marquette Regional Health Authority (RHA) and was the No. 1 priority listed in the RHA's 2002-2003 Operational Plan. To date, the community has raised over $460,000 towards the renovation or repair of the health centre. On June 1, 2003, the Premier (Mr.

Doer) made a commitment to the community of Rivers that he would not close or downgrade the services available at the Riverdale Health Centre. Due to physician shortages, the Riverdale Health Centre has been closed to acute care and emergency services for long periods since December 2003, forcing community members to travel to Brandon or elsewhere for health care services.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the Premier to consider ensuring that acute care and emergency services are available to the residents of Rivers and surrounding areas in their local hospital and to live up to his promise to not close the Rivers Hospital.

710 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2005 To request that the Minister of Health (Mr. Sale) consider developing a long-term solution to the chronic shortages of front-line health care profes- sionals in rural Manitoba. This petition has been signed by Violet Roth, T. Gercama and Lori Kiesman. * (13:35) Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

The background to this petition is as follows: Manitoba's provincial auditor has stated that Manitoba's 2003-2004 budget deficit was the second highest on record at $604 million. The provincial government is misleading the public by saying they had a surplus of $13 million in the 2003-2004 budget. The provincial auditor has indicated that the $13-million surplus the government says it had cannot be justified. The provincial auditor has also indicated that the Province is using its own made up accounting rules in order to show a surplus instead of using generally accepted accounting principles.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to consider adopting generally accepted accounting principles in reporting Manitoba's budgetary numbers. Signed by D. Zelinsky, R. Zelinsky and Sabina Howanyk. Westman Area Physician Shortage Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for the petition: The Westman region serving Brandon and the surrounding area has been, and will continue to be, periodically without the services of an on-call pediatrician.

As a result of the severe shortage of pedia- tricians to serve the Westman area, Brandon and area women with high-risk pregnancies as well as critically ill children are being forced, at even greater risk, to travel to Winnipeg for urgent medical attention. The chiefs of the departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Family Practice and Anesthesia at the Brandon Regional Health Centre have publicly voiced their concern regarding the potentially disas- trous consequences of the shortage.

Brandon physicians were shocked and angered by the lack of communication and foresight on the part of the government related to retention of a local pediatrician. The Minister of Health (Mr. Sale) has stated that Brandon has to put its best foot forward and recruit its own doctors. Doctors have warned that if the current situation is prolonged, it may result in further loss of services or the departure of other specialists who find the situation unmanageable.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To strongly urge the Minister of Health to consider taking charge and ensuring that he will improve long-term planning efforts to develop a lasting solution to the chronic problem of pedia- trician and other specialist shortages in Brandon. To strongly urge the Minister of Health to treat this as the crisis that it is and consider consulting with front-line workers, par ticularly doctors, to find solutions. To strongly urge the Minister of Health and the Premier of Manitoba to consider ending highway medicine now.

Signed Dennis Gollett, Scott Walker, James Ryland and others.

March 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 711 Ambulance Service Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: In May 2004, 46-year-old Peter Krahn suffered a heart attack while exercising in East St. Paul and was pronounced dead just under an hour later after being transported to the Concordia Hospital in Winnipeg. Reports show that it took nearly 18 minutes for an ambulance to arrive for Mr. Krahn. The Interlake Regional Health Authority claims that 21 minutes is an acceptable emergency response time,

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

To request the provincial government to con- sider improving the way that ambulance service is supplied to all Manitobans by utilizing technologies such as GPS in conjunction with a Medical Transportation Co-ordination Centre (MTCC) which will ensure that patients receive the nearest ambulance in the least amount of time. To request the provincial government to con- sider ensuring that appropriate funding is provided to maintain superior respon se times and sustainable services. Signed by Richard Karp, Mark Rehaluk, Darlene Karp and others. * (13:40) INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 16–The Wildlife Amendment Act Hon.

Stan Struthers (Min ister of Conservation): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives (Ms. Wowchuk), that Bill 16, The Wildlife Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la conservation de la faune, be now read a first time. Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Conservation, seconded by the honour- able Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, that Bill 16, The Wildlife Amendment Act, be now read a first time. Mr. Struthers: Mr. Speaker, honourable members, it is my privilege to rise today to introduce Bill 16, which contains a number of amendments to The Wildlife Act to improve public safety, enhance enforcement and better protect wildlife.

These changes will enable provincial natural resource officers to more efficiently deal with problem wildlife, regulate the use of potentially threatening poisons and establish rules regarding the conduct of investigations and the allocation of hunting licences and royalties. Thank you. Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] ORAL QUESTIONS Budget Speech Tax Relief Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, during the past six years, this NDP government has failed to provide leadership and failed to make decisions to make Manitoba compe- titive.

Organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Retail Council of Canada were all pleading for this NDP government to provide meaningful tax relief to Manitobans. With more than $500 million in new revenues, historic high levels of revenue, the NDP lost an opportunity to provide meaningful tax relief to hardworking Manitobans. I ask the Minister of Finance this. Why has the NDP not listened to those recommendations? Why have they failed to make Manitoba more competitive?

712 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2005 Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, this economy since we have been in office has grown by $10 billion. It was 31.9 billion in 1999- 2000. The forecast is 41.7 billion. That is an increase of 33 percent since we have come to office. We have reduced corporate taxes, never done since the Second World War. We have reduced small business taxes by more than 50 percent and doubled the threshold by 100 percent. We have reduced personal income taxes by 19 percent. We have improved the capital tax deduction to a full exemption.

Not only that, we had the Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit which has a refundable portion. None of these things were ever done by the members opposite. We have done them and Manitoba keeps growing. Mr. Hawranik: Mr. Speaker, all at the same time as he has increased the debt of this province by over $3 billion since 1999. Middle-income Manitobans remain the highest taxed west of New Brunswick, even with the NDP's budget announcements. A two- earner family of four earning $60,000 annually only saves $49 in taxes.

Meaningful tax relief and a competitive tax environment is necessary to keep our young people in Manitoba. Why does this NDP insist on making middle- income Manitobans the highest taxed west of New Brunswick? Why is he creating a tax environment in Manitoba which chases our young people out of Manitoba? Mr. Selinger: Once again, the member denies reality in the budget text. Young people have increased in Manitoba by over 1100. We have reversed the trend of the nineties.

Young people are happy to be here because we have a tuition freeze which members opposite opposed every time we brought it in and voted against it. When it comes to the Manitoba advantage, Mr. Speaker, we remained in the first or second or third place compared to all other jurisdictions in Canada. The cost of living in Manitoba is one of the most affordable. For young people, the Autopac advantage is huge. * (13:45) Mr. Hawranik: Mr. Speaker, the only person denying reality is the Minister of Finance. He tries to make Manitobans believe that we had a $13-million surplus when we had a $604-million deficit.

The NDP lost the opportunity in the budget to provide a competitive tax environment for Manitobans. Record high revenues, so little tax relief, so much uncon- trolled spending, record high debt. This budget could have made Manitoba competitive. Instead, the tax gap between Manitoba and the rest of Canada increased and guaranteed that Manitoba would remain a have-not province for a very long time. Why has this NDP not made Manitoba more competitive by offering meaningful tax relief? Mr. Selinger: Mr.

Speaker, in a previous answer, I explained what we have done on taxes, far superior to anything the members opposite have done and, as we know, in this province the investments we have made have attracted more young people to live here. We have made significant investments in univer- sities, significant investments in colleges, significant investments in infrastructure, and the member opposite has been the beneficiary of that in his constituency but refuses to accept that we have done it when he did not. Hip and Knee Surgery Wait Lists Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Mr. Speaker, six months ago the Premier (Mr.

Doer) of this province sent out a fancy media release announcing $500,000 to perform 100 additional hip and knee surgeries at Concordia Hospital. Since that announcement, the vice-president and chief medical officer of the WRHA has stated that this money did not in fact purchase any additional surgeries. My question is this. Can the Minister of Health confirm today that this money did not buy any additional surgeries at Concordia Hospital? Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): I am informed by the WRHA and Concordia Hospital that in fact they will meet their target this year for an additional 100 surgeries. Mrs.

Stefanson: Brock Wright, the vice-president of the WRHA, said more money was invested in the system but it did not buy additional surgeries. That is what his own employee, the vice-president of the WRHA, said. Empty promises are little consolation for those who are waiting in our gallery today and are waiting at home, housebound and bedridden, waiting in pain for hip and knee surgery. It is little consolation, announcements that are made yesterday,

March 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 713 six months ago, four months ago. It is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the minister is in fact refusing to answer the question about exactly how many surgeries have taken place because not one additional surgery had taken place when this Premier of this province announced $500,000 more and provided false hope for Manitobans, promising 100 additional surgeries. Shame on them. How can patients in this province trust this Premier and the Minister of Health when they provide nothing but false hope for patients in this province? Mr.

Sale: As I told the member opposite, the Concordia Hospital officials have told the WRHA that they are on target to meet the additional volume this year that resulted from the transfer of surgery and from the increased funding. Mr. Speaker, since 1999 -2000, the increase in procedures, including all hip and knee procedures, is approximately 20 percent. That said, the reason that I made a very important announcement yesterday of 10 million additional dollars over the next couple of years is because we have an unacceptable wait time for hips and knees.

We need to improve that record as we did with cardiac surgery, as we did with waiting time for radiation therapy, as we did with waiting time for MRIs, fo r ultrasound, for bone density, et cetera. We have improved. We have more to do, and we are going to do it. Hip and Knee Surgery Wait Lists Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): On November 5, 2004, the NDP Minister of Health had a press release indicating that an additional 35 hips and 30 knee replacements would be done at Boundary Trails Health Centre.

Could the Minister of Health indicate to this House the actual number of those additional surgeries that have taken place to date? * (13:50) Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to get that information for the member. Mr. Dyck: Maybe I could give him that information. The information is zero. I am hearing from my constituents who are on the waiting list that their surgeries are being postponed because the quota is filled.

Will this minister confirm today that the 80 additional surgeries promised yesterday in a press release will actually take place, or is this just another broken promise to the thousands of Manitobans waiting in pain for orthopedic surgery? Mr. Sale: Mr. Speaker, both Brandon General Hospital and Boundary Tra ils Hospital approached us approximately two or three weeks ago. When we made it known to them that we were interested in increasing the support for hips and knees, they made a proposal to us.

Their proposal, with their budget with their staff: to increase the hips and knees volume in Boundary Trails and Brandon by a total of 200 over the next two years. That is their proposal. They are accountable for that proposal and we will fund that proposal and they will meet their targets. Hip and Knee Surgery Wait Lists Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, the residents of western Manitoba are living with the pain and anxiety of hip and knee health issues daily. Manitobans have gone from hallway medicine to highway medicine under this NDP government.

We now have a new phenomenon in Manitoba, medicine by media release. When can the residents of western Manitoba expect the 120 surgeries promised yesterday? When can they be performed in Brandon? Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we have some very good people who manage the Brandon Regional Health Centre, and we are proud to have built it after it was cancelled a number of times by members opposite. We are proud in particular of the new operating rooms which are state of the art.

They are prob ably the finest operating rooms in Manitoba at the current time, fully equipped with IT that allows the most advanced procedures and the best quality of care. I am delighted the Brandon Regional Health Authority made a proposal to us to do an additional 120 surgeries on hips and knees. They have fine surgeons, fine nurses. I believe when they made that proposal, they intended to carry it out, and I believe they will.

714 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2005 Mr. Cullen: These empty promises are of little comfort to the 2500 people on the orthopedic wait list. Mr. Speaker, 76-year-old Alan Greer of Glen- boro, Manitoba, needs a hip replacement. He has been told the quota has been reached at Boundary Trails. Mr. Greer is now going to Montréal for his surgery, using his own personal savings for a new hip. Is this the minister's strategy for reducing wait lists in Manitoba? Mr.

Sale: The reason we announced $10 million over the next two years is simply that we agree that the waiting times for hip and knee surgery that is required by Manitobans is too long and we need to do better, Mr. Speaker. That is why we are working with Boundary Trails, w ith Brandon, with Grace, with Concordia, with Pan-Am to improve both the volume and the speed with which we can do surgeries. That is why we are working at prehab so people are more ready for surgery and will recover more quickly.

That is why we are working at segmenting the waiting lists so that procedures that can be done on an out patient or a less intense basis are done more quickly, and that is why we will meet the target of a thousand additional surgeries over the next two years. Health Care Services Funding Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, in an

article printed in the Winnipeg Free Press on December 26, 2004, the Minister of Health is quoted, and I quote from that article, "We had reduced the budget for Health to an absolutely unattainable level in terms of reductions." I would ask the Minister of Health if he has been properly quoted in this

article and if he could explain to the people of Manitoba what he meant by that statement. Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I ask the members to cast their minds back to the situation that we were in prior to the Health Accord in 2004, in the fall. We had no increases in Health funding in the base budget since 1994-95, when $7 billion was taken out of the base. We had one-time money that came in and evaporated. We had no escalator formula. We had a situation in which we were still at that time in a severe drought. We had BSE crisis, and we had a severe fire situation in Manitoba.

In that context, we had to live within our means and we told our health authorities, we told our own internal authorities we needed to balance the budget in accordance with balanced budget legis- lation and we would do so. That put a tremendous amount of pressure on our health care budget, and it basically meant that we would have to do some very uncomfortable things. That is what I meant by those remarks. * (13:55) Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, I would point the minister to the dictionary which defines "unattainable" as "impossible to attain," a fairly simple concept.

The minister said publicly that his budget was impossible to attain. In fact, he said that he purposely underfunded his health care budget for the year. I would ask the minister are those quotes attributed to him accurate. In fact, what did he mean by those statements? Mr. Sale: I think I have already explained that, Mr. Speaker. We were put in a position where the funding from the federal partner was declining and was basically unchanged since 1994-1995.

We have a commitment to manage the finances of Manitoba in a prudent manner and to do it in a sustainable manner, and so we challenged our health care system to do some very difficult things. We were delighted when the current federal government came to office with a commitment to provide additional resources to the health care system. When those resources were provided, we made sure they went to the health care system. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, once again the minister is ducking and dodging this question.

He made a very simple statement and I quote, again, from the article, "We had reduced the budget for Health to an absolutely unattainable level in terms of reductions." Unattainable means that you cannot accomplish that goal. It is impossible to attain. Is the minister telling the legislators and the people of Manitoba that in last year's budget they set a budget amount that they knew that they could not meet? Mr. Sale: Mr. Speaker, when we went to the RHAs and to our department early in the year 2004, we told them the kind of situation that we were in, and we challenged them to take an extremely difficult course

March 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 715 and to identify for us what would have to be done to live within the then-known revenue which we had from our own sources and from the federal govern- ment. That was a very, very difficult challenge. It would have meant very serious reductions in the health care system.

We were delighted, as I have said, and I am sure all Canadians, all Manitobans, were delighted when a new federal Liberal government was led by a new Prime Minister and he made a commitment which we took and believed that there would be additional funding during the year for our health care system. I am delighted that that Prime Minister made good on his commitment and that our health care system now has a known and sustainable increment each year and a significant increase to the base in our funding. Livestock Industry Slaughter Capacity Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr.

Speaker, this NDP government lost an opportunity in Tuesday's budget to truly help Manitoba livestock producers by providing meaningful assistance to expand our slaughter capacity. In the last two days alone, slaughter facilities have been announced in Alberta and Québec. Can the Minister of Agriculture finally tell what this NDP government plan is for increasing Manitoba's federally inspected slaughter capacity or will it continue remain stalled, Mr. Speaker? Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minis ter of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr.

Speaker, we very clearly do support this expansion of slaughter capacity in this province. I am very pleased that the opposition–although when we first started to talk about slaughter capacity they had then said there was no need for increased slaughter capacity. We are committed to it. We have announced additional funding. We look forward to proposals, and I can tell the member opposite that there are many people who are calling people who are talking about their business plans. I hope that they can put these plans together successfully so that we will see further increase in slaughter capacity in this province.

Mr. Eichler: Mr. Speaker, $3 million is only $6 per head. Do the math on that, and it certainly is not going to work. With $606 million in increased revenues, the NDP government lost a golden opportunity to do something meaningful for Manitoba's livestock producers. Instead, this budget has told Manitobans that they are on their own and are not to keep up their hopes. Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Agriculture tell Manitobans when a new slaughter facility will open in Manitoba? Will she finally get on with the job? * (14:00) Ms. Wowchuk: Mr.

Speaker, we were committed to slaughter capacity long before the opposition even got interested in it. We will continue to work with it. The Rancher's Choice group is moving along with their proposal. There are other groups who are looking at how they can increase their slaughter capacity. I wish the opposition would get on board and recognize that there is a commitment in this budget to the industry. There is a commitment with an increase of over 19 percent in this budget, a reduction in taxes for them and a commitment to work with them to reposition our beef industry in this province.

Slaughter capacity is one of the compo- nents of repositioning the industry, and we are there working with the industry. Crime Reduction Government Initiatives Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, since taking office in 1999, the NDP government has increased overall expenditures by in excess of $2 billion. If you take retail sales tax, our gasoline tax, our alcohol tax, our tobacco tax, all the monies from the Manitoba Lotteries and you add them all up, you still do not get $2 billion. The new theme for the New Democratic Party should be so much to spend, but so little results.

My question is, as the Justice critic, how do you spend so much money and be so ineffective in dealing with crime in our province? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Acting Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the fact that the Justice Minister, at a meeting of federal-provincial officials two years ago, put together a proposal to the federal government and asked the federal government to change the legislation with respect to protecting police officers,

716 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2005 to put in stricter penalties, to put in stricter regimes to protect our police officers. That was two years ago, on the record, that this Justice Minister and this government took that position. I would like to ask the Member for Inkster what his position is in that regard. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I am not a minister yet, but I will tell you, I would not be fearful in terms of taking responsibility. This government fails to take responsibility.

In my hand I have a handful of press releases that my researcher, better known as my wife, went to the Legislative Library–two years, two years of press releases from the Minister of Justice. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, child prostitution, home invasions, gang activities, automobile thefts, they are just as bad as they ever were under this adminis- tration. They can spend the money. They can shoot out the propaganda, but where are the results? I question the government: Where are the results when it comes to fighting crime in this province? Mr. Chomiak: Mr.

Speaker, today is a very sad day in the history of this country as our leaders are in Alberta as a result of the tragic deaths of four police officers on duty in Alberta. Yesterday a tragic incident occurred at the Ontario Legislature that involved a very difficult situation with our police enforcement officers. The day before a young individual in British Columbia was crushed to death by a stolen car by a 16-year old. These are difficult times for all Canadians. But, Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Member for Inkster why he voted against this Legislature bringing forward an additional 40 police officers in the province of Manitoba when he had a chance to stand up and make a difference, why he voted against that measure? Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to that question is I am not a New Democrat. I am not the one that spent $2 billion and got nothing for results for that additional $2 billion. Auto Theft Reduction Strategy Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, the chronic problem with this government is if there is a problem in this province, blame Ottawa.

No one does it better than the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice is quoted in an

article saying, "Ottawa's mandatory auto-theft plan is too little, too late." Manitoba has the worst auto theft in the country. Every other province is able to deal with the issue. Not this government. Instead of trying to deal with the issue, what they do is they try to blame Ottawa. They shoot out the press releases, anything and everything that they can think of to avoid responsibility. I ask the minister responsible this. Can he tell us why this government is, in fact, the worst in Canada when it comes to auto theft? Do you have any ideas that the Province can take on preventing children from stealing cars?

Hon. Dave Chomiak (Acting Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the Member for Inkster to comment or even vote on the $2 billion that he talks about. All I am asking him is why, when he had a chance to make a difference, when he had a chance to vote to have 40 additional police officers on the streets of Manitoba, he and his leader voted against it.

I want to know that, and I want to know why he voted against a budget that increased sanctions for convicted auto thieves that this government brought in, why he voted against including driver's licence suspensions and sanctions against auto theft, why the measures brought in by this minister and this government have been consistently voted against by the Member for Inkster and his leader. They cannot have it bo th ways, Mr. Speaker. They cannot vote against th ese measures and then criticize lack of action. I think the public sees through that every single day. Devils Lake Diversion Update Mr.

Tom Nevakshonoff (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, as Member for the Interlake, I, like many Manitobans, am deeply concerned about the quality of water in Lake Winnipeg as this body of water in its entirety lies in my constituency. Could the Minister of Water Stewardship update the House as to the status of negotiations with our neighbours to the south regarding the Devils Lake Diversion Project?

March 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 717 Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Steward- ship): Mr. Speaker, I know this is of interest to all members of the House because we know how important it is to ensure that the state outlet, the Devils Lake outlet, does not proceed this summer. That is why we have been stepping up our efforts to make sure that our federal government is calling for reference to the IJC. I visited Minneapolis-St. Paul. I made it very clear that we in Manitoba appreciate the support of the State of Minnesota Governor Pawlenty.

In fact, we are particularly pleased with new developments including the Great Lakes Commission representing the Great Lakes states, Ontario and Québec. As well, there is indicated that we have to have the Devils Lake outlet referred to the IJC. I am also pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that we will be going back to court on the NAWS project to go for a complete injunction to stop the construction of that case, a part of the Garrison system that will transfer water into the Hudson Bay drainage basin. We will defend Manitoba's interest on Devils Lake and on NAWS. Kyoto Plan Funding Mr.

Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, once again this NDP government has proven that the singular worst thing for the environment is an NDP government. With the Kyoto accord coming into effect on February 16, 2005, the government announced in its budget $2.4 million for energy and climate change initiatives, of which half is salaries. Where is the Kyoto plan? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): Mr.

Speaker, not only will I provide the member with a copy of the Kyoto plan that was published three years ago, but I will also provide the minister with a checklist of the number of measures that have been put in place as a result of the Kyoto plan that was adopted by this government. If I remember correctly, I do not think members opposite support the Kyoto plan. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Member for Springfield has the floor. Mr. Schuler: Mr.

Speaker, in this last budget, 2.4 million for energy and climate change initiatives, of which 1.2 million for salaries and only $14,000 for grant assistance for energy and climate change initiatives. This is the $14,000 Kyoto plan. I ask the minister this. After two years to prepare for February 16, is that the best that this NDP government can come up with, a $14,000 Kyoto plan? Shame on them. * (14:10) Mr. Chomiak: First off, Mr. Speaker, this was the first provincial government and the first government in the country that produced a Kyoto plan and a Kyoto strategy. Second off, Mr.

Speaker, this government has been recognized both nationally and internationally as having developed the most extensive Kyoto plan in the country. Thirdly, Manitoba Hydro and the provincial government received an A rating, the only A rating in the country by the Energy Efficiency Alliance for its demand side and its energy efficiency announce- ments just this year. Fourthly, the largest wind farm in Canada is in the process of being developed, Mr. Speaker. Fifthly, Mr.

Speaker, today we successfully pio- neered and demonstrated a hydrogen bus that was on a regular route in Winnipeg, something members opposite said was a pipe dream, and would never happen. It ran on a route today. I wish the member would have had a chance to take a ride with us on something he said would never happen. Souris Day Care Centre Staffing Shortages Mrs. Leanne Ro wat (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, this Minister of Family Services lost an opportunity. She lost an opportunity to address a serious staffing shortage in the Souris Day Care Centre.

The director, Deanna Wey has written to the government and stated, and I quote, "The government needs to address staffing shortages, not spaces and to help maintain, increase and improve Manitoba's child care system before it fails drastically."

718 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2005 What will the minister do to ensure that the Souris Day Care Centre will not have to close more spaces? Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate this question because it gives me the first time as the minister to proudly say that, opposite to the actions of the 1990s where there was an attempt to destroy the child care system in Manitoba, this government since 1999, you want to hear this now, has increased funding by 64 percent. We are also the only province in this country that has a plan.

This plan was developed with the input of over 24 000 Manitobans. We worked within that plan. We are committed to our community-based not-for-profit child care system in this province. We will continue to work with our child care community. Mrs. Rowat: I really appreciate the rhetoric and non-answers of this minister. Not. I raised my kids through the nineties, and I have had a great child care service. My children are growing up in a community that required child care services. This minister is failing my families, my community. A 64% increase? Where are the spaces in Souris, Manitoba?

Can the minister respond to my specific ques- tion, to my community where my children go to day care, where they go to af ter-school programs, where there is a chance of losing 105 spaces? Can the minister answer me directly, specifically to my community? What does this minister have to say to the parents of Souris? They have indicated what would the increase do to my community. What does the increase in government money do for us? That is specifically a question from the parents, and I want her to respond. Ms. Melnick: Mr. Speaker, what is a child care system? A child care system is recruiting quality people.

It is training these people so they are professionals. It is retaining these people so that we keep them in the system to care for our children. It is creating new spaces. That is what our five-year plan is all about since 1999. We have created over 3500 spaces in this province. Physician Resources Pine Falls Health Complex Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, the Pine Falls hospital is an extremely important regional hospital in the Lac du Bonnet constituency.

It serves a local population that is quite large, and it is the first hospital that can be reached from northern Manitoba along the east side of Lake Winnipeg. It was disturbing when the emergency department was closed due to a lack of physicians for a two-week period over Christmas a year ago. It is also disturbing when residents complain that revolving-door medicine is practised at that hospital.

With unprecedented levels of revenue coming into the Province this year, when will the NDP use some of this money to recruit more doctors in Pine Falls who will stay at the hospital to ensure that residents receive the quality and sustainable health care and service that they deserve and they require? Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I think it was at about 22 minutes to two when the member asked us to use the money to cut taxes. Now it is a quarter after two and he wants more money spent in his hospital. I guess, you know, maybe that is the privilege of opposition.

You do not have to be very consistent. Mr. Speaker, the members of the opposition also voted against spending money to equip the operating room at Beausejour Hospital to do children's dental surgeries. They have a difficult problem with consistency. They should address it. Health Care Services Funding Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to remind the minister that people in this province can actually do two things at once. You can cut taxes and make the Province competitive and you can spend responsibly at the same time. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr.

Loewen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. More to the point, I would remind members opposite that it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

March 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 719 Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Health is that on December 26 he stated, and I quote, "We had reduced the budget for Health to an absolutely unattainable level in terms of reductions." Is that an accurate quote from this minister? Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): I have already answered that question, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, in fact this minister refuses to answer this question, and so I will ask him one more time. I will put it to him very plainly. It is a simple question.

You can come back with a simple answer if it is not beyond you. Mr. Speaker, he is quoted as having said, "We had reduced the budget for Health to an absolutely unattainable level in terms of reductions." Does he stand by that quote? Was it accurate when he said it? Mr. Sale: Indeed, we have done a large number of things at once. We have managed to balance our budget according to balanced budget laws every year, Mr. Speaker. With this budget we have replenished the Fiscal Stabilization Fund. With all of our budgets we have strengthened our health care system, our education system and our economy.

The growth of $10 billion, 33 percent over our first five years in office, is an unprecedented rate of growth. You will not find it in any Tory years. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, I would remind this minister that he does not have latitude. It is his responsibility to answer questions in the House. I am asking him a very direct question. He is quoted as saying, "We had reduced the budget for Health to an absolutely unattainable level in terms of reductions." Did he make that quote? Does he stand by it?

Will he stand up and be honest with Manitobans, or is he simply doing, as the Auditor has suggested, misinforming the people of Manitoba day in and day out? Which is it? Mr. Speaker: Order. I just want to draw attention of all honourable members of using the word a little loosely about "honest." All members in the House are honourable members and all information that is brought forward is on a factual basis, so I just want to remind all honourable members. Mr. Sale: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I think the honourable member will have some opportunity overnight to read Hansard, and he will see that I answered that question. In fact, I answered the same question roughly three times. I think those answers were clear, they were factual and I stand by them. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, I am looking for a direct answer. Do you stand by the quote, sir? Mr. Sale: Mr. Speaker, this is not exactly a productive exchange. The answer has been given. It is in Hansard. I invite him to read it. If it is still unclear to him, perhaps he could ask the question again tomorrow. * (14:20) Mr. Loewen: Mr.

Speaker, the minister refuses to answer this question. This is a very serious matter. He is quoted in the newspaper as saying that he purposely underfunded the health care budget. His government purposely underfunded it. He is quoted as saying that he reduced the budget for Health to an absolutely unattainable level. I am asking on behalf of my constituents, on behalf of all Manitobans, does he stand by the quote. Is that what he did? Mr. Sale: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will help the member again.

When we were in the position of dealing with Estimates for the year in question, we had a federal government that had cut funding in 1994-1995 by $7 billion. We had a federal government that since 1990 had never escalated the underlying formula for health care spending. We had revenues for this province that were affected by BSE, by SARS, by 9/11 and by drought. We have a commitment to balance the budget and to live within our means, and that is an enormous challenge which we met. In the process of meeting that challenge we have grown this economy by $10 billion in five years. Mr. Loewen: Mr.

Speaker, once again, I will give this minister one more opportunity. It is his quote; it is his comment. I would ask him to stand up– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Member for Fort Whyte has the floor.

720 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2005 Mr. Loewen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your assistance in this. The member is quoted in the newspaper as saying, "We had reduced the budget for Health to an absolutely unattainable level in terms of reduction." The

article states how he explained to the reporter that the Province had purposely underfunded its Health budget. I am asking him a very simple question today. Does he stand by that quote or does he not? He has an obligation to answer that question for the people of Manitoba. He has a responsibility to come clean and tell this Legislature and tell the people of Manitoba whether, in fact, his Health budget last year was fudged. Will the minister stand in this House and stand by his quote? I ask him to do the honourable thing. Mr. Sale: Mr.

Speaker, the obligation I have as a Cabinet minister is to serve without fear or favour and that I have done in Family Services and Housing, in Energy, Science and Technology and it is what I am doing today in Health. In every work that we have done as a Cabinet of this Province, we have strengthened the economy, we have improved the education system, we put forward the first Kyoto plan in our country. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Fort Whyte, on a point of order? MATTER OF PRIVILEGE Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): No, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege.

I appreciate– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind all honourable members that a point of order and a matter of privilege are very serious. They should only be raised when it is a serious occasion, and the honourable member is raising one. So I ask all honourable members and I ha ve to hear every word that is spoken. So I ask the co-operation of all honourable members. Order. The honourable Me mber for Fort Whyte, on privilege. Mr. Loewen: Thank you. I rise on this matter of privilege understanding that there are two conditions that must be met.

The first is that the matter be raised at the earliest opportunity, and I would put to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first opportunity that I have had to raise this matter in the House, given the non-answers from the Minister of Health. The second condition is that a prima facie case be made regarding this matter of privilege. I do sincerely believe that there is a prima facie case to have you rule on a matter of privilege, and I appreciate the opportunity to explain that to you. Mr.

Speaker, with regard to that second con- dition, in this case I believe that my rights and privileges as a member of this House have been breached. I would refer you to page 59 of the Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba in the appendices under the Matter of Privilege to the last sentence that states: " . . . interference of any kind with their official duties are breaches of privileges of the Members." Mr. Speaker, I will also refer you to the new MLA manual regarding matters of privilege.

I quote from there: "Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the rights enjoyed by a Legislature collectively and by its members individually which are absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers." I would further quote from the manual: "Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes a Legislature in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the Legislature in the discharge of his or her duty, or which has a tendency to produce such a result may be treated as contempt." I would also refer you to Beauchesne's, page 25,

section 92, entitled "Interfering With Members," that states, and again I quote: "A valid claim of privilege in respect to interference with a Member must relate to the Member's parliamentary duties." Mr. Speaker, as a member of the official opposition, it is my legislative duty and the obligation I have been given by the members of my constituency and by the peoples of Manitoba to attempt to hold this government to account for its actions. I would also refer you to Beauchesne's,

chapter 15, rule 595 and I quote once again, "The Crown, being the executive power, has the responsibility for the raising and spending of money. Acting through

March 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 721 responsible ministers, the Crown makes known to the Commons the financial necessities of govern- ment. The Commons grants such aids and supplies as are necessary to meet the demands of the Crown and provides through taxes and other sources of revenue the ways and means to meet the supplies that have been granted. The Crown, therefore, demands money, the Commons grants it and the Senate assents to the grant. The Commons does not vote any money except for the necessities of the country as defined by the Crown." Mr. Speaker, I believe that lays it out very clearly, and I will leave it to you to look at other sections in that partic ular

chapter referring to budgetary matters, but typically each year the government of the day, the Crown, brings before this House a budget. My obliga tion as a member of the opposition is to question the Crown on that budget, but at the same time I must take the Crown at face value for what is in that budget. I believe they are honourable members. I do believe it is their responsibility to bring forward a budget which clearly states the true picture of the finances and the sums of money that government needs in order to carry out the programs which they have identified within the budget.

This is a very serious matter for this Legislature to look at. In terms of a budget, we set aside purposely eight days of debate for members on both sides of the House to debate that budget. We set aside a period of Estimates time, 100 hours in this case, in which as members of the opposition we have the obligation and we have the opportunity to question the government on their budget and what policies they are promoting through the demand of funds from this Legislature. Mr.

Speaker, in the cas e I am referring to, last year, we took the budget and we accepted the budget as it was presented to this side of the House, believing as we do today that they are all honourable members on the other side. On that basis I went into Estimates. I questioned every member that I had access to, every member where I felt there were some issues in that department. I did not question the members on whether the amount that was printed in the book was accurate or not because I took that at face value. That is what the Crown does.

The Crown, responsible members, brings budgets to this House which are accurate and reflect their intentions to spend throughout the course of the year. * (14:30) We went through that process, Mr. Speaker. My rights, my privileges, my duty as a member of this House were to question the government on the budget they brought forward, and that is what we did.

On that basis, we decided as a party, I decided as a member of the opposition, that, although I dis- agreed with many of the policies in that budget, I disagreed with much of the spending in that budget, I disagreed with the direction that budget was going to take this province, for those reasons and others, I decided that I would vote against that budget. At no time did I question anybody on the opposite side of the House whether, in fact, the amounts of money stated in that budget that were laid before this House, that were laid before me, were accurate. That is the process we undertake, Mr.

Speaker, and you know. You have been in this Legislature long enough to understand what a serious, serious issue the laying before this House of a budget is. I find out on December 26 that the Minister of Health has indicated in a very frank and very plain way and, again, I will quote from the article. I have given the minister the opportunity today to tell this House, to tell legislators, to tell Manitobans whether, in fact, he was misquoted. He has refused to answer the question. I will read the quote again.

The quote from the minister: "We had reduced the budget for Health to an absolutely unattainable level in terms of reductions." Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier in the day, I went to the dictionary because I wanted to be absolutely clear what that quote meant, and I would remind the members opposite that "unattainable" in the dictionary is described as "impossible to achieve." When I transpose th at into this quote, what do I get? I get the minister saying, and I quote, "We have reduced the budget for Health to an impossible- to-achieve level in terms of reductions." The

article also explains and, again, it refers to the Minister of Health, and I quote here again from the

article said Friday, "The Province purposely underfunded its Health budget for this year while waiting for Ottawa to come through with additional cash." If at any time during the budget speech, anybody during the budget debate, anybody on the opposite side of the House would have stood up and said,

722 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2005 "Mr. Speaker, members of the Legislative Assembly, we realize that within this budget it is unattainable. We realize that we cannot meet the numbers that we have put in this budget." Then, as members of the Legislative Assembly who have the right to ask questions, we could have questioned this government on behalf of our constituents, on behalf of the people of the province of Manitoba, on those very facts.

But we did not have that opportunity, and on that basis I lay before you a prima facie case that, in fact, my rights as a member of this Legislative Assembly have been breached. I have not been able to carry out my duties as I would have liked to because this government, because this minister did not lay and purposefully did not lay an accurate number before this House, and that is unconscionable. That limits my right as a member to question those Estimates.

How can I be expected to go into an Estimates procedure and question the minister on a budget laid before this House when, in fact, there are items that are not printed in that budget line, when, in fact, there are issues that this government knows they are going to have to spend money on and yet they do not even identify? I would again refer to Beauchesne's Rule 596, and it is talking here about the standard of bringing budgetary items and the Crown laying these matters before the Legislature.

I quote again, and this is a standard referring to how th e budget is laid before the House: "This standard is binding not only on private Members but also on Ministers whose only advantage is that, as advisors of the Crown, they can present new or supplementary estimates or secure the Royal Recommendation to new or supplementary resolutions." Now, if at any time during the budget debate the Minister of Health had come forward and said, "Look, we have printed the document. We thought that we could meet this budget.

We knew it was going to be tough, but we know we cannot, and as a result we are going to come and ask for supple- mentary approval to spend more money on health care to meet the plans that we already know exist." But did they do that? No. Did they come forward? You know, it was interesting yesterday that the Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton) started out his budget speech by indicating that not only had they managed to balance the books, but, in fact, they had been direct and honest about it.

Once again, this is an indication, and this matter of privilege rests around that whole issue of has this member and has this government been direct and honest with legis- lators, thereby allowing us to do our job to the fullest of our capabilities. The case I lay before you says it very clearly this government and this minister have not done that. Mr.

Speaker, I would also refer you to the rules of the House and the Beauchesne's, specifically to Beauchesne's Parliame ntary Rules & Forms , page 18, "Reflections on the House as a Whole," which, as you are aware, I am sure, deals with reflecting badly on the character of this House.

I would indicate at the same time, that by the minister publicly stating, and I quote again, "We have reduced the budget for Health to an absolutely unattainable level in terms of reductions," by his going out in public and stating publicly that they had brought, he had brought before this House a budget that was unattainable, a budget that was impossible to meet, he has, in fact, reflected badly on every member of this House. We all know and we have seen in the polls that, unfortunately, the regard of politicians these days is slipping badly. We sit here day after day, and we ask ourselves why. We wonder why.

Well, it is reasons like this that the public look s at us, and it is reasons that I brought forward today that show that the Minister of Health has reflected poorly on the House as a whole. By his going out in public and admitting, by saying that his government brought a budget to this House that did not reflect their true intentions, did not reflect everything that they knew they were going to spend throughout the year, he is, in fact, reflecting poorly on every member of this House. He is standing up and saying, basically, no member in this House has a responsibility for what they say inside or outside.

They can say one thing one day, and they can lay a budget before this House. This is not a simple matter, Mr. Speaker, of "he said, I said." This is a matter we are dealing with of the Crown laying before the opposition, laying before the people of Manitoba, its budget, and laying before the people of Manitoba how it is going to spend the money that it raises by taxing the individuals in the province of Manitoba.

That is why I consider this to be such a very, very serious breach of my rights, breach of my privileges and why I consider this to be such a serious reflection on the House as a whole and, I must say, a very negative reflection on the House as a whole.

March 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 723 I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that when I saw this quote, I was absolutely astounded. Never in my life, never in my imagination of following politics would I imagine that a minister of the Crown would go out in public, outside of a Legislature, outside of the House and state that he had purposely, his govern- ment had purposely, underfunded a particular part of its budget, in this case, the health care budget, which, I would remind the minister, is over 40 percent of the spending of his government.

So, when we go out to the public, when I am dealing with my constituents, or we are dealing in the province of Manitoba, and I have to explain to them that we have a minister of the Crown who laid a budget, and a government that laid a budget, before this House where over 40 percent of the spending of the taxation dollars we demand from the citizens of Manitoba and we receive from the citizens of Manitoba, that was, in fact, inaccurate, not only just a mistake but, in fact, it was purposely placed before this House in an inaccurate fashion.

In fact, the government of the day believed and knew full well, the minister knew full well, that the budget was absolutely unattainable. Mr. Speaker, it is particularly important as we are in the middle of another budget debate, and, unless we settle this issue, unless we settle it quickly, how are the people of Manitoba ever going to have any confidence in government again?

How are they going to trust a government to lay before them their plans for the year, to lay before them for their budget for the year, when a government and a minister so callously and so arrogantly would go out some eight or nine months later and say, "Well, we knew we could not do it, but you know we have this balanced budget law, and we did not want to take a reduction in salaries, so we had to present a budget that gave the appearance of being balanced." * (14:40) Mr.

Speaker, not only does that make it impossible for me to fulfil my obligations as a legislator, to fulfil the obligation that I have to the people of Manitoba to hold this government to account, but it reflects very, very poorly not only on me, but on all 57 members of this Legislative Assembly. So that is why I am raising this issue today. I consider it to be an extremely serious issue, one that I would hope we would, in this House, be able to deal with. In fact, we might even be able to deal with it today. If the minister would offer an apology, I would certainly be satisfied with that.

Having said that, I wish to conclude because I fully appreciate that we are in the middle of a very important budget debate. If we do not know, if the numbers are accurate, maybe we will find that out six or eight or nine months from now. I can only do my duty to the best of my ability. I can only take the word of the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Selinger) that the budget he has presented this time is different than last time in that it does include all of the information known to the government, and that, in fact, it has been set before this House by responsible, and I quote from Beauchesne, "by responsible ministers as are the rules of any sound government." O n t h a t b a s i s , M r . S p e a k e r , I m o v e t h a t , a s a result of the seriousness of this breach of privilege, this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs.

Furthermore, I move that the Minister of Health be requested to apologize to Manitobans and to all honourable members of this Chamber for purposely and knowingly misleading Manitobans and the honourable members of this Chamber. Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Member for Fort Whyte, do you have a seconder for that motion? Mr. Loewen: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. That motion is being seconded by the Member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson). Mr. Speaker: Order.

Before I recognize the honour- able member, any other members that wish to speak, I would remind the House that contributions at this time by honourable members are to be limited to strictly relevant comments as to whether the alleged matter of privilege has been raised at the earliest opportunity, and whether a prima facie has been established. Hon. Steve Ashton (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I apprec iate the opportunity to address the alleged matter of privilege. I think it is important to establish first of all that it is important to raise the matter at the first opportunity.

I would question, in this case, raising a matter of privilege on a newspaper clipping the member, himself, refer- enced that dates back to December being raised now, three days into the session. I think clearly it fails on that test.

724 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2005 Second of all, I find it interesting that the member seemed to spend a lot of time reading the dictionary. He read various elements of Beauchesne but he seemed to have missed

section 31, subsection 1, which directly relates to matters of privilege. This says, "A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege." And, Mr. Speaker, 31(3) which states very clearly: "Statements made outside the House by a Member may not be used as the basis for a question of privilege." There have been numerous Speaker's rulings to that effect. It is important to note that we are in the budget debate. If the member has a concern about the budget, he has the opportunity to raise that.

I noticed he asked numerous questions in Question Period. One might ask if really this is all that members opposite could see to raise two days after the budget is released, but if that is what they consider to be the most pressing matter of the day, they have that opportunity. Later in the session we have the opportunity in Estimates. We even have the opportunity in grievances. I might add, the origin of grievances in parliamentary practice is very much related to the supply motion. It is only the last number of years in this House that grievances have become unattached from the supply motion.

I want to indicate it is clearly a dispute over the facts. If the member is frust rated, that does not make it a matter of privilege. I get frustrated when I hear members asking questions about health care when I know in the last election th ey promised 1 percent in the budget. I know there is a gap of $200 million that would have been there if they had formed govern- ment. I know there is a certain degree of inconsis- tency–I do not want to use stronger language–when they ask for anything involving health care when they ran on a platform that was going to cut it, Mr.

Speaker, but that is why we have budget debate. That is why we put forward the views of our different political parties in budget debate. That is not a matter of privilege. My frustration over their inconsistencies on Health is not a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker. So I want to suggest that in reviewing this matter, and a bit of advice to the member opposite, you know I have had the opportunity to rise on a few matters of privilege over the year. Some were successful and some were not.

I can appreciate at times where people may want to use a supposed matter of privilege to raise a point, but after listening to the member now for about 45 minutes, I think the only point I can pick up is that they really do not have much to say about the budget. They are going back to a newspaper clipping from December. They are going back to last year's budget. Who knows, maybe we will get back to the nineties by the time this is over. That is not a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker. It is not even a point of order. It is not even a point. Thank you. Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman): Mr.

Speaker, I rise here this afternoon to put a few comments on the record with regard to what has transpired here this afternoon. I guess I will preface my comments by saying that at the outset during the debate, during Question Period, when the matter first raised its head, I happened to be sitting with the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms.

Hearing the exchange back and forth, I kept asking myself, "How many times can you ask the same question, and how often can you get the same answer." I started talking with the Deputy Sergeant-at- Arms, and I am not trying to roll him into the argument, but the question seemed to be over and over the same question. I felt the member was quite concerned that the facts th at he was stating to the House, and he was trying to ascertain whether or not the accuracy was correct. We collectively, Mr.

Speaker, and as you will without a doubt, have the occasion to peruse Hansard, and to rule all the parliamentary books that we have at our disposal, and there are several as you already know, that matters of privilege to the members of this Chamber are an extremely serious issue. It is not often, Mr. Speaker, as you already know, in fact I do not think you had the occasion yet, Sir, to rule on a particular matter of privilege in order. If you have, it is very rare. I, on the other hand, have had the occasion to raise a couple of issues.

It is something that has to inherently hurt the rights of a particular member. I have listened intently right now to the Member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Loewen) as he attempts to bring forward the argu- ment about voting on the particular budget, particular estimates in the Department of Health. We are correct. The Acting Opposition House Leader in his remarks where he talks about

March 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 725 Beauchene's 31, and I believe there are a couple of sections in there. It talks about timely matter, it talks about disputes over facts of certain members, but there is a particular rule, Sir, and it is not one that we use very often. It was under Marleau and Montpetit in the book that they prod uced for us where it says, "the rights of the House as a collectivity." I do not want to paraphrase, Mr.

Speaker, but right in the middle of a particular paragraph, the privilege is needed by the House to perform its constitutional duties require the power to protect itself and punish any transgressions against it much like a court of law. The House of Commons enjoys very wide latitude in maintaining its dignity and authority through its exercise of contempt power which is inherent to any superior court.

In other words, the House may through its orders consider any misconduct to be contempt and may deal with it. * (14:50) Privilege as defined in Beauchene's, a book that we have become accustomed to for many years, Beauchene's 24, and I would hope, I am sure that we will hear this particular

section over and over again. But, starting with 24, for the members in this Chamber assembled here today: "Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus, privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the ordinary law. The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character.

The privileges of Parliament are rights which are 'absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers'. They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members, and by each House for its protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity." This is partly put in place by Sir Erskine May. We go on to

section 25. I have stated, you have stated, Sir, on a number of occasions, "I have defined what I consider to be parliamentary privilege. Privilege is what sets Hon. Members apart from other citizens, giving them the rights which the public does not possess." I suggest that we should be careful in construing any particular circumstance which might add to the privileges, which have been recognized over the years and perhaps over the cen turies, as belonging to members of the House of Commons. Citation 26: The distinction between, and here is where we get caught up, privilege and questions of order.

"A question of order concerns the inter- pretation to be put upon the rules of procedure" and is a matter for you, Sir, to determine.

Paragraph 2: "A question of privilege, on the other hand, is a question partly of fact and partly of law–the law of contempt of Parliament–and is a matter for the House to determine." The decision of the House on a question of privilege, like every other matter which is in the House and we have to decide can be elicited only by a question put forth from you, Sir, and be resolved either in the affirmative or in the negative, and this question is necessarily founded on a motion made by a particular member, in this case the Member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Loewen).

It follows that, though you, Sir, can rule on a question of order, you cannot rule on a question of privilege. When a question of privilege is raised, Sir, your functions are limited to deciding whether the matter is of such character as to entitle the motion, which the Member for Fort Whyte, who has raised the question, desires to move to priority over the Orders of the Day. "A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in Parliament. It should be dealt with by a motion giving the House power to impose a reparation or apply a remedy.

A genuine question of privilege is a most serious matter and should be taken seriously by the House." Mr. Speaker, I sat intently listening to the Member for Fort Whyte and the argument he was attempting to make in this particular publication that came out, I believe, some time in December. I heard the Member for Fort Whyte attempting to, if you will, entice the Minister of Health (Mr. Sale) to confirm the allegations as they were produced in said document.

726 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2005 Marleau and Montpetit, and I refer you one more time back to there where th ey say, "We enjoy a very wide latitude in maintaining our dignity and authority through its exercise of contempt power which is inherent to any superior court." In other words, the House may, through its orders, consider any misconduct to be a contempt, and we may deal with them. The integrity of every member, as pointed out by the Member for Fort Whyte, is at stake here today.

We, on a regular basis, Sir, are asked to stand in our places, vote yea or nay, in the affirmative or the negative. We take members' words and we will take them to the bank. Our words in this House mean an awful lot to us. We do not question the integrity of a particular member, no matter which side of the House they will sit on. A member of the government will give me his word, and I will take it to the bank. A member of the opposition will give us his word, and we will take that to the bank. This is part of the character that we possess in this Chamber. We do not have to second-guess, nor do we check up on.

We should not have to. In this particular document that the Member for Fort Whyte refers to, the budget document, a document that we spend hours, days and weeks tearing apart and trying to fulfil our commitment to our constituents to see whether or not the amount of dollars being requested by the government and which they say they are spending on a particular program and/or department. We spent days and weeks trying to either convince our constituents this is good for them or that the government of the day has a particular interest in spending the dollars elsewhere. Every word that is in that document, Mr.

Speaker, we will take to the bank because it is supposed to be a factual document without which we would not be able to do the service that we do on behalf of our constituents. Mr. Speaker, albeit the Acting Government House Leader has said in a timely manner, that we have missed the door. I would venture a guess that if you look at Marleau and Montpetit, you would see that they have left us a little bit of a leeway, in order to recompense ourselves w ith the general public and give us some credibility for what we do here in this Chamber. There is not much more that I can add.

I sense the Member for Fort Whyte's argument is a valid one. I sense that what the Acting Government House Leader has brought forward is also valid. I think you, Sir, have a responsibility to this Chamber, that the arguments we make on behalf of the constituents in the province of Manitoba are all valid, and we can only do that once we have factual information. Without it, Sir, we might as well be at some schoolhouse doing whatever we must be doing. Unless we can trust one another, we are not going anywhere, and we are not doing anything for the people of this province.

I beseech you, Sir, take time, peruse the Hansard and the rules, and, hopefully, you will find that the Member for Fort Whyte has made a prima facie case in bringing forward his argument. Mr. Speaker: I think I have probably heard sufficient argument. If the honourable member is rising because she feels there is some point that has not been touched upon, I will hear her very briefly. Mrs.

Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): I rise today to speak on this matter of privilege, and in my whole tenure as a politician, I have never ever risen to speak to a matter of privilege before, but I take this so seriously that I feel compelled today to put some comments on the record. My comments will be new information added to this discussion. Mr. Speaker, I was the critic at the time this budget we are discussing right now, this budget that is under dispute. I was the critic at the time when this, what seems to be now a false budget, was put forward.

I have to say, as the critic of Health, I feel pretty used and manipulated to think the NDP government put forward a budget that was not honest and was not accurate. I feel my privileges as a member have certainly been abused in this situation as I have spent hours and hours, year after year , with the Minister of Health going through line by line every budget item. Now we hear that this budget was fudged. In the business world, something like that would be considered fraud. Here we have a government and a minister that actually went out and admitted this in public.

The minister said right at Christmastime that the Province purposely underfunded its Health budget, the budget that I spent hours questioning the government on. The minister said that the Province really had no intention of ever meeting the budget for Health it set in April. Well, then, what was I doing as the Health critic spending hours asking questions if it was not even a budget that was accurate, honest or even ethical? The minister is quoted as saying, "We

March 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 727 had reduced the budget for Health to an absolutely unattainable level in terms of reductions." * (15:00) Mr. Speaker, this is far more than just about what this government and this minister admitted to. This goes far beyond just this manipulation of this one situation. Did the Pr emier (Mr. Doer) of the province agree to this? Obviously. Those budgets are looked at by Treasury Board and by the Premier of this province. This is more than just a Minister of Health running out talking about the manipulation, the fudging of a budget.

This would go right to the top of a government in terms of their ethics and what they are putting forward to us. How can I come here and honestly do my job and represent the people as a Health critic of the people of the province, the people of this province who right now are struggling with a health care system that is falling apart.

Right now, where health care is the biggest spending in the province, where that budget is the biggest budget for health care in the country, where this government has poured over a billion dollars more into the health care system and they continue to do so, where we have a Premier that said the health care budget is going to force a provincial budget to hit a fiscal wall and within a few years, health care is going to consume everything in this province. We are debating health care as the most serious issue in this province, Mr. Speaker. It is where most of the money goes.

How do we now know if the numbers that are being debated in Estimates or in a budget are even accurate, not only for health care, but perhaps for many other departments? This is about ethics of how a government presents itself, its budget, its numbers. When the NDP first became government, the Minister of Health said at the time that the health care budget was like a runaway train. There was no accountability in it. He sa id the buck stops nowhere. Well, Mr. Speaker, it still looks like it stops nowhere. This is so disconcerting because of the challenges right now that was face in health care.

What we have heard this minister say in his comments and when questioned today in Question Period, whether or not those statements were accurate, he refused in a straightforward way to answer the question. I think that is so disrespectful not only to the members in this House but to the taxpayers of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, what now comes into effect is the credibility of this minister, the credibility of the next Health budget, the credibility of the Premier of this province and the Treasury Board, and the credibility and ethics of this NDP government. This is absolutely unbelievable.

It is disrespectful and it is absolutely insulting to everybody in this province. If I could not carry out my duties and obviously then all of the questions I was asking about the budget, what was the point in me having had to do that? Right now, I hear chirping from the other side of the House. I am amazed at the arrogance that they sit there so smugly when such an issue like this is in debate. I do not accept just an apology from this Minister of Health. My pr ivileges as a member were abused by this government in the last round of Estimates. What is going to happen in this next round?

I think the Auditor General needs to have a look at the Health budget based on what this minister admitted in December. A good question really arises from all of this. Will the Attorney General sign off on this budget? Sorry. Will the Auditor General sign off on this budget? It certainly brings into a lot of question. Mr. Speaker, no wonder the public finds poli- ticians and politics, brings it into question, and they wonder what we do. We lose respect because of some of the shenanigans that go on here.

As far as I am concerned, this is a situation where ethics have been misused, where hone sty comes into question, where credibility is certainly an issue. As I said before, in the real world of business, this would be dealt with as fraud. I am absolutely appalled at the comments that this minister made, the misleading of a huge budget, the biggest budget in all of govern- ment at over 40 percent. How they could do that and then turn around and say we intended, we purposely did it. I urge you to look carefully at this situation because this does go far beyond a matter of privilege in this question.

This has huge ramifications for all of us for years to come in this province. And certainly with the minister refusing to properly answer that question today after he has admitted it to the media, is a breach of what I feel are the

728 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2005 privileges that we have. I feel he has abused that particular privilege of all of us, and I think he has really thumbed his nose at the people of this province. I think it is a disappointing day in this Legislature. I am very disappointed to see what has happened, and I urge a very thorough look at this. Certainly, as the critic involved at that time, I am not particularly happy with th e answers that have been given by this government. I do not accept just any apology, although an apology should be forth- coming.

I think this is a huge matter and a matter that the Auditor General probably needs to have a look at. Thank you. Mr. Speaker:. Before we proceed, I want to remind all honourable members this is not the time for the debate. What it is right now is you are dealing with was this raised at the earliest opportunity and is this a prima facie case. From those arguments I will make a decision, and if it is affirmative, then you will have the opportunity to debate, but right now this is not the time for debate. This is the time to raise at the earliest opportunity and whether it is a prima facie case.

I saw that the honourable Government House Leader was up on his feet. The honourable Member for Inkster, with new information? Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Yes, it is. Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the efforts from the member from Fort Whyte in raising this very important issue. First, in terms of the earliest opportunity, let me say that if the member had not asked the questions that he did ask today, I think there might have been an opportunity for us to say that it was not the earliest opportunity.

I think what we saw was a genuine attempt by a member of this Legislature to seek clarification from a minister in a very succinct fashion, and the Minister of Health (Mr. Sale) had ample opportunity to give clarification on what is a critically important issue. One might be able to say that, because it was a news article, what the relevance is in terms of inside this Chamber. I would suggest to you, given the very nature of what has been said and how the minister has chosen not answer the question, that the seriousness of the issue has been elevated tremendously.

In reality what we have seen is the Minister of Health has rolled the dice. He has taken a huge chance at the expense of Manitobans. When he came forward with the budget, he had no idea of the outcome of a federal election. The federal election was not even called at that point in time. We had no sense in terms of what sort of financial dollars were going to be coming to the province, yet he chose to throw in the numbers that he had thrown in. I am sensitive to that because, over the last number of months, I have tried to get a better understanding of the provincial deficit.

The role the provincial auditor played at trying to shed light as to what the actual situation was is 180 degrees different than what the government of the day was trying to portray. I like what the member from Charleswood is suggesting. We do need to get the provincial auditor involved in this.

I think that this is, indeed, very serious. * (15:10) If, in fact, the Minister of Health is not prepared to stand up in his place and say that he was misquoted, or that he made a mistake in the interview he had with the member of the media, if that is not the case, then he needs to apologize and say that he gave wrong information. Ultimately, if the information he gave to the reporter is indeed correct, well, then, I would argue that we should bring in the provincial auditor's office to investigate this whole matter.

If we are suggesting to you that the provincial auditor needs to be investigating, one has to question whether or not the rights of individual members, and the Chamber as a whole, have been breached in any fashion. Mr. Speaker, I believe unless the Minister of Health is prepared to st and up today and rectify the issue by making the very clear statements that we were debating back then was, in fact, valid. If he is not prepared to do that, th en our rights have been infringed upon. We just had a budget that was tabled just a couple of days ago.

When you open up that budget, there are 13 pages on the Department of Health. Are these the actual numbers? Does the government have those numbers and able to do what is being talked about? I think a shadow of doubt has been cast by what the Minister of Health has done. For that reason, Mr.

March 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 729 Speaker, I do believe that there is merit for us to proceed ahead with this matter of privilege and would suggest to you that it needs to be taken very seriously. I appreciate the Opposition House Leader (Mr. Derkach) allowing me to say a few words prior to him, and in anticipation of what ruling you might come up with. Thank you. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): Well, I thank you so much, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me an opport unity to put a few remarks on the record with respect to this matter of privilege.

This is an extremely disappointing day in the Chamber because this situ ation and the actions of this minister have cast a shadow and a pall upon the integrity, the credibility, the honesty of not only this minister, but, indeed, of this government. Mr. Speaker, how are Manitobans supposed to believe anything that is laid before them by way of official documents such as the budget? When members of the public ask us to justify how it is that we would allow the Minister of Health (Mr.

Sale) in the newspaper article, to be quoted as saying that he purposely downplayed the budget of the Department of Health, and how we co uld, as members repre- senting the public, allow this minister to get away with it, this is something I cannot answer. That is why we bring this matter to the floor of the House because if there is going to be any integrity and credibility of this House and its responsibilities to our citizens, then we cannot allow this kind of corruption to sneak into this Chamber and into this House. Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely, extremely serious matter.

I am going to pause until I get the attention of the Minister of Health. I can understand by the body language acro ss the hall that there is some discomfort about this issue and there should be. There should be because they have, without being drawn into it by anybody from the public or anybody from this side of the House, this minister has stated that he has purposely misled this Legislature, the citizens of this province by understating the Health budget, knowing that he could not, indeed, achieve the levels of expenditure he said he could in the budget. Now, Mr.

Speaker, it goes beyond that because this member was also, and could be still, a member of Treasury Board. Now this is a member of Treasury Board who goes before this body that scrutinizes whether or not each department has brought forward its best estimates to this body to approve and then this goes to the Cabinet of which the Premier (Mr. Doer) is the head. It implicates the inner sanctum of the go vernment. These are the people who we depend upon to lead this province in every aspect of our lives.

If you do not have honesty, how can people ever have or ever hold members who hold these offices in any kind of esteem? We have to correct this, and, unfortunately, it falls in your lap because now you have to decide on how it is you are going to manage this. We are giving opportunity to the Minister of Health to stand in his place today and to correct the record. The member from Fort Whyte used a significant amount of Question Period today to ask the minister precisely whether or not the words that were recorded in the newspaper, in the Free Press, reflected what he meant and what he said.

By not denying the fact, by not saying that it was an error, by saying that this was not a reflection of what he said, or a reflection of the words, he was, in other words, admitting that what was on the record was, in fact, accurate. Otherwise, he would have stood in his place and he would have said what was said in the newspaper is absolutely a misrepresentation of what I said and what I meant. But he could not stand in his place in this House and do that. What does that say to us?

That says to us that, indeed, what he said in the newspaper and what was quoted in the newspaper, was an accurate reflection of what he said. That is why the member from Fort Whyte rose in his place and very eloquently put the case before this House. Mr. Speaker, this was not done without a considerable amount of thought and research.

For days the member from Fort Whyte was troubled by the fact that we in this Legislature debate the issues of the Estimates that are laid before us, and that is why we devote significant amounts of time to ensure that, through questioning of those Estimates, we, in fact, get an accurate picture of where this province's finances are as they relate to each and every single department we have within this government.

The member from Charleswood, who was the critic for Health at that time, went before the Estimates process having faith in the fact the documents that were laid before her by the Minister of Health were a true representation of the true picture and the facts as th ey were, never suspecting

730 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2005 for one single moment the minister had put an untruth and an untruthful picture before her, knowing those numbers were not accurate, that that was not achievable and, in fact, he was able to convince his colleagues in Treasury Boar d and in Cabinet that it was okay for him to do this, Mr. Speaker.

She did not know that, and so as a representative of citizens of this province, at the end of the day, she allowed the Estimates for her department to be approved without raising the issue because it was hidden from her. * (15:20) If you look at the track record of this minister, I am not surprised that we are where we are today because I go back to his undertaking of his portfolio in energy and mines when he came to us cap in hand saying, "Members of the Conservative Party, please support this legislation on ethanol because we will not get federal money if you do not approve this." Another lie.

On the basis of his pleading, we said we would allow this bill to proceed through the House without the prolonged course that bills in this House usually take. Then he had the audacity, after he had approval from this House, to say that we did not support his efforts to get this legislation through. Now, that is an abject, dishonest statement that was made by him. Mr. Speaker, that is an unparliamentary word, "dishonest," and I regret to have used it. An Honourable Member: That makes us feel a lot better, Len. Mr. Derkach: How the member from Thompson feels is not my concern.

But, let me say this, this same minister, then as Minister of Family Services, repeated that very same kind of action. I refer you to the issues surrounding Hydra House. Do I have to refer you back to the Aud itor General's comments as they relate to Hydra House and the actions of this minister then? Now we come before the House where the minister has said publicly in the news media that he purposely fudged the books of the Department of Health. What kind of a track record is that?

But, more importantly, what do the citizens of this province think about politicians, members of Privy Council, members of Executive Council who do this wilfully, knowing that, in fact, it does not reflect the truth. It does not reflect the true picture. As a matter of fact, it is misleading citizens of this province into thinking that, in fact, those benchmarks are achievable when, in fact, when the minister set those benchmarks, he knew those benchmarks were not achievable. Now the minister can try to weasel his way out of this in every way he can.

But the only way that he will regain any credibility in this House, in this province, to the citizens of this wonderful and great province is if he stands in his place and apologizes. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the prima facie case here because never in the history of this province have I ever heard anybody stand in this House and say that he wilfully misled Manitobans by understating the numbers in his or her department, especially in a department that spends 40 percent of the provincial budget.

We can spend some time on this, and it takes away time from the budget debate this year, but I will tell you, members of the public– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Derkach: – watching our debates, listening to our debates, reading the newspapers are going to be asking the question, "Is this the real budget? Is this the fudged budget?" We do not know because who knows that six months down the road some minister on that side of the House will say, "Well, we knew we could not achieve that level, but we printed it anyway." The Premier (Mr.

Doer), the First Minister of this province, who has the obligation to ensure that all of this is done with integrity, credibility and honesty, has to wear that. I want to know what this Premier is going to say when he steps out into the public and has to admit that he knowingly allowed his minister to understate a budget in Health. I want to know what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) has to say about this because, Mr. Speaker, I have had a significant regard for him as Minister of Finance beca use I think he does an honest job in his task as Minister of Finance.

Now I question, did he know what his colleague the Minister of Health was up to? What did he say to his colleague, the Minister of Health, when he read the

article in the newspaper? What was the discussion around the Treasury Board table? What was the discussion with Mr. Kostyra when that happened?

March 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 731 What was the discussion around the Cabinet table when that happened? So, Mr.

Speaker, not to take any more of your precious time, but to refer this matter into your hands, unless we have a full and complete apology to the citizens of this province, I ask you, in the spirit of protecting the integrity of this House and the integrity of this Legislature, to seriously take this matter into consideration and to do what is best, not just for the immediate but for the future of this Legislature so that Manitobans will indeed regain the respect, the integrity, the credibility and their view of honesty for the sanctity of this Legislature in the province of Manitoba. Thank you. Mr.

Speaker: A matter of privilege is a serious concern. I am going to take this matter under advisement to consult the authorities. I will return to the House with a ruling. Now we are in– [interjection] Order. On a point of order? An Honourable Member: No, Mr. Speaker, infor- mation that was requested from me earlier– Mr. Speaker: Order. I am still on privilege. An Honourable Member: Oh, I am sorry. Mr. Speaker: We are still on privilege, and I have just informed the House what my actions will be. We will now continue Question Period. ORAL QUESTIONS (Continued) Mr.

Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health had the floor, and the honourable Minister of Health has 30 seconds remaining. Mr. Sale: Thank you, Mr. Spea ker. For the infor- mation of the House, a hip surgery is currently underway this afternoon in Boundary Trails and at Concordia Hospital, which in 2003-2004 did 480 surgeries. We transferred 150 from St. Boniface. We announced an additional 100. Their target this year is 730. They expect to do 738. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on Members' State- ments.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Portuguese Association of Manitoba Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): On March 5, my wife and I had the privilege of celebrating 39 years of the Portuguese Association of Manitoba. We attended the anniversary dinner at the cultural centre at 659 Young Street, in the heart of Winnipeg's West End. Mr. Speaker, the Portuguese community in Manitoba is a large and vibrant one. Forty short years ago, most Portuguese immigrants worked as agricultural and construction labourers. But, today, Portuguese Canadians are an important part of our entire business and professional community.

The pride of Portuguese Canadians and the vibrancy of their community were most evident last summer along Sargent Avenue and Ellice Avenue during Portugal's dramatic run th rough the European soccer championship. Mr. Speaker, the Portuguese Association of Manitoba has played a vital role in advancing the interests of the Portuguese community and pro- moting and preserving Portuguese culture and heritage. Several hundred families belong to the association. The Portuguese Association of Manitoba runs a heritage school and provides ESL and music classes.

The cultural centre is also home to four dance groups with over 100 participants and hosts the Portuguese pavilion at Folklorama. These activities make a valuable contribution to the multiculturalism of our province and have played a key role in advancing the Portuguese community in Manitoba. At the dinner we had the pleasure of being entertained by Portuguese singers and one of the dance groups and, this being Winnipeg, we also enjoyed the Romanetz Ukrainian Dance Ensemble who were guest performers and a great example of the spirit of co-operation in our multicultural community. Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate the Portuguese Association of Manitoba on its 39 years of enriching our mosaic. I would also like to recognize the contribution that Portuguese Canadians have made and are making to our province. Thank you.

732 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2005 * (15:30) Good Neighbours Senior Centre Fundraiser Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): Last night I had the privilege of attending the 10th Annual Fundraising Dinner of the Good Neighbours Senior Centre. At this successful event, two community women, Eleanor Stalmack and Sonja Lundstrom, were recognized as comm unity builders. They are members of the Seniors' Health Resource Team has been working in northeast Winnipeg for over six years to build a culture of wellness rather than illness in our community.

I had the privilege of being part of the announcement that brought the Seniors' Health Resource Team to our community. This was a public-private partnership between the Filmon gov- ernment, who provided the financial resources for the staff, and Martin Bergen who provided the bricks and mortar to physically house the staff in his seniors apartment blocks. We have seen this community- based health care project blossom as a direct result of Eleanor and Sonja's distinctive skills, qualifications and passion for their work.

Eleanor and Sonja bring years of experience to their positions, but just as important, they bring a friendly smile and sympathetic ear to River East seniors. There are many outward and visible signs that we have something special in our community. People are valued as individuals, more connected to each other and treated as persons, not statistics, recognized, remembered and valued. We see how delightfully integrated this team is with the River East Council for Seniors and the Good Neighbour Seniors Centre.

Servicing the largest seniors popu- lation in the city of Winnipeg, the Seniors' Health Resource Team may not be able to quote exactly how many people they see in a week or a year, but they can assure you that no file of a living recipient is ever closed. We have witnessed evidence of their success in making our community a better place to live. We know that with their boundless energy we will see many more new and exciting things to come. I am truly privileged and proud to represent a community with leaders and innovators like Eleanor Stelmack and Sonja Lundstrom. Sierra Noble Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to recognize a very special young person, a rising star in Manitoba's arts and cultural scene. That young person is Ms. Sierra Noble. Sierra, a resident of Wolseley with her mother, Sherry, is known by Manitoba's Métis community as the 14-year-old fiddling sensation. Sierra began playing classical violin at the age of 7. Her mother tells the story of how she knew at a very early age she wanted to play violin, and Sierra began studying traditional Métis fiddling at the ripe age of 8 under the tutelage of Manitoba fiddler, Tommy Knott.

She went on to win Manitoba's Junior Fiddling and Jigging Champion- ship in 2003-04, and along with her specialization in Métis fiddling, Sierra also excels and studies classical, Celtic, country, old-time bluegrass and middle eastern musical styles. Now, Sierra's passion for her music is perhaps only eclipsed by her passion for activist issues such as the global banning of land mines. She received the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal from Governor General Adrienne Clarkson, as well as several other humanitarian awards. Ms.

Noble was also one of Canada's representatives for the Ban Land Mines International Children's Conference held just last year in Japan. I have had the privilege of joining Sierra on several recent occasions as she meets with local school groups to share her love of the Métis culture and to encourage young people to get involved in local and global issues. In conclusion, I want to congratulate Sierra, her mother Sherry, and their proud community of supporters on her recent release of her CD, Spirit of the Strings , and I am a proud owner of an auto- graphed copy in my office, I might add.

I also want to commend Sierra for being such a strong role model for a better world, not just for young people but for all Manitobans. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. La Salle Women's Curling Team Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share with this Assembly the success of the La Salle Women's Curling Team. Skip Calleen Neufeld, Sabrina Neufeld, Laryssa Grenkow and

March 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 733 Lindsay Edie recently won the Provincial Junior Women's Curling Championships. These young women have curled together for two years and have been working hard to improve their game. They participate in as many bonspiels as possible, practise often and also curl out of the Victoria Curling Club in Winnipeg. Led by Calleen Neufeld, the La Salle women's curling club proudly represented Manitoba at the 2005 Canadian Junior Curling Championships in Fredericton, New Brunswick.

Although Neufeld and her team did not win the nationals, they put forth a valiant effort and hope to represent Manitoba again in upcoming seasons. Mr. Speaker, we know that participating in sporting activities is important to young people in our province, particularly to young women who are interested in leading healthy lifestyles and want to put their skills, abilities and energy to good use. It is encouraging to know that so many young women are physically active and involved in their local communities. Mr.

Speaker, it is also International Women's Week, a time to celebrate the accomplishments and successes of women. The theme this year is rural and northern women, as well as to acknowledge these women who have made a difference in the lives of other women. Calleen Neufeld and her team deserve our recognition for their success here in Manitoba, and our heartfelt appreciation for representing our province nationally.

On behalf of all honourable members, I wish to extend congratulations to Calleen, Sabrina, Lindsay and Laryssa for their vi ctory at the women's Provincial Curling Championships and wish them all the best in future tournaments. Thank you very much. Border Explorers Snowmobile Club Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, last Friday, March 4th, I was fortunate enough to participate in the dignitaries ride offered by the Border Explorers Snowmobile Club. The club consists of 42 enthusiastic snowmobilers from Creighton, Flin Flon and surrounding areas.

Along with members of the club, other dignitaries enjoying the ride to the ski chalet via Creighton, Douglas Lake, Booth Lake and Phantom Lake where Mayor Dennis Ballard from Flin Flon, Councillor Lavern Hinzman from Creighton and Councillor Roland Chretien from Denare Beach. Friday's weather was beautiful. It was exhila- rating to zoom along the immaculately groomed trails and view pristine northern scenery from something other than a car or an airplane. Nothing on earth can rival the beauty of northern Manitoba in winter. At the end of the ride, a fabulous trail lunch awaited us at the ski chalet.

Hot chili, buns, coffee and dessert never tasted better. The dignitaries ride on Friday was part of a three-day rally as the Border Explorers hosted the Saskatchewan Snowmobile Association's provincial festival. On Saturday the festival included a breakfast, three lengthy trail rides, an awards banquet and a social. President Barry Bradshaw and other Saskatchewan Snowmobile Association representa- tives along with Snowman representatives were an integral part of the events. I would like to extend a big thank you to all organizers and participants in the weekend rally.

Thank you, Border Explorer President Dwayne Wenger for inviting me, and thank you, also, Cathy Daneliuk for supplying me with safe and warm winter gear. Thank you, Ken Mansell, for letting me ride on your snowmobile. It was great fun. ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS ADJOURNED DEBATE (Third Day of Debate) Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government and the proposed motion of the honourable Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr.

Murray), in amendment thereto standing in the name of the honourable Member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Loewen), who has two minutes remaining. Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I would just preface my comments by

734 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2005 saying I dearly hope that this budget this year is actually factual. Mr. Speaker, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity driven by a strong U.S. economy the likes of which we have not seen in centuries, driven by increased revenue from the GST, driven by a minority federal Liberal government who is desperate to send themselves back into power, into a majority.

This government has received over $470 million in new transfer funds, but they have missed the opportunity to make Manitoba competitive by reducing the job-killing taxes of the payroll tax and the capital tax. They have missed the opportunity to fund universities properly , to keep the Bobcats in Brandon and to fix the leaks in the roof at the University of Winnipeg. They have missed the opportunity to reduce the most punishing tax this province has ever seen. In fact, they are increasing it by $40 million, and I am referring to the gambling and VLT tax. They are pun ishing people.

They are causing deaths in this province by not taking action on that file. Most regrettably, they are missing an oppor- tunity to provide meaningful help and assistance to the working poor in this province who would benefit greatly from this government finally making a decision to index the personal exemptions to the cost-of-living. They are giving them a paltry $100 which is a joke. Do the right thing; do it for everybody. Put the cost-of-living addition to the personal exemptions. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this is a government at sea.

This is a government that has no basis, no strong underpinning base on values. This is a government that does everything according to what they believe is politically expedient on that particular day, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves. Thank you. * (15:40) Mr. Conrad Santos (Wellington): Mr.

Speaker, in this debate on the budget, the MLA for Wellington will focus on the problem of inequality, economic inequality, and whether or not it is the function of government to alleviate or remedy this social fact, and if so, how best may the government implement distributed and redistributed policy to narrow the gap between the haves and have-nots in our society. This problem should not have happened because of the well-known doctrines about equality in our demo- cratic society. We have what we call political equality, we have legal equality and we have social equality.

And yet we are under this problem of economic inequality. Thomas Jefferson, inspired by the British philosopher John Locke, when he was writing the original draft of the Declaration of Independence stated initially, "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable: that all men are created equal and independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable among which are the preservation of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness." He changed that original draft, and the final revision came.

He stated, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Our direct observation and our experience seem to point to the contrary. All persons may be equally born, but they are not all born equal. Ms.

Bonnie Korzeniowski, Acting Speaker, in the Chair Our direct observation of human beings make us all painfully aware that no two human beings, even twins, are precisely equal in physical appearance, in mental faculties, in potential and actual abilities. While we were all created equal, in fact, some are more equal than others. Indeed, we are not equal in ability, in resourcefulness, or in merit, but there is that human passion for equality, an ideal state of affairs to which we may all aspire.

The doctrine of political equality means that unless disqualified we all have the right to vote, to run for public office and to participate in political activities. Legal equality assumes that we are all equal before the law and before courts of justice. Social equality calls for our respectful treatment of each other in our social relationships.

Political, legal and social equality derives from what the philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau called "an equality that is moral and legitimate, and that men who may be unequal in strength or intelligence become every one equal by convention and legal right." Rousseau continued by stating, "Under bad government, this equality is only apparent and

March 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 735 illusory. It serves only to keep the pauper in his poverty and the rich man in the position that he has usurped." How did the philosopher Rousseau explain the very origin of human inequality?

In Rousseau's dissertation on the origin and foundation of ine- quality of mankind, he asserted, "The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying, 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society." At that point in time, anyone might have saved mankind by pulling up the stakes and crying to his fellows, "Beware of listening to this impostor. You are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all and the earth itself to nobody." Once established as a right, property tends to expand.

Small proprietors become big proprietors. Big proprietors, to protect their posses- sions against invasion or plunder, institute civil government ostensibly for the security of all, but, really to secure for themselves their property and their power. Such was the origin of inequality of humankind. But there are so many meanings to this equality bit. What are some of the different meanings of equality, rhetorically speaking, or pragmatically speaking? Is there really equality among human beings? We already mentioned the rhetorical equality doctrine of political equality, legal equality, social equality.

These are doctrinal principles that may or may not be meaningful to a specific individual depending on

interpretation and application by persons in authority, such as the police, the adminis- trative agencies, the co urts, the media and the general public.

Even if we acknowledg e that every qualified person has the equal right to vote and to run for public office, an individual may not really be able to run for public office if the potential candidate does not think that he or she has the number of people who will be able to help in the campaign, or if the potential candidate does not believe that he has enough money that can be raised in time to pay for anticipated campaign expenses to make his or her candidacy successful.

Legal equality may exist in name only if an individual lacks enough money to hire a good lawyer who will obviously be charging him more than the potential client can afford consistent with the lawyer's prestige, skill and experience in litigation. Social equality may be illusory if the person you are dealing with is either so arrogant, so rude, or impolite, and therefore, not able to accord due respect to another because of a perceived gap in social economic status.

Therefore, the things we deeply and sincerely believe in such as political, legal and social equality in our democratic society, may for some people exist only as rhetorical words, nice to hear, but actually empty words devoid of meaning in the harsh, pragmatic world of economic reality. What is the actual and pragmatic meaning of equality in the real world, the materialistic world of human experience? There are at least three meanings of human equality in the materialistic world of economic reality. First, we assert that all human beings are equal in our relationship with the divine.

The MLA for Wellington believes that our maker is a just, wise and merciful God who treats all human beings as his beloved creatures, regardless of wealth, power or social status. Second, all human beings are equal in the sense that they all are subject to the varying degrees of human limitations, regardless of their ambitions, desires or aspirations. They are all subject to the vicissitudes of fortune and subject to the vicissitudes of death.

The poet John Donne said, "And that comes equally to us all and makes us all equal when it counts." Third, all human beings are endowed with life, with liberty and discernment which are variously known as conscience, reason or rationality.

For example, we all cannot perceive, regardless of our level of education or level of literacy, that all persons in similar or like circumstances should be treated as much as possible equally to approximate human justice and fairness. * (15:50) So the rhetorical concepts of equality in terms of political, legal and social equality and the actual pragmatic meaning of reality in the materialistic world, meaning equality before God, equality of our limitations in our mortality and equality in our rational faculty, all thes e are not sufficient to overcome the adverse effects of material and economic inequality among human beings.

Moreover, economic inequality is generally inherited. They continue from generation to

736 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 2005 generation. As the rich become richer and the poor become poorer, is it a proper function of government to alleviate economic inequality, and if so, how may the government devise and implement distributive and redistributive policy through the budget process in order to narrow the ever-growing gap between the haves and the have-nots in our society? Is it the proper function of government to alleviate and remedy economic inequality?

As the custodian and trustee of the general public good of all the people, it is the proper function of government to alleviate the growing economic inequality in our contemporary society. In his work entitled A Discourse On Political Economy , Jean Jacques Rousseau stated that government includes the administration of property, the protection of persons and the provision of public wants. Adam Smith, in his book The Wealth of Nations , stated that the political economy was there to provide plentiful revenue for the subsistence of the people and to supply the state with revenue sufficient for public services.

It was Karl Marx, in his work Capital, writing as an economist as well as a social scientist, who criticized the way capitalism works without cons- cience in the sense that some men get richer than they need to be and some others become poorer than they should be. Thus, compared to Adam Smith whose purpose is to increase the wealth of nations, Marx strove in

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-3-17
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 3rd hansardpdf 17.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4eecf59f9f85e11125f091056088365a50a64f06

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