Manitoba Hansard — 1 ISSN 542 (Sitting 52, 37th Legislature, 2nd Session)

37-2-52

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session- Thirty-Seventh Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LI No. 52- 1:30 p.m., Monday, June 25,2001 ISSN 0542-5492

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

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

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

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

319 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, June 25,2001 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Kenaston Underpass Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of R. Vandenbergue, Rob Knudsen, Rich McMillan and others, praying that the Premier of Manitoba (Mr. Doer) consider reversing his decision to not support construction of an underpass at Kenas ton and Wilkes. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Manitoba Hydro Lines Routes Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Springfield (Mr.

Schuler), I have reviewed the petition, and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [Agreed] Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT the R.M. of East St. Paul has the highest concentration of high voltage power lines in a residential area in Manitoba; and THAT the R.M. of East St.

Paul is the only jurisdiction in Manitoba that has both a SOOkV and a 230kV line directly behind residences; and THAT numerous studies have linked cancer, in particular childhood leukemia, to the prox imity of power lines. WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro consider alter native routes for the additional 230kV and SOOkV lines proposed for the R.M. of East St. Paul. Kenaston Underpass Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Tuxedo (Mrs.

Stefanson}, I have reviewed the petition, and it complies with the rules and practices of the House.

Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [Agreed] * (13:35) Madam Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT the intersection at Wilkes and Kenaston has grown to become the largest on separated crossing in Canada; and THAT the volume of traffic for this railroad crossing is twelve times the acceptable limit as set out by Transport Canada; and THAT vehicles which have to wait for trains at this intersection bum up approximately $1.4 million in fuel, pollute the environment with over 8 tons of emissions and cause approx imately $7.3 mill ion in motorist delays every year.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIO NERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Premier of Manitoba consider reversing his decision to not support construction of an underpass at Kenas ton and Wilkes. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger), I have reviewed the petition, and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [Agreed] Madam Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth:

3192 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 25, 2001 THAT the intersection at Wilkes and Kenaston has grown to become the largest on separated crossing in Canada; and THAT the volume of traffic for this railroad crossing is twelve times the acceptable limit as set out by Transport Canada; and THAT vehicles which have to wait for trains at this intersection burn up approximately $1.4 million in fuel, pollute the environment with over 8 tons of emissions and cause approx imately $7.3 million in motorist delays every year.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Premier of Manitoba consider reversing his decision to not support construction of an underpass at Kenas ton and Wilkes. PTH 9 Upgrade Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), I have reviewed the petition, and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [Agreed} Clerk, please read. Madam Clerk: To the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba: These are the reasons for this petition: I.

The Provincial Trunk Highway No. 9 and the Selkirk Corridor are widely used thorough fares in the constituency of Gimli and the province of Manitoba. 2. These thoroughfares have consistently recorded traffic counts in excess of I 0 000 vehicles (both automobiles and trucks) daily, according to statistics provided by the University of Manitoba/Manitoba Highways and Transportation. 3. These thoroughfares are in dire need of improvement and upgrade. 4. Adequate safety considerations and condi tions must be maintained on these thoroughfares at all times and in all places.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: We request the Minister of Transportation and Government Services (Mr. Ashton) to consider upgrading Provincial Trunk Highway No. 9 and the Selkirk Corridor thoroughfares immediately. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Standing Committee on Law Amendments Fourth Report Mr. Doug Martindale (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Fourth Report of the Committee on Law Amendments. Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): The Standing Committee on Law Amendments presents the following- Some Honourable Members: Dispense. Mr.

Speaker: Dispense. Your Standing Committee on Law Amendments presents the following as its Fourth Report. Meetings: Your committee met on: Monday, June 18, 2001, at 6:30p.m. Thursday, June 21, 2001, at 6:30p.m. All meetings were held in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider bills referred. Matters Under Consideration: June 18, 2001, at 6:30p.m. meeting: Bill 7-The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act/Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur /'Hydro-Manitoba Bill 8-The Mines and Minerals Amendment Act!Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les mines et les mine raux Bill 10-The Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods and Consequential Amendments Act/Loi visant a accroitre Ia securite des collectivites et des quartiers et modifications correlatives

June 25, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 319 3 Bill 41-An Act to Comply with the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in M v. H./Loi visant /'observation de Ia decision de Ia Cour supreme du Canada dans /'arret M c. H. June 21, 2001, at 6:30p. m. meeting: Bill 8-The Mines and Minerals Amendment Act!Loi modzjiant Ia

Loi sur les mines et les mineraux Bill 10-The Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods and Consequential Amend ments Act/Loi visant a accroitre Ia securite des co/lectivites et des quartiers et modifications correlatives Bill 41-An Act to Comply with the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in M v. H./Loi visant /'observation de Ia decision de Ia Cour supreme du Canada dans /'arret M c. H. Members hip Resignations/Elections: At the Monday, June 18, 2001, meeting, your committee elected: Ms. KORZENIOWSKI as Vice-Chairperson. Substitutions received prior to commencement of meeting on June 18,2001, at 6:30p. m.: Mr.

Praznik for Mr. Laurendeau; Mr. Tweed for Mr. Faurschou; Mr. Pitura for Mrs. Mitchelson; Mrs. Stefanson for Mrs. Smith (Fort Garry); Ms. Korzeniowski for Mr. Nevakshono.ff; Hon. Ms. Mihychukfor Ms. Allan; Hon. Ms. Barrett for Mr. Santos; Han. Mr. Caldwell for Mr. Aglugub; Hon. Mr. Selinger for Hon. Mr. Smith (Brandon West); Han. Mr. Mackintosh for Hon. Mr. Sale. Substitutions received prior to commencement of meeting on June 21, 2001, at 6:30p. m.: Mr. Santos for Han. Mr. Selinger; Mr. Laurendeau for Mr. Praznik; Mr. Reimer for Mr. Tweed.

Substitutions received during meeting on June 18, 2001, at 6:30p.m., by leave: Mr. Loewen for Mr. Pitura. Motions: At the Monday, June 18, 2001, at 6:30p.m. meeting, your committee passed the following motion, on a count-out vote, Yeas 5, Nays 4: That the Committee on Law Amendments call through the list of presenters and hear any who are in attendance. Those who are not in attendance will be called at a subsequent hearing. Public Presentations: Your committee heard representation on bills at the following meetings: Monday, June 18, 2001, at 6:30p. m. Thursday, June 21, 2001, at 6:30p. m.

The following individuals and/or organizations made presentations on Bill 7-The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act/Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur /'Hydro-Manitoba: Paul Moist, C. UP. E. Albert Ceril/i, President, Manitoba Federation of Union Retirees Michelle Forest, Private Citizen The following individuals and/or organizations made presentations on Bill 10-The Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods and Co(!Se quential Amendments Act!Loi visant a accroitre Ia securite des collectivites et des quartiers et modifications correlatives: Fred Curry, Private Citizen The following individuals and/or organizations made presentations on Bil/41-An Act to Comply with the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in M v.

H./Loi visant /'observation de Ia decision de Ia Cour supreme du Canada dans /'arret M c. H.: Lorri Millan and Nadin Gilroy, Private Citizens Karen Boily and Carole Boily, Private Citizens Gilles Marchildon, Private Citizen Kristine Barr, Private Citizen Debbie Patterson , Private Citizen Elliot Levin, Private Citizen Roy Purvis, Private Citizen Noreen Stevens, Private Citizen Donna Huen, Rainbow Resource Centre Jordan Kunda, Private Citizen Keith Louise Fulton, Private Citizen Maxine Hasselriis, Private Citizen Timothy Preston, Private Citizen Lloyd Fisher, Private Citizen

3194 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 25, 2001 Loraine MacKenzie Shepherd, Private Citizen Pete Walker , Manitoba Federation of Labour Robin Brownlie, Private Citizen Maureen Pendergast and Sharon Pchajek, Private Citizens Brother Thomas Novak, Private Citizen Kerry Cazzorla, Private Citizen Kim Simard, Canada Family Action Coalition Mike Tutthi/, Private Citizen Kerri 0/inkin, Private Citizen Susan VanDreser, Private Citizen Krista Piche, Private Citizen Norma Drosdowech, Private Citizen Irene McKenzie, Private Citizen Valerie W adephul, Private Citizen Tim Jeffrey, Private Citizen Jenny Gerbasi, Private Citizen John Mann, Private Citizen Karin Erhardt, Private Citizen Brad Tyler-West, Private Citizen Robert Crittenden, Private Citizen Sally Naumko, Private Citizen Kate Tate, Private Citizen Asher Webb, Private Citizen Michael Law, The Gay and Lesbian Issues Sub

Section of the Manitoba Bar Association Krishna Lalbiharie, Canadian Federation of Students Penny Piper, Manitoba Association of Women and Law Anne Gregory, Private Citizen Margaret McKenty, Private Citizen John K.rowina, Private Citizen David Schesnuk, Private Citizen Marianne Crittenden, Private Citizen Lorraine Waldner, Private Citizen Fae Simon and Rosaline Dearing, Winnipeg Child and Family Services Karen Delaney, Private Citizen Mark Golden, Private Citizen Rory Grewar, Private Citizen Henry Makow, Private Citizen Adele Perry , Private Citizen David Joycey, Private Citizen Joann Gorham, Private Citizen Elsy Gagne, Private Citizen Written Submissions: The following individuals and/or organizations offered written submissions to the committee on Bill 41-An Act to Comply with the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in M v.

H./Loi visant /'observation de Ia decision de Ia Cour supreme du Canada dans /'arret M c. H. Ken Mandziuk, Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties Harry Mesman, Member of the Canadian Labour Congress Solidarity and Pride Working Group Sally Naumlco, Private Citizen Donald Tee/, Private Citizen John McKenzie, Private Citizen Sarah Inness, Private Citizen Bills Considered and Reported: Bill 8-The Mines and Minerals Amendment Act/Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les mines et /es mineraux Your committee agreed to report this bill, without amendment. Bill 10-The Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods and Consequential Amend ments Act/Loi visant a accroitre Ia securite des collectivites et des quartiers et modifications correlatives Your committee agreed to report this bill, without amendment. Bill 41-An Act to Comply with the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in M v. H./Loi visant /'observation de Ia decision de la Cour supreme du Canada dans !'arret M c. H. Your committee agreed to report this bill, without amendment. Mr.

Martindale: I move, seconded by the honourable Member for St. Vital (Ms. Allan), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. Standing Committee on Muni cipal Affairs First Report Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the First Report of the Committee on Municipal Affairs. Madam Clerk: Your Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs presents the following as its

June 25, 2001 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 319 5 First Report. Meetin gs: your commi ttee met on Tuesday, June 21, 2001, at 6:30 p.m. - Some Honourable Members: Dispense. Mr. Speaker: Dispense. Your Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs presents the following as its First Report. Meetings: Your committee met on Thursday, June 21, 2001, at 6:30 p. m. in Room 254 of the Legislative Building to consider bills referred. Matters Under Consideration: Bill 16-The Farm Practices Protection Amendment Act!Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia protection des pratiques agricoles Bill 20-The Farm Products Marketing and Consequential Amendments Act!Loi sur Ia commercialisation des produits agri coles et modifications correlatives Membership Resignations/Elections: Your committee elected Mr. Nevakshonoff as the Chairperson. Your committee elected Mr. Dewar as the Vice Chairperson. Substitutions received prior to commencement of meeting: Mr. Maguire for Mrs. Dacquay Mr. Pitura for Mr. Loewen Mr. Cummings for Mr. Reimer Mr. Struthers for Ms. Allan Mr. Nevakshonoff for Han. Mr. Mackintosh Han. Ms. Wowchuk for Mr. Martindale Mr. Schellenbergfor Ms.

Cerilli Public Presentations: Your committee heard two presentations on Bill 16-The Farm Practices Protection Amendment Act!Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia protection des pratiques agricoles, from the following individuals and/or organizations: Ted Muir, Manitoba Pork Council Don Dewar, Keystone Agricultural Producers Your committee heard six presentations on Bill 20-The Farm Products Marketing and Conse quential Amendments Act/Loi sur Ia com mercialisation des produits agricoles et modifications correlatives, from the following individuals and/or organizations: Larry Mcintosh, Peak of the Market Bill Uruski, Vice-Chairperson, Manitoba Turkey Producers Waldie Klassen, Chairman, Manitoba Chicken Producers Bill Swan, Manitoba Milk Producers Ted Muir, Manitoba Pork Council Tom Dooley, Aikins, MacAuley, Thorvaldson Bills Considered and Reported: Bill 16-The Farm Practices Protection Amendment Act!Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia protection des pratiques agr icoles Your committee agreed to report this bill, without amendment. Bill 20-The Farm Products Marketing and Consequential Amendments Act/Loi sur Ia commercialisation des produits agr icoles et modifications correlatives Your committee agreed to report this bill, with the following amendments: THAT the definition ''producer" in

section 1 be amended by adding the following after clause (b): and in cludes a person who takes possessi on of a fa rm product from a producer under any fo rm of securit y fo r a debt; THAT clause 6(l)(

b) be replaced with the following: (

b) requi ring persons who produce or market a regulated product to provi de the board or commi ssi on with any info rmati on or record relati ng to the productio n or marketi ng of the

3196 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 25, 2001 regulated product that the board or commission considers necessary; THAT clause 6( 1)(1) be amended by striking out "surplus removal" and substituting "product purchase". THAT

section 11 be amended by adding "or out of any other money payable to it" at the end. THAT clause 14(

a) be amended by striking out "establishment, operation and control" and substituting "establishment and operation". Mr. NevakshonotT: I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Rondeau), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. * (13:40) Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us Karliin Aariak from CBC North, Iqaluit, Nunavut. Also in the Speaker's Gallery we have with us today Mr. Peter Schiller. Mr.

Schiller is the brother-in-law of the honourable Member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler) and is visiting from West Vancouver. I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us, from Munroe Junior High, 16 Grade 9 students under the direction of Mrs. Eileen Haines. This school is located in the con stituency of the honourable Member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). Also in the public gallery we have, from Hamiota Elementary School, 18 Grade 6 students under the direction of Miss Linda Irwin.

This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach). On behalf of all honourable members I wel come you here today. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Antigang Strategy Government Commitment Mr. Harold Gilleshammer (Minnedosa): Mr.

Speaker, in the last eight months we have seen unprecedented levels of violence in the city of Winnipeg, including three people shot at confusion corner in November, a Winnipeg teen struck by a 12-gauge shotgun in his own home while looking out the window, a 15 -year-old shot behind the ear while sitting in his car and, this weekend, two more shootings in the city of Winnipeg. I would ask the Minister of Justice: What assurances can you give Winnipeggers who fear for their safety after this outbreak of gangland warfare in their community? Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr.

Speaker, I thank the member and the members opposite for raising that important matter, a matter of very serious concern to all Manitobans and not just people in the city of Winnipeg. The issue of violence in Manitoba, of course, is not a new one. The highest rate of violent crime ever recorded in Canada was suffered when members opposite were in government. It happens at different times and different places, but we do have serious issues to deal with in this province. I can assure Manitobans that we take this issue very seriously, and what is needed clearly is a different way of doing things.

It is important that barriers be broken down between the different agencies that are there to help ensure public safety. More particularly, it is important that there be an aggressive investigation, that there be a vigorous enforcement and prosecution of those who are charged with Criminal Code offences. So what we are doing and what we have done since coming to office is providing a model in Canada with a different way of doing things, including the establishment of a gang unit in the Prosecutions branch. Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr.

Speaker, while this minister says he has a different way of dealing with things, the number of gang memberships has nearly doubled in this province. He is the minister of press conferences and photo ops. Gang membership is at an all-time high. What is this minister going to do about it? Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, of course the information, as is so often the case from the Opposition, is incorrect, but the member was asking what are we doing differently. For the

June 25, 200 1 LEGIS LATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 319 7 first time in Manitoba history, we have now established a Criminal Organization Unit. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. * (13 :45) Mr. Mackintosh: For the first time, what we are doing differently is we have now established in the province of Manitoba something unique in Canada. We have broken down barriers within the Justice Department. We now have a gang unit, for example, a Criminal Organization Unit within the Justice Department.

In particular, in the area of prosecutions, we have a gang unit comprised of prosecutors who are particularly skilled at dealing with gangs, understand the way that they are structured. They understand the language of gangs. The intention of this is to make sure that when a matter comes before the Justice Department for prosecution, there is a vigorous, a targeted and thorough investigation for justice and for the safety of Manitobans. Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, this minister is telli ng the public not to worry, that he is trying new methods and new techniques.

Gang membership has almost doubled, bullets are flying in Elmwood, on St. Mary's Road, in fact, only a few hundred metres here from the Legislature, in Osborne Villa ge. What is the minister going to do about this? When is he going to get serious about crime? Mr. Mackintosh: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the word "gangs" finally cross the lips of members opposite because they refused to acknowledge the rise of gangs in this province and deal with the problem and nip it in the bud.

For the first time, we have been providing leadership at the national level even though we have not suf fered the- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, I expect the members opposite would not understand this, but providing some leadership to urge the federal government to change the Criminal Code so that there are specific targeted provisions dealing with gangs in Canada is very important. Manitoba, along with Quebec, even though it did not have the level of intensity of violence in that province, provided national leadership to get a change in the Criminal Code.

We now have in this province an unprecedented number of prosecutors, including the specialized gang unit. We now have the RCMP at full complem ent for the first time in recent history. We have now a record number of full-time judges in this province. We also are funding the gang unit in the Winnipeg Police Services. We also have a gang unit in the RCMP. We are making a difference. Antigang Strategy Government Commitment Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Seine River): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to dealing with crime, the Doer government gets an "A" for rhetoric and "F" for action.

Despite repeated news releases and photo ops, the Justice Minister has failed to resolve Manitoba's gang problem . Mr. Speaker, Manitobans like Raven Thun derSky, whose family may have to move out of Winnipeg's West End because of gang violence, wants to know why this Justice Minister has broken his promise to stop the growth of gangs. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, from the day this Government was elected, we began work on an area that had been neglected by the former government. We have done more in 18 or 19 months than the Opposition had time for in 11 years.

Antigang Strategy Government Commitment Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Seine River): Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Sale) explain to Raven ThunderSky and her family why his staff refused to help her in her attempts to prevent her family from becoming the target of further gang activity?

3198 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 25, 2001 Hon. Diane McGitTord (Acting Minister of Family Services and Housing): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question. I am advised that Winnipeg Child and Family Services, that is the agency, is advocating on behalf of Raven ThunderSky to access alternate housing for her family. Mrs. Dacquay: Mr. Speaker, if this Government is sincere about wanting to stamp out gang activity, why is the Minister of Family Services not helping families that are targets of gang violence? Ms. McGifford: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a really misguided question.

The Minister of Family Services is extremely committed to do everything within his powers to alleviate family violence. I am just shocked that the member opposite could ask that kind of question. Antigang Strategy Government Commitment Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): My question is for the Minister of Justice. Mr. Speaker, 11 shots were fired in the city of Winnipeg this weekend. One of the witnesses said that bullets cut into the walls of the building, there were windows broken and there was a hole in the chair in the front of the computer in the office where someone could have been killed.

I want to ask this Minister of Justice when he is going to put all of his energy into this matter and declare a war on gangs in our province, to solve this issue and make our province safe. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, of course what is telling with the question is that the Opposition wants to forget all of the crime rates and the experience when they were in office. What is necessary in order to deal with gangs at the provincial level is to ensure that when charges come forward from the police there is vigorous prosecution of those charges.

That we have facilitated, by the establishment for the first time in this province under this Government, a gang unit, which has the specialized capacity to focus on those charges and make sure that there is indeed a vigorous prosecution. Thank you. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, while this Attorney General is issuing his press releases and talking about prosecution, people are being shot at. I want to know what this Attorney General will say to the next innocent victim, an innocent individual who will be struck down by one of these shootings. What will he say to that person and his family? Mr. Mackintosh: Mr.

Speaker, aside from questions in my line about where the Opposition was for all the years the threat of gang activity grew in this province, from virtually nothing in the mid1990s to today, we are taking actions. We are putting in place a different way of dealing with things, and I ask: Where was the Opposition when we were calling on Ottawa, demanding Ottawa change the Criminal Code to deal specifically with gang offences? * (13:50) Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I have to remind this Attorney General that he has been Attorney General for two years now, and he is responsible.

I will ask him again: Will he not declare war on gangs in this city and this province and put all the necessary resources on the street to spot the shootings that are taking place? Mr. Mackintosh: The advent of Hell's Angels activity in particular in this province is of great concern to this Government, to all Manitobans, Mr. Speaker. What has to take place is a most vigorous prosecution, a very intensive inves tigation process by police. Indeed, there must be a war against these gang elements in our society. We cannot afford to have the criminal element, criminal organizations, run rampant in this province.

That is why we have put in place a Criminal Organization Unit, and that is why we have historic levels of policing in this province. That is why we have record levels of prosecution in this province. That is why we provided- Point of Order Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne 417: Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and not provoke debate. This minister is provoking debate just by saying he will vigorously prosecute. We have seen an example of

June 25, 200 I LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 31 99 vigorously prosecuting. People are allowed to carry guns and then walk. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind all honourable members that a point of order is a very serious matter, and I would ask the co operation of all honourable members. Hon. Dave Chomiak (Acting Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I listened very carefully to the question from the Member for Lac du Bonnet, which was a broad-ranging question, high in rhetoric but broad ranging.

The Attorney General was attempting to provide a comprehensive answer as to the steps that have been taken by this Government to deal with the gang-related incidents. I suggest if members are asking broad, related, particularly full-of-rhetoric type of questions, they ought to permit the reply to deal with the question as put, and that is what the Attorney General was doing. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet, on the same point of order, with new information. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Government House Leader has talked about my question.

My question was to ask this Attorney General when he was going to declare war on the street on gangs, and all we got back was an answer about vigorous prosecution. We have seen his vigorous prosecution where a citizen can discharge a gun in our province in a public place and walk. That is his vigorous prosecution. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, he does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. *** Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I regret that the Opposition wants to reflect on a particular judge or judges and you know, Mr.

Speaker, the police are doing excellent work under the circum stances in this province. I will conclude by saying this. The members opposite had the opportunity to nip the problem in the bud. They failed. Point of Order Mr. Laurendeau: On a new point of order, this minister is attempting to say that we have reflected upon the judges within any case, Mr. Speaker. It is not the judges who pled down this case. * (13: 55) Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I suggest quite strongly that the member does not have a point of order.

In fact I listened to his response and his comments and they went directly to the point that was raised by the Attorney General. He was attempting to do in his point of order what they could not do in their question and that is a dispute over the facts. Mr. Speaker, I suggest quite strongly the member does not have a point of order. In fact I listened to his response and his comments. They went directly to the point that was raised by the Attorney General. He was attempting to do, in his point of order, what they could not do in their question, and that is a dispute over the facts. Mr.

Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, he does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. *** Mr. Speaker: The honourable Attorney General, to conclude his comments. Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, I was just making the point that the members opposite had plenty of opportunity to nip this problem in the bud, and they failed to do so. We are taking action. Arena/Entertainment Complex VLT Revenues Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, last week the Deputy Premier (Ms.

Friesen), desperate to defend the Premier, challenged me to table evidence that her leader told Manitobans that VL T revenue would be capped at $1. 5 million for the downtown arena project. I am pleased to table for the Deputy

3200 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 25, 2001 Premier an excerpt from the CBC interview dated May 2, 200 I, in which her leader states, and in fact I would suggest the Premier inter rupted the interviewer to put this point across, he said: The VL T money is up to $1.5 million a year. I will repeat that: The VL T money is up to $1.5 million a year. My question for the Deputy Premier: Can she advise this House why the Doer government flip-flopped on the maximum amount of VL T revenue for the arena project? Hon.

Gary Doer (Premier): In a number of the verbal briefings at the time the arena agreement, or the entertainment proposal, was being released, we said at that time consistently the details would be fully released in the term sheet which was released publicly some time ago, including in this Legislature to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Murray). We were commenting on the proposed agreement in place relative to the Assiniboia Downs. I should point out even after the term sheet has been released it seems to create a little confusion for members opposite.

I note in Hansard last week the members opposite, who are opposed to the new arena, said it was a minimum amount of money after reading the term sheet. Mr. Tweed: Then my question is for the Premier: Do you deny making that comment, the comment that the VL T money is up to $1.5 million a year? Mr. Doer: After the term sheet is released, the Member for Fort Whyte (Mr.

Loewen) who, by the way, alleged the public investment in the entertainment complex in 1995 would be $30 million and we found out after the election it was $90 million, the same Member for Fort Whyte says $1.5 million is in fact a minimum that is going to be received by the VL T revenues. Even after the term sheet has been released, members opposite are confused. Mr. Tweed: I would suggest to you this statement is about the Premier's credibility, not about anybody else's. I ask him again to put it on the record or to correct the record.

Did he not state that the VL T would be capped at $1.5 million for the arena project? Did he say it or did he not say it? * (14:00) Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, members opposite have been going after the new arena because they are bitter, bitter that they could not pull off the deal. Mr. Speaker, we said all along that the full details that were being discussed verbally would be released in a term sheet. Those details were released in the term sheet and fully released in the term sheet. We talked about the 50 VLTs at the new proposed entertainment complex versus the 150 at the Assiniboia Downs. There is no minimum.

We talked about the difference in the formula, at $1.5 million with the cap and the formula changing. Mr. Speaker, we know that they said that the Crocus Fund would be backed by $50 million in investment from the provincial government. They were wrong on that issue. We know that they made other allegations about how much public investment is going to go into the new entertainment complex. If they do not have the guts to be opposed to the new arena, stop the nit picking. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Turtle Mountain, on a new question. Mr. Tweed: On a new question, Mr. Speaker.

It is not just we who are questioning the Premier's motives and what he is saying. The Winnipeg Sun

article titled "Government pulls fast one on arena" reads, and I quote: What is even more galling about the lie is that Premier Gary Doer's people, including Deputy Premier Jean Friesen, tried to tell us that neither Doer nor anyone else in government ever said there was a VL T cap. Do they really think we are that dumb? I will table that clipping, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Tweed: My question to the Premier-yes, and I will give you one more chance to correct the record. If you said it, admit that you said it and that you made a mistake. I will ask the Premier: Did you make those comments? Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Prior to recognizing the honourable First Minister, I would like to remind all honourable members when making reference to other honourable members, to use a constit uency or ministers by their title. I ask for the co operation of all honourable members.

June 25, 200 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3201 Mr. Doer: I said, Mr. Speaker, at the time a number of questions were being asked, that all the details would be fully disclosed and in writing when the term sheet was released publicly. The only ones who are spinning are members opposite that do not know what position they are going to take on the new arena. We are in favour of it. What position do you have? Mr. Tweed: This agreement, Mr. Speaker, is not about what the Doer government is proposing. It is about honesty and integrity and presenting to the people of Manitoba the facts.

I call on the Premier today. I ask him: Will he submit the business plan to the Provincial Auditor for an unbiased opinion so people can actually see the true amount of public funds being invested in this project? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we have made public, both at City Hall and in this Legislative Chamber, the full terms of reference, the term sheet that contradicted many of the allegations made by members opposite.

The conspiracy theory that was developed by members opposite of the $50 million that this Government was guaranteeing as part of a Crocus Fund invest ment, that part of the conspiracy theory has been obviously put to rest with the release of the term sheet. The term sheet completely deals with the original investment, an issue that did not get a lot of disclosure. It is something that I made public to the media at the time. What I was quite concerned about was the tax considerations, particularly in the City of Winnipeg.

I disclosed that to a number of media members because it had not been made fully public, and I was quite concerned that there would be some concern about that. I feel the term sheets that we released and the messages we had on this have been very consistent. Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the formula and the issue comparing the Assiniboia Downs and the new entertainment complex, the formula for Assiniboia Downs and the formula for the new arena could create confusion. It even creates confusion in the eyes of the member opposite from Fort Whyte that had said this was a minimum guarantee.

In fact, the proponents bear the risk if $1. 5 million is not realized, a fact that was opposite to what was said in Hansard last Thursday at Question Period. Mr. Tweed: Is it not amazing how a clip taped from the television will tell you one story and the Premier will stand in this House and tell you another? If the Premier is unwilling to apologize to the people of Manitoba, I would ask the Deputy Premier (Ms. Friesen) to stand and offer her apology to this side of the House, who last week accused us that we were acting on no evidence. Will the Deputy Premier apologize? Mr.

Doer: I would ask all members and all media interested in this issue to refer to the specifics in the term sheet that was released, because obviously there is a Jot of confusion. Last week in this House the member made all kinds of allegations-! hope none of them because of his bitterness over what happened in 19 95. He said that, quote: This was a minimum guarantee of $1. 5 milli on. He said that in the House in a question that was raised, and I quote: That I would remind her in the reading that it is clarified that $1. 5 million is in fact a minimum that is going to be received in VL T revenues. Obviously, Mr.

Speaker, there is a great deal of confusion. I would suggest to everyone to read the term sheet. The real question is: Are the members opposite in favour of redeveloping downtown Winnipeg? Are they in favour of going forward? We think the 50-VL T allocation for the city of Winnipeg in downtown, relative to the 15 0 VL Ts that were not unallocated for Headingley is a good balance for downtown redevelopment, and we are proud of this announcement. We are proud to go forward. Eaton's Building Heritage Status Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism, under The Heritage Resources Act, has the mandate, irrespective of any municipal decision, to declare a building in Manitoba a heritage building. Indeed previous ministers have used this authority to designate buildings like the Fort Garry Hotel and indeed the

3202 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 25, 2001 Manitoba Legislature buildings. For this purpose, the minister has the Manitoba Heritage Council to provide him with advice as to the potential of any building for heritage status. My question to the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism is this: Last week he indicated he was very anxious to receive a report from the council on the Eaton's building and then to follow due process in assessing the report.

Once the minister receives the report, what process will the minister follow in making an assessment of whether the Eaton's building should or should not be a heritage building in Manitoba? Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism): I thank the member for the question. As I mentioned, this Government and the members on this side are very supportive of downtown redevelopment. Take a look at the $31 million that we are putting into Red River community college on Princess A venue. We are very proud of that, the Big 4 building.

We are looking ahead and we are looking forward to Winnipeg becoming the jewel it once was. We are looking ahead. We are not looking back, and we are really looking forward to doing all that work to make Winnipeg truly a great city. Mr. Gerrard: My supplementary to the minister, whose answer was so scanty it was as if he had come in a bikini today instead of a suit. I would ask the minister if he will not give us the details of the process he is going to follow once he receives the report on the Eaton's building. * (14:10) Mr. Lemieux: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I do not want to make comments on a bikini or thongs or anything else, but what I would like to comment on is certainly there is a process being followed. The process of the advisory council passing on a recommendation and dealing with the issue with regard to Eaton's becoming a heritage site is a very important one. I look forward, as I mentioned last week on Thursday, to receiving this report from the Heritage Council, and at that particular time I will have an opportunity to read it and look at it to see what their recommen dations are.

I am not going to try to guess what they are or try to address a hypothetical question as to where one is going to go or how one is going to deal with the question. Mr. Gerrard: My supplementary to the minister: I would ask what process, what time lines, what criteria he will use in assessing the report's recommendations and in acting upon them. Mr. Lemieux: I thank the member for the question. Certainly my department and members in my department have a lot of experience with regard to these sites. I will be consulting and talking to them about the recommendation, whatever it may be.

That is a process that I understand has been followed, and I certainly have been advised of that. I look forward to receiving it. Until that particular time, Mr. Speaker, I just want to again restate that this Government, the Doer government, this NDP government, are working closely in partnership with the business community of Winnipeg to make Winnipeg a great city. I often ask the members opposite: Where do they stand with regard to redevel opment in Winnipeg? We want to see Winnipeg grow. We do not want to look back. We want to see it grow. Education System Grade 3-Diagnostic Assessment Mrs.

Joy Smith (Fort Garry): Carrie Glays, whose daughter, a Grade 3 student at Ecole St. Germain, lost her extra resource in mathematics at the school because this NDP government's, this minister's diagnostic assessment showed that the student was at grade level. However, private testing at a private learning centre showed her to be well below grade level, and the resources at the school were subsequently restored. Can this Minister of Education explain to Carrie Glays why she was forced to consult a private learning centre to have her child properly assessed? Hon.

Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education, Training and Youth): Well, Mr. Speaker, no body forces anybody to consult anybody. Mrs. Smith: On a new question, Mr. Speaker, the NDP government forced a provincial assessment and robbed Grade 3 students of three to four weeks of instructional time. The

June 25, 200 1 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3203 Manitoba Teachers' Society quoted in the Manitoba Teachers' Society paper of April 200 1, saying the provincial assessment did not provide teachers with standard material, which begs the question how standard is the assessment. So much for the NDP Grade 3 guarantee. Can this minister advise this House how many other students have had their resources taken away so that his Government could save a few bucks by denying students help in the classroom? Mr. Caldwell: Mr.

Speaker, the member talks about resources taken away, and I welcome that comment because it allows me, again, to put on the record the investment this Government has made in our public education system. In the last 20 months in capital, this Government has invested $12 5 million. That investment this year is $76 million, the largest in Manitoba's history; last year, an investment of $5 1 million, the second-largest investment in Manitoba's history. These last two years have seen the largest investment in the 12 0-odd year, 13 0-year history of this province.

In terms of support to the operations of our public school system, again, historic levels; in the last 20 months, $47.5 million. Mrs. Smith: On a new question, Mr. Speaker, this minister takes the opportunity to stand up and talk about the money that was put into education. However, these students who are not assessed properly are having to go to private institutions to find out about the grade level the students are at. Is this Minister of Education willing to reimburse parents like Carrie Glays who are forced to go and pay fees to pay for proper assessment in the private sector? Mr. Caldwell: Mr.

Speaker, I know that members opposite are eloquent proponents of private hospitals. I know that in terms of private for-profit schools they also seem to be determined to undermine the public school system. In '93-94, members opposite reduced funding by 2 percent to the public school system. In '94-95, they reduced funding by 2 percent. Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne's 417: Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and not provoke debate.

The question ·was clearly about reimbursing Carrie Glays for the fees she had to pay to have her daughter properly assessed because this minister failed in his job. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, he does have a point of order. Beauchesne's Citation 417: Answers to questions should deal with the matter raised. I would ask the honourable Min ister of Education and Training and Youth to please answer the question. * * * Mr. Caldwell: No, Mr. Speaker. Mrs.

Smith: In February of this year, a parent wrote to the Minister of Education to express concern about mandatory student fees being levied at his child's high school. This parent was informed by his child's school-[interjection] An Honourable Member: New question. Mrs. Smith: New question. An Honourable Member: You did not say a new question. Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): I understand the member opposite has been having some difficulty in putting together supplementary questions, so she has been asking for new questions. But not this time, Mr. Speaker.

I believe this is a supplementary question, and there is no

preamble. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on the same point of order.

3204 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 25, 2001 Mr. Laurendeau: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member was starting a new question. That was clearly stated. Mr. Speaker: On this point of order, the honourable Government House Leader has a point of order. I recognized the honourable member on a supplementary question. If honourable members are rising on a new question, please state it first, that it is a new question; otherwise, I am recognizing the hon ourable members on a supplementary question, and Beauchesne's Citation 409(2) advises that a supplementary question should not require a

preamble. The honourable Member for Fort Garry, to continue on her supplementary question. An Honourable Member: On a new question. Mr. Speaker: Order. I had recognized the honourable member on a supplementary question, and it was interrupted by a point of order. So I would kindly ask the honourable member to please put her supplementary question and then, if she wishes, to rise again on a new question. The honourable Member for Fort Garry, to continue with her supplementary question. The supplementary question was interrupted on a point of order. * (1 4:20) Point of Order Mr. Laurendeau: Mr.

Speaker, if the Government is afraid to have this question put to them, we understand then, but this is totally a new question. We have already realized that the past questions were not going to be answered, that this minister was going to hide behind the truth, so we are just prepared to move on and ask the next new question. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, there is no point of order.

I am just asking for the assistance of all honourable members because I had recognized the honourable member on a supplementary question, and that supplementary question was interrupted. I was interrupted on a point of order, so to continue on with the process, I would kindly ask the honourable member to ask her supplementary question and then come back with a new question. The honourable Member for Fort Garry, to please ask the question on her supplementary question. *** Mrs.

Smith: Is the Minister of Education willing to reimburse parents like Carrie Glays for the fees they have to pay to have their daughters and sons properly assessed? Mr. Caldwell: Members opposite had a Grade 3 testing regime that was a standardized test that took place at the end of a school year with no opportunity for students to improve their literacy or numeracy skills throughout the school year. Mr.

Speaker, we made a commitment in opposition to remove that end-of-year standards test for eight-year-olds and replace it with an early-year diagnostic, so that the school year can be used to help the student improve his or her literacy skills. Mr. Speaker, that is sound pedagogical practice. That is the commitment of this Government. We will continue to do it. I am always heartened, in fact, when parents take a greater interest in their child. Mrs. Smith: On a new question. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Fort Garry, on a new question. Mrs. Smith: According to the teachers of Manitoba in Politics vs.

Pedagogy: Who loses in the Grade 3 Assessment Game, clearly the students lose and parents like Mrs. Carrie Glays lose in the Grade 3 assessment game. This particular

article said the provincial assessment did not provide teachers with standard materials,

June 25, 200 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3205 which begs the question how standard is the assessment. My question to the Minis ter of Education: When this is clearly clarified for the mi nister in the teachers' paper, will the minister take respon sibili ty for students being assessed when they have to go to private learning centres to get assessed properly, and will he take that responsibility? Mr. Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I do not take responsibility for private, for-profit centres. This Government takes responsibility.

If members opposite were as concerned about the citizens of Manitoba as they were about the corporations of Manitoba, we would be far further ahead in this debate and many others. Point of Order Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne 's 417: Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and not provoke debate. That is all this min ister seems to want to do this afternoon is provoke debate. The questions have been fairly simple. We are attempting to get straightforward answers from this mini ster. We know that he has failed our students. We just ask them to answer truthfully.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable First Minis ter on the same point of order? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Yes, on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the Speaker will rule consi stent with the rules. I would also like to pay special tribute to you on the selection of your nephew in the NHL Draft, Jordin Tootoo. You are to be con gratulated, Sir, and all of us in Manitoba are very proud of Mr. Tootoo. Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure my family would welcome that message, but on the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, he does have a point of order.

Beauchesne's Ci tation 417 : Answers to questions should not provoke debate. *** Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Education, Training and Youth, you have concluded your answer? Mr. Caldwell: It is concluded. Mrs. Smith: My supplementary to that question, Mr.

Speaker: Clearly, if the minis ter does not want to answer any questions, can the minis ter please acknowledge that when students are sent back to schools and the resources are put back in place for that student because clearly they were misd iagnosed with the Grade 3 assessment, will that minis ter take responsibility and pay for those fees for those parents and children? Mr. Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, this Government believes strongly in investing in the public school system, which we have highlig hted here many, many times, the record of investment versus the record of cuts, the two successive governments.

This Government believes pro foundly in working with education stakeholders, with parents, teachers, trustees, communities, students to build capacity and build a better public educati on system. I have been in about 15 0 schools over the last 20 months. My department senior man agement officials have been in schools consulting as never before in the province of Manitoba to create policy built to strengthen the public education system. We will continue on that course. Education System Student Fees Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, on a new question.

In February of this year a parent wrote to the Min ister of Education to express concerns about mandatory student fees being levied at his child's high school. This parent was informed by his child's school that failure to pay the fees would result in the student being unable to partici pate in student elections, school teams and other activities. I would like to table that letter. Mr. Speaker, my question to the Min ister of Education: Why has he failed to elim inate user fees, as his Government promised they would on August 31 , 19 99? Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education, Training and Youth): Mr.

Speaker, types and amounts of student fees vary consid erably across

3206 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 25, 2001 the province, as members opposite know. These are essentially divisional policies or in fact schools have discretion within divisional policies. The fees that are levied at local schools are for such things as lockers, locker fees, yearbooks, damage deposits. This is something that is commonplace not only in Manitoba but throughout the world. I am not about to meddle in the affairs of school divisions and schools, despite what the member opposite may wish from me. We have confidence in our trustees. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS St. Mary Magdalene Church Ms. Linda Asper (Riel): This year has been an active one for St. Mary Magdalene Anglican Church in Riel constituency. In January the church installed an elevator to help many of the senior parishioners to get to the lower level where the social hall is located. I was pleased to attend the official opening, to use the elevator and new washroom and to view the repair to the church's foundations. All this was made possible by the church's fundraising and this Govern menfs Community Places grant. This church hosts seniors groups, scout troops and food depots.

In the fall it will be even busier as it hosts its 75th anniversary cele bration. On September 29, there will be a seniors' tea in the afternoon and a catered dinner in the evening. A thanksgiving service will be held on September 30 followed by a light lunch, anniversary cake and children's activities. The 1 0-person organizing committee is contacting anyone associated with the church in the past. Bill Trow, a long-time parishioner, close to 90 years old, whose parents were part of the group that founded the church, will be there along with the other 230 parishioners.

As well, Reverend Donald Phillips, the Bishop of Rupert's Land, will attend. St. Mary Magdalene Church is one of several in our community that reaches out to help where it can. It was the first church in St. Vital to provide a food depot once a month in partnership with Winnipeg Harvest. Congratulations to the church and its volun teers for their service to the community. Best wishes for its 75th anniversary. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. * (14:30) Flooding-southeast Manitoba Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr.

Speaker, I had the opportunity to tour much of southeast Manitoba, many of the communities, talked to many farmers and municipal leaders in southeast Manitoba over the last week. The disaster that has happened in southeast Manitoba is one that has not been experienced there before. We have many, many pastures that are under water. Cows cannot be put out to pasture. We have much of the hayland out in southeast Manitoba that is under water, cannot be harvested.

We have in the municipality of Stuartburn, the council and the reeve told me this morning that there are probably less than 20 percent of the acres in the R.M. of Stuartbum seeded. The R.M. of Franklin has roughly about 30 percent of its acreage not seeded, as well as La Broquerie, Hanover and Piney. I think it behooves this Legislature to pay some attention to the plight of the farm community, not by their own hand, not by the actions of other governments, from other nations, not by any trade wars, but by natural disaster that has occurred this past spring.

Some of these areas have experienced some 24 to 27 inches of rain this spring alone. That is on top of the 17 inches of rain that they had last fall, which froze many of the swamps and caused many of the rivers to overflow even last fall, caused huge ice jams on the river and impeded the proper and natural flow of water from the spring thaw on.

These municipalities are asking whether this Government is going to have any consideration or whether any of the ministers are going to take the time to come to the southeast part of this province to personally take a look at what has happened and to visit with farmers and farm leaders and municipal leaders in that whole southeast area. The federal Minister of Agri culture was in the area. We are asking whether

June 25, 200 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3207 this Province of Manitoba will in fact also lend its ministries to the plight of the farmers. Mr. Speaker: The honourable member's time has expired. Red River Exhibition Mr. Jim Rondeau (Assiniboia): Mr Speaker, Thursday evening I had the pleasure of representing the Government at the 50th anniversary of the Red River Exhibition. This is a great location; it is in Assiniboia, in west Winnipeg. It is spacious, very attractive, and I would invite all Manitobans to attend, to see the displays of talented artists' many accomplish ments and to have fun.

The Ex is symbolic of all Manitoba: great food, good family time, good entertainment and lots of fun. The Red River Ex began in 19 52 as a means of raising funds for the Kinsmen Club of Winnipeg. It has grown every year, with almost 200 000 vis itors visi ting. The economic impact of the 10 days of the Ex is estimated at $1 1. 7 million in direct and indirect economic benefits. There is an equivalent of 14 2 full-time positions, with $3.7 million worth of wages and salaries. Taxes paid: there is about $205,000 to the City of Winnipeg, $974,000 to the Province and $1. 4 million to the federal government.

It also provides a lot of scholarships. This year there is one in touri sm and there is also one in trades. I had the pleasure of awarding that last year and I am planning to do that again this weekend. I would like to recognize and commend the 750 volunteers who make the Ex possible every year. It is through their effort and dedication that 200 000 people are able to experience and enjoy the Ex year after year. This is truly a Manitoban experience, it is really great to be a part of it, and it is nice to see that it is happening in the best constituency in the province, Assiniboia. Thank you. C. W.

Wiebe Medical Centre Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, June 19 , I had the privilege of attend ing the grand opening of the Dr. C. W. Wiebe Medical Centre in Winkler. Dr. C. W. Wiebe devoted his life to improving the quality of life in the Winkler area through his tireless work and commitment. This clinic bears his name as a tribute to his lifelong dedication. Winkler can truly be proud of the fact that this state-of-the-art medical clinic worth $1. 3 mill ion is entirely community-owned.

On April 20, an immensely successful radiothon fundraiser was held, which raised a total of $70,000 for the clinic. I would like to congratulate the community on their work and devotion to make this medical facil ity a reality. It is truly the spirit and devotion of our community that made this clinic possible. I would also like to wish every success to the doctors and staff at the clinic. Also, on the same day, we paid tribute to an educator who had been in the community as admini strator, teacher and superintendent for 39 years.

Together with his wife Ruth, they cele brated an evening of giving him personal thanks for the work that he had done within the education system and also in the community. In 19 93, he was hired back to the division where he was the superintendent and, previous to that, had been the principal and also a teacher. So, again, all the best and best wishes to the family as they continue their retirement. Thank you very much. Jocelyn House Ms. Nancy Allan (St. Vital): It is my pleasure to recognize a unique facili ty, Jocelyn House, in my constituency.

Jocelyn House is a hospice, providing palli ative care for people in the final stages of their life. It is named in memory of Jocelyn Hutton, who died from cancer at the age of 17 . Soon after her death, her family of fered their quiet home overlooking the Seine River as a residence for dying patients who are in a sufficiently stable · condition to be cared for outside a hospital and who cannot return to their own families.

In co-operation with family, friends and other community resources, the hospice provides expert medical care, pain and symptom management and emotional and spiritual support in the warmth of a home-like environment. Although there are only four bedrooms, their services are so valued that there is an 80% occupancy rate.

3208 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 25, 200 1 Jocelyn House is Manitoba's only hospice and one of only a handful in Canada. When I attended their annual general meeting recently, I was pleased to be reacquainted with a very special person. Dr. Jan Mulder, whose expertise and support guided my family last year as we cared for my dying brother Perry in the final stages of his life, is the Jocelyn House physician. Ms. Giselle Lapointe is the hospice's very capable administrator. Palliative care is a challenging and deeply rewarding work. It takes a special kind of people.

Jocelyn House is blessed with very special volunteers, as I learned at their volunteer recognition evening earlier. They sustain the facility in numerous ways, such as providing companionship to the dying, making their meals, tending the flower beds, fundraising and helping out in the office. I would like to mention, in particular, the volunteers who receiv ed five-year recognition awards: Lilianne Bamabe, Connie Belanger, Liz Fillion, Winnie Kowalewich and Jerry Rurak. David Kroft was also recognized for his 11 years of service on the board of directors.

I commend these exceptional volunteers for helping to demonstrate that the journey towards death, while always difficult, can be dignified and even a rich experience. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please call debate on second readings of the bills in the following order: 33, 35, 37, 36, 46, 49 and 50. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 33-The Highway Traffic Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act

(2) Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on second reading Bill 33, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (2), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan). Is there unanimous consent for the bill to stand in the name of the honourable Member for Carman? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: No. Leave has been denied. Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, I believe this is Bill 33. We, today, are prepared to pass this bill into committee. There are a few issues and questions that we will want to raise with the minister as part of that committee process.

They deal with some of the technical aspects of the bill. But we are certainly, as I have indicated, prepared to pass it through to committee. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 33, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (2). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Bi11 35--The Improved Enforcement of Support Payments (Various Acts Amended) Act Mr.

Speaker: Resume debate on second reading of Bill 35, The Improved Enforcement of Support Payments (Various Acts Amended) Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau). Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for St. Norbert? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: Leave has been denied. Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak very briefly on this bill, The Improved Enforcement of Support Payments (Various Acts Amended) Act.

I was contacted by one of my constituents, because her ex-spouse was not making main tenance payments as required, and she informed

June 25, 200 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3209 me that she was unable to collect from her ex-partner, meaning that she could not go to court and get a garnishee order, because he was working on contract and therefore did not fall under the existing legislation. I verified this, and it turned out to be correct. So I wrote to the Attorney General (Mr. Mackintosh) and suggested that, when we amended the act next, we close this loophole. As it turned out, it was a fairly large loophole.

There are a large number of individuals who are not paying maintenance because they are using this previously what was a loophole to avoid their responsibilities. I was very pleased when the Attorney General did add a clause to close that loophole, and it is in this bill. My constituent was very pleased, as well. In fact, when the Attorney General had a news conference, she came down to the Legislature to thank him personally for making this change. Now this is really not about my constituent, although she is a fine individual. It is really about chil dren and parental obli gations.

Certainly, no one should be excused or have a loophole which allows them not to meet their obligations to their children. So I commend the Attorney General for making this change. It will benefit my constituent. I understand it will benefit a number of other individuals and their children, particularly their child ren, because what has happened and what is changing this amendment is that people who are incorporated as corporations, will now be eligible to make their payments, as they should in any case. There is actually a technical term for this. It is called piercing the corporate veil.

Regardless of what it is called, it is certainly a very posi tive amendment which will benefit, I hope, many child ren who in the past were not receiving the maintenance that they were entitled to. So, with those few remarks, we are pleased to see this bill going to committee. Thank you. Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to pass this bill through to commi ttee. We, as a party, have always supported improvements in the enforce ment of maintenance orders. We certainly concur that this bill does provide some benefit in that area.

We do have some technical questions we will be putting to the mi nister in committee with respect to the operation of his provisions around piercing the corporate veil, because we certainly want to ensure that it is done in a proper manner. There are legitimate corporate interests that are there as opposed to where a corporation is being used to hide dollars that are owed in child support. So we have some questions around that that I am sure the min ister will be able to clarify. There is one other area, Mr. Speaker, that we will be raising with the minis ter in committee and perhaps bringing amendment.

That is an area of difficulty that we have seen occur over the last number of years in the balance with respect to maintenance. There is no doubt that those who owe maintenance to their child ren must pay, but, conversely, they also have a right to receive information with respect to their child and whether the conditions of that maintenance are, in fact, being fulfilled. Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to our attention by a number of Manitobans who are in a position of paying child support, who did not have contact with their chi ldren or their former spouse.

In one parti cular instance, the former spouse and chi ldren had moved to the United States. In another, they had moved to another part of the country. Mr. Speaker, the difficulty was not so much when the children were under the age of 18 and still attending high school, but after they had passed from that time, as to whether or not they were working, registered in post-secondary educati on or any of the factors that can affect whether or not maintenance and child support has to be paid.

The problem for the payor is, under our current regime as we understand it, the payor would have to proceed to court for a variation of the order in order to be able to end child support if, in fact, the conditions for that support had expired, for example, the child was now working, he is over the age of 18 , was working, was not attending post-secondary education. Even in this one extreme case that was brought to my attention by a constituent, this individual, the eldest child had reached the age of 18 years, had completed or would have completed the normal school year.

This individu al was unable to get any information

32 10 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 25, 200 1 about his children. They were in the United States. He paid maintenance. It was dealt through the Maintenance Enforcement Branch. This individual did not even know if his chi ldren were sti ii alive. His only vehicle, and I can remember writing to a former Attorney General about this particular case, was to seek a court order or get a hearing. Well, if the child is still alive, if the child is in a post-secondary education, if the obligation still exists, why would that indivi dual spend very scarce dollars? This was not a high-income individual.

Why would they have spent very scarce dollars to get a lawyer, to go to court, to ask questions for which there were obvious answers? Mr. Speaker, we believe that since we have, I think. so streamlined maintenance enforcement and since the federal government has brought in the tariff which sets payments on the basis of income, there has been so li ttle real di scretion left in this issue.

We think part of that balance is to ensure some mechanism or some right that the payor, in certain circumstances, will have some ability to get information from the recipi ent of the child support, in fact, that the chil dren are still alive if there is no contact. that the chil dren are still in school, that they are, in fact, meeting the conditions of the payment without that payor having to go to court in order to prove it, and, in many cases I am sure, really waste their money and everyone's time because there is an explanation. * (14: 50) So we would hope that the Attorney General (Mr.

Mackintosh) and members of the New Democratic Party would entertain an amendment or some vehicle to see this part of the formula also met, because I think what we should strive for as legislators is a system of child main tenance that I think is easy and efficient. We have seen that happen over the last number of years. Again, the federal government now has a formula in which payments are determined on the basis of income. We now have a child maintenance enforcement agency which takes responsibili ty for collecting.

We have now put on a variety of penalties beyond the regular debt penalties such as suspension of driver's licence, et cetera, to ensure that there is payment. We have seen this bill coming forward that again fills some more loopholes, adds more strength to collection.

Surely to goodness as part of that balance we should also put some provision in to ensure that the payor can speedily and easily determine that the conditions under which they are paying are being met, and, if they are not, that the appropriate adjustments in child support can be made quickly and speedily without necessarily the more expensive current vehicle of having to go to court, get a lawyer and have a hearing. We have elim inated so much of that from the system that that is a logical conclusion. I did raise this matter with the Attorney General in Estimates.

We will be taking this up with him in committee as well. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Biii 35, The Improved Enforcement of Support Payments (Various Acts Amended) Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Bill 37-The Inter-jurisdictional Support Orders Act Mr.

Speaker: Resume debate on second reading of Bill 37, The Inter-jurisdictional Support Orders Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan). Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: Leave has been denied. Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, we will be again passing this biii

June 25, 200 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 321 1 through to committee. We do again have some questions we will be putting to the Attorney General (Mr. Mackintosh) at that time. The enforcement of maintenance orders between jurisdictions is important. I have commented with respect to Bill 35 with respect to the ability of the payor to have a right to access information about the chil dren and their status in a speedy way, and, if the circumstances on which an order is based in fact have changed or are not being met, that there is a simple vehicle to have the alteration made.

One case that was brought to our attention by one of my colleagues is a case where an indi vidual has a support order against them in the Yukon, lives in Manitoba, works in the North for part of the year and returns to Manitoba for another

part in which they are unemployed, either get some work or Employment Insurance benefits. Within their yearly income they have a great variation from the months in which they are working compared to the months they are not. The current system does not allow for the adjustments to take place on some kind of regular basis without again going to court for a hearing, and, in this case, very difficult because the hearing is in fact in the Yukon. So we would suggest that this has to be given some consi deration by the Minis ter of Justice.

It is about ensuring that the regime is properly enforced in a speedy and easy method for all involved. That will be a point we will be making with the Attorney General at committee. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 37, The Inter jurisdic tional Support Orders Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered. Bill 36- The Enhanced Debt Collection (Various Acts Amended) Act Mr.

Speaker: Resume debate on second reading of Bill 36, The Enhanced Debt Collection (Various Acts Amended) Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan). Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: Leave has been denied. Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, we will be agreeing to see this bill pass through to committee today; again, a few technical questions on the admini stration of this bill that we will be raising with the minis ter in committee. Mr.

Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 36, The Enhanced Debt Collection (Vari ous Acts Amended) Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered. Bill 46- The Provincial Court Amendment and Court of Queen's Bench Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on second reading of Bill 46, The Provincial Court Amendment and Court of Queen's Bench Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Morris (Mr.

Pitura). Is it the will of the House to leave the bill standing in the name of the honourable Member for Morris? Some Honourable Members: No.

3212 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 25, 2001 Mr. Speaker: Leave has been denied. Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, one of the features of this particular bill is obviously to ensure that our provincial court system, in terms of its appointments, is more broadly reflective of the cultural and heritage make-up of our province, which is one that is very diverse. I do not know necessarily if the minister requires this bill to achieve that.

One of the observations that I make is if you want to see a very diverse court, my experience is you have to have a very diverse law school, because it is from those young people going into law school becoming lawyers, they become the constit uency, in essence, or they become the pool from which our judges apply and are selected. Over the last several decades, we have seen, certainly, a growth in the number of women in law school. I think the number now is roughly 50-50.

We have seen people from a vari ety of diff erent communities, from First Nations com munities, from immigrant communities, coming into law school. So, as those people work their way through the legal community and become eligible for appointment to the bench, we would expect that the processes in place will be doing that. So whether this bill is required or not is, I think, debatable. Certainly the minister's inten tion is supportable.

We certainly agree with that, that the judiciary should be reflective of the general community of this province, I think, to give it the kind of, for lack of a better term, appearance that shows it does represent the community. There are several other administrative issues in how this bill will apply that we will be taking up with the minister in committee, so I will look forward to the opportunity to discuss it further at that time. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr.

Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 46, The Provincial Court Amendment and Court of Queen's Bench Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered. Bill 49- The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2001 Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on second reading of Bill 49, The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2001, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay).

Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Seine River? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: Leave has been denied. Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): believe this is the annual regular bill to make minor adjustments in statutes. We have had an opportunity to review this. There is nothing that we have seen to date that causes us major concern, but I say to the Attorney General that when we get into committee, some questions may arise that we will put to him at that time. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 49, The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 200 I. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

June 25, 200 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3213 Bill 50- The Regional Health Authorities Amendment (Accountability) Act Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on second reading, Bill 50, The Regional Health Author ities Amendment (Accountabil ity) Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Ste. Rose. Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): I would like to put a few comments on the record regarding this bill.

I recognize, and we recognize on this side of the House, that this bill does bring forward some clarity and some clarifying of relationships, but I want to use this opportunity, at the same time, to remind the min ister that over the most recent couple of years leading up to the pre-writ and post-election, this Government has, first of all, made the case that, if they only had access to the ability to do the planning and decision making, all problems would disappear in about six months, secondly, that that would probably only take about $15 million or $17 million. * (15 :00) Mr.

Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair What I see with the mi nister introducing this legislation is that he has now embraced the regional health authority concept, No. 1, and, secondly, he has not made the decision that he intends to have elected boards, which I recall on many occasions in this House the now Premier (Mr. Doer), the now Mi nister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) both rising and being quite venomous about the fact that they felt there should be elected board members to lead the RHAs in this province.

That being said, I want to use this opportunity to flag a further concern that is developing, I think, and becoming increasingly apparent in rural Manitoba. That is that this Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) and this Government are using the RHAs more than likely for a fall guy, if you will, a fall organization that will end up taking the damage control for what seems to be some deli berate funding di screpancies that are beginning to develop between rural and urban health care in this province.

Certainly, the RHAs have had signifi cant difficulty maintaining their service delivery on the Budget guidelines that they have been given. Certainly, no one on this side of the House would deny that there were some tight fiscal situations that arose during the decade of the 19 90s in the reform of health care in dealing with the budgetary problems that this province had as a result of flagrant overspending in the late '70s and early the '80s.

We saw, in the 19 90s, that health care in general, education, a number of the services that people truly need, desire and have a right to had to be capped if not curtailed because of budgetary restraint. Now, quite frankly, there is no fat left in the system. These RHA managers are not going to be able to continue to cut back unless they start and comply at the same time with the edict, as I understand, that has come from this Government. I do not know if it came from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) through the Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) or whether this came from the Premier (Mr.

Doer), but there has been a direction, it seems, that has gone out that the RHAs are going to have to start living within their budgetary allocation. As we proceed through the year, the managers in the RHAs are going to have to make some very serious and difficult decisions. If they make decisions on the best interests of the people that they are responsible for providing health care to, i.e., their customers or clie nts, if you will, that come through the door, they are probably, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in a position where it is highly likely that they will run a deficit.

In fact, I would say that it is on the side of 80-20 that they will very likely run deficits, some regions more than others. If they do not, and if this minis ter insis ts that they must eat any potential deficits, then he is putting them in a situati on where they are going to be faced with closing facilities. That is quite unacceptable in relationship to the service that we feel is appropriate, service that is necessary and, in fact, demanded in the rural areas of this province.

So, while the min ister is embracing the RHAs, recognizing them through the imple mentation of this bill, he is not providing the kind of

3214 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 25, 2001 leadership that these RHAs need in terms of being able to manage their affairs and know on a long-term basis where they are going to go. I will leave others to speak to some of the precise details within this bill. It strikes me, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, though that unless the mini ster starts being more forthright and provides more direction and leadership, whether it is through the form of a bill such as this, or whether he does it through other communications with the RHAs, that he is buying himself a little bit of time but he is buying in the longer period of time a real hotbed of problems in delivery of health care in rural Manitoba. Not only do we see that in the long term, we are seeing it continue to manifest itself in shortage of staff. We recognize there are staff shortages in most places in the province right now.

There are staff shortages in most places across the country. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it flies in the face of the implication and the promises that were made by this Government, during the pre-writ and during the election period, that there was nothing wrong with health care that a little tinkering and a little NDP socialism would not fix. We are now seeing that is entirely wrong, that it will not lead to the type of solutions the public were expecting.

I think we are a�out to enter into a period of some pretty difficult discussion and debate with this Government about how they intend to deliver health care in the short term and in the long term to the people of this province. Manitoba has seen an escalation of expenditures in health care, and at the .very same time we do not see an accommodatiOn of the costs that are associated with running our rural RHAs.

That can send some very disturbing signals, I suggest, not only to those who a:e running the RHAs but for those who may begm to take an interest in how the RHAs are managing their affairs because it will ultimat�ly affect their ability to attain and receive appropriate health care. The RHAs in rural Manitoba are being starved. They are being driven into a position where they are going to have to m� e so�e structural changes in how health care IS deliv ered in this province. Unless this Premier (Mr.

Doer) and this Government are going to use a diff erent format in how they distribute resources, we are going to be forced into a situation where there will be centralized service more and more, and where some of these facilities that are modest, some would say too small-1 will use as an example a community in the heart of my constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the town of Alonsa. a small town not too far from McCreary Hospital, but if that McCreary Hospital were not able to provide a full range of services then suddenly Ste. Rose and Neepawa and Portage become the area of service that is available to them.

I would suggest they would be very unhappy about that, and the timeliness of any kind of emergency response would be very difficu lt. So I wish to indicate to the minister that he, through his Government, is bringing some clarity in this bill on how he will deal with son:e of the faith-based boards and how they will interrelate and how dis putes will be settled, but he has a far bigger dispute that is more than just on the horizon.

It is definitely storm clouds gathering slightly to one side of hi � ministry right now. lf this is the best he can do.I� te� s of dealing with the issues that we see ansmg m the delivery of health care in rural Manitoba, th�n we are indeed in for a tough half dozen years m terms of renewing some of the structural damage that may be done by the type of changes that are being driven by the centralist management. style that this minister has begun to demonstrate m the way he is handling the regional health authorities, particularly the rural regional health authorities and the funding basically, and how that is being distribu ted across the province. * (15:10) So, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I will tum the floor over to one of my colleagues who wishes to add some flesh on the bones around this bill. But certainly I wanted the opportunity to point out that I think we are seeing mounting evidence that this Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) has not seriously considered the problems that m�y be developing as a result of decisions that he IS making in the funding of regional health authorities in this province. Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): I am very pleased to be able to rise on this particular

June 25, 200 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 32 15 bill, The Regional Health Authorities Amendment (Accountabil ity) Act, because when I was first appointed Minis ter of Health it was my task to implem ent regional health authorities in this province. For the greater part of the time I spent in the two years I served in that mini stry, that occupied the lion's share of time and effort as we pioneered in Manitoba our system, our view of regionalization. Now, I remember at the time there were many in the province who attacked the system of regionalization, who said this was a terri ble thing, et cetera.

You know, what I find most intriguing about it today, and I was talking to one of our colleagues in the House who is a member of the New Democratic Party caucus, and he had pointed out to me a number of studies that he had been made aware of. I have subsequently seen that demonstrated that wherever regionalization in this country has taken place and been allowed to develop to its full potential we have seen reductions in waiting lists, we have seen better use of services, better use of our infrastructure and a more effective [interjection] The Leader of the Li beral Party (Mr.

Gerrard) makes a comment about why the lists are still so long here. I am going to get into that. But wherever we have seen it applied fully we have seen a more efficient delivery mechanism for our health care services. You know, it only does make sense. To some of the newcomers to this place I would just remind them of the kind of numbers I faced. I remember when I was first appointed. I think I was sworn in on a Tuesday. The following Saturday I had to fly up to Dauphin to meet some 400 angry municipal leaders who had been assembled by the then Mayor of Dauphin, Mr.

Inky Mark, who is now a federal member of Parliament for that area. They were there to tell this new Minis ter of Health that regionalization was not on. That is a pretty daunting task for a new mi nister who has not even been on the job a week, who is still being briefed and working on the information that he is required to do his job. But, when I was appointed, my Premier had said to me you have four or five tasks. The No. 1 task is to implement regionalization. So I knew that I had to go and I had to convince them of the arguments behind regionalization.

I remem ber as we were flying up in the plane, my staff, we were going over these numbers. What became so painfully obvious, and I have never forgotten these statistics, because I used them in that meeting to I think the great shock of many in that room. At that time, for every five hospital beds, acute care beds in our rural hospi tals-and by definition thi s included everything but I belie ve Winnipeg. So this would have included Brandon. This would have inclu ded Portage. This would have included Thompson, Steinbach, Boundary Trai ls, which are all very large and well-used hospitals.

So in this mix from our smallest little rural hospitals to our largest, Brandon, regional centres, of every one of the so-called acute care beds, for every five of them we had two of those beds being used by people who are waiting for long-term care. We had something like, I believe it was, two of those beds or one of those beds empty at any given time and only two of them being used for people who actually needed an acute care bed.

You know what this was saying to us was that our facilities across the width and breadth of rural Manitoba were being terribly underutili zed, that they were not meeting the needs of their communities and for a lot of very good reasons: medical technology had advanced; so much more of what we were doing in the delivery of health was now by specialists; new diagnosti c equipment.

So those facilities, when they had been constructed, many of them ironically in the 195 0s, after the federal government provided significant grants to municipalities to build hospitals, those facili ties were not providing much of the kind of acute care that they had once done. Quite frankly, they were in danger, many of them were in danger of closure, closure not because of a government policy, closure simply because they were becoming less and less relevant to the medical needs of their communities.

It became very obvious to me, as I studied this issue as a new min ister, that we had to have a vehicle to reinvig orate our rural health care. We had to plan on a larger scale to be able to get the benefits of being able to buy new high-tech diagnostic equipment, attract speciali sts to

3216 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 25, 2001 service an area, that a hospital serving 2000 or 3000 people was not going to be able to offer very much, but in a region of 30 000, 40 000, 50 000, 60 000, I 00 000 people, it could do a lot more in terms of bringing up-to-date specialized medical care outside the city of Winnipeg to various parts of the province. I also learned as the MLA for Lac du Bonnet.

I remember a meeting I attended before I was Minister of Health with the administrators in my area of the Beausejour Hospital, the Pine Falls Hospital, the Lac du Bonnet Health Centre, the Pinawa Hospital and the Whitemouth hospital and health centre. They called me to a meeting when regionalization was being talked about. You know, I have to give them a lot of credit. All of their administrators had got together, and they started talking. They said to me, you know, we started to realize that we never shared information between us. Our bed utilization, what we were doing, we kept it to ourselves.

So we have got together as an administration. We have started to share information. We are starting to realize that, if we work together as a group on a regional basis, we could be doing a lot more in total than we do individually. They were caught at a very interesting time in their careers because all of them were within a few years of retirement. So they could look around the table and say, you know, we do not have to fight for our job.

If we can get on with some regionalization in this area, you know, as people retire, consolidating administration, consolidating boards, we think we could provide better care to our area. That is what they undertook. I remember when Minister McCrae, my predecessor, was coming under the initial attacks on the concept of regionalization. They had not started to implement it yet. My group told me together, and they said, whatever happens, let us go forward with it. My area did, and it has been to our benefit. I am kind of proud that North Eastman was an area that took on the challenge of regionalization.

So I went to that meeting in Dauphin, and I met those 400 people. I remember using those statistics and talking to them about their health centres and saying what regionalization had to become in rural Manitoba. It was not about closing hospitals; it was about making facilities relevant to the communities they were serving. If what those communities needed was long-term care bed, then we had to convert facilities for long-term care. If what they needed was en hanced nursing programs, public health program, then that is what we had to develop.

We knew we could not provide a lot of the things people traditionally thought they would get in a rural hospital, time had passed that by, specialization, new equipment, new technology, but we could make those facilities relevant. What we could have in communities is health care that makes sense being delivered on a regional basis, making best use of those facilities instead of them finding themselves just slipping away until their own closure.

You know that group was very good because I came out of that meeting alive, politically intact, and with them saying: Well, we will see; we will give you a chance, and they did. Within a year, most of them had evolved their facilities into the regional health authorities in rural Manitoba, a year ahead of Winnipeg. That was the plan, to start rurally. It was a tough battle; it was a very tough battle. I was the minister who brought in the first act, the first set of amendments with the rules. We had to make some amendments. I can understand where this Minister of Health (Mr.

Chomiak) is coming from, that, yes, this is a work in progress. I had to make rules. I used to call it, someone said, the carrot and the stick. I had initially a lot of rural facilities that were not prepared to evolve, and we had to deal with incentives. We had to deal with issues, and, I remember, I was the minister who said to them: Listen, municipalities, you want to keep your small hospitals, as munici palities you want to appoint the board, well, you are responsible for the deficit. If you want to run the place, you have to accept financial respon sibility.

If we are going to put into the region, then we have responsibility. * (15:20) So you keep responsibility for your deficit, and we will not pay it off. You go back to your taxpayers if you want to run this. Well, I will tell you, some hospital boards were very upset about this. But their municipalities looked at it and said: Why do we want to be in health care? Why

June 25, 200 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3217 do we want to tax our ratepayers? Mr. Praznik, you can have our hospital. And you know, within about a year of crafting and experience, a lot of meetings and a lot of discussions, 85 percent-plus of the facilities outside of the city of Winnipeg evolved into their regional health authority, right? I do not think they have ever looked back. The Member for Brandon East (Mr. Caldwell) remembers some of those meetings. He remembers some of the reluctance of that board.

It was driven by persons, or peoples, some of it by their own interests, some of it by their perception of the world, and it was very hard for people to give that up. But, you know, let us not forget that 99 percent of the funding of all those facilities was coming from this Legis lature. You know, this was not a local matter; this was provincial dollars. I remember meeting with the Brandon board and it took quite a few meetings, but at the end of the day the right decision was made, and I think Brandon has done very, very well with their adminis tration there on being able to advance projects.

I would not hesitate to say that within a reasonable time you are probably going to see one if not two other health authorities maybe amalgamate into a larger one just to be able to get the numbers, the size of numbers to attract the specialists and build Brandon and South Westman in really a regional area, and I include Marquette in that, and that would be a good thing. But it never would have happened, Mr. Deputy Speaker, without the creation of a vehicle to do it, and that is the regional health authori ties. Now, I have to tell you, there was, I would still say, one mis take.

There are lots of mis takes you make in health care, because it is such a big, dynamic creature. But one of the mis takes we have sown in our regionalization in Manitoba and I inherit part of it, I danced part of it, and this minis ter is doing the same thing. So we are all a little bit guilty, and it would take a very brave soul to stand up and say otherwise, and that is what we did in the city of Winnipeg. Because the success we are seeing outside the city of Winnipeg has been that those regional health authoritie s-there are a few excepti ons.

Parklands still has a number of independent facilities that operate out and there are some issues with Swan River, you know, in terms of the geography. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in Winnipeg we left intact seven major hospi tal boards. That was, I say very candidly, I am sure my former leader and premier would agree, from a great deal of pressure from many of those boards to survive and exist and have a role in health care. You know, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, they do have a role to play, there is no doubt, and they have played an admirable one, but the difficulty is always how do you create a structure where you can make decisions on a regional basis and implem ent them and live with them. We in Manitoba and the Government of which I was part, my predecessor signed a faith-based agreement and I signed a further one, and this minister, I know, talks to those communities and has been very much in the same position. But here is the practical matter that we face in health care in the city of Winnipeg.

Let us just look at the context as to why we had hospitals that operated as unique units. It is a very logical reason, because our flow of inf ormation, our ability to communicate and administer a facility, was restricted by paper. Our hospitals and current delivery systems were restricted by paper. We now live in a different age. Information technology gives us the ability to deliver and to operate and to manage much larger units than we can run just under one bricks-and-mortar building. Secondly, we know that the technology of health care, the Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak), I think, understands it.

I am pretty sure the Premier (Mr. Doer), his eyes have not yet opened to it, and I think most of his colleagues are not fully aware of just how great the demand is growing for health care services, part of it by technology, incredible advances in technology. Today is a better time to be sick with cancer or heart disease than any other time in human history. Your survival chances are the best because of huge advances in medical technology. We also know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is a huge growth in demand as our

32 18 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 25, 200 1 population ages. That is not going to abate. So we are going to have these huge demands on our system. So how can we make our resources work the best? Well, we now have information technology available to us that can allow us to run a region, to be able to move data and information, not only for management, but for health care, better than any time before. You know, one mistake this Government is making is they are not yet going to bite the bullet and invest in information technology for health care.

It is very hard to do, because it is not front line patient caregivers and it is not bricks-and mortar capital that the voter gets to see, but it is about the future of delivery systems. They tie together with regionalization. I am going to bring that back. But I want to comment about building that structure and that system. I remember meeting with a doctor from Concordia Hospital. He sat in my office and we had a talk about CAT scans. You know, when I took over as minister, if you lived in St.

James this was the example he gave-your doctor practised at Concordia and had an office downtown, you go downtown to see your doctor, he would order the CAT scan, right. You would say, well, can I have it at the Grace? Oh, you cannot have it at the Grace. I do not practise there. You have to go to Concordia or St. Boniface, where I practise. So now you went on to their waiting li st, and yet it was all paid for by the same taxpayer, every penny. Now, how do you look at that client, lives in St. James, sees his doctor downtown, the doctor practises at Concordia and St.

Boniface, he has to go to the other side of the city to get a CAT scan and go on that other list. An Honourable Member: Try going to the other side of the province. Mr. Praznik: Well, the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) says try to go to the other side of the province. Absolutely. So we live in a relatively small jurisdiction of 1.1 million people. That is what we had before regionalization. We are not far from having it all perfected yet.

But what lunacy, what lunacy to the client, who is our taxpayer, the patient, right, that we tell him where he gets his CT scan depends on where his doctor practises and what waiting lists . That is crazy. So anyone who said we should not be regionalizing and we should not be bringing in information technology and we should not be making this thing work better stands I think with those who would see the collapse, the total collapse of our health care system. So, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that one example says to me why can we not-if we were designing health care, why would we not use information technology to have a central booking place that your doctor called and he said you can have your CT scan next Tuesday at the Grace or the week after at Concordia or three days longer at St. Boniface, you pick the place, you get booked in the office, done, you go there, and the results come back through electronic transfer right to your physician wherever they are in the province.

When I took over as Minister of Health, I was informed that certain tests done in Flin Flon had to be redone in Winnipeg because the equipment was not calibrated to each other. These are the crazy things that say our system was failing. Technology was there, is there today, to bring this whole system together to work in some uniform manner. You know, those who argued against regionalization, or who opposed it, or went in so very reluctantly, or wanted to keep their independence- another very practical matter, governments, administrators will have to move programs. Technology changes the delivery of programs.

So a new piece of equipment is developed. You can only afford one. You only need one for our population. You have three centres doing the service now, where you can keep doing it with the old equipment or you can buy the new equipment and you bring everything to one centre, right? * (15: 30) So, if you are going to do that, what do you do with the people who are providing the service? Well, what we quickly discovered or I quickly discovered as minister is that because we had all of these separate organizations delivering health care, each had it own employer, and the

June 25, 200 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3219 Minister of Labour (Ms. Barrett) will know this very well, each had its own collective agreements, so you could not move staff. So you had to lay people off and post new jobs and get into bumping provisions under collective agree ments that were never designed, and I do not blame anyone. No one anticipated it. It was not designed to easily move people with programs to give better patient care. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I mean, what a mess. Now, we brought in the tool in Winnipeg. Rurally, we are seeing all of those things sorted themselves out with success.

There are problems, but with success, and in Winnipeg we brought it in and yet we maintained a number of those boards. So, in essence, you have to ask this. Did we create another layer of adminis tration? Well, if the true benefits that can be achieved through regionalization, that can be achieved through technology, that can be achieved through the powers of numbers in attracting specialists and developing specialized programs, if we are going to achieve those things, then the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority has to be able to make it happen with as little hindrance as possible.

Now, if the existing hospital boards work within that and make it happen, great. Then they are part of the solution. But, if they resist and if they fight every change to pursue their own institutional intere sts, then they will be part of the problem. That is a choice each of those boards-and I was part of a government that allowed them to continue to exist and play a role, so that is their challenge. You know, I just want to raise a couple of issues. One of my colleagues the Member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger) dug this up, and this speaks loudly about the kind of problems you have.

When I was Min ister of Health, Dr. Brian Postl, and he is very familiar to members opposite. I had a great deal of confidence in him. He was charged with reviewing all of the programs within Winnipeg, and he said to me: Mr. Minister, is my charge to come up with a politically correct review or a review that is based on the best patient care? That is a tough question to put to a Minis ter of Health, but it is a very real one because you have colleagues, they all have their concerns; they have their issues.

Are you going to make your decisions on what is politically correct for the government of the day or on what is best for patient care, and, you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, all of us will be judged ultimately by history on the choice we make. Well, my choice was simple. Maybe I am foolish; maybe I am a little brash. Some of my colleagues accuse me of that at times, but I said give me your report based on what is best for patients, and you know what that report said for cardiac surgery? It said for a province our size and given what is happening in cardiac surgery, we should have one program on one site.

I remember those days. We had seven cardiac surgeons. When they are doing cardiac surgery, they have to have backup. There are all kinds of issues about building a team. So it became very evident. What did we learn out of the baby death inquiry at the Health Sciences Centre about having a large enough team that stays with the technology, develop and grow? I mean, we are not a province of 4 million or 5 million people that can have two or three program centres, have that competition with one another. We are only 1.1 million people.

So I gave Doctor Post! the charge of best patient care, and he came back, and he said, one heart surgery program, one site. Well, we know where Mr. Doer, the Premier, stands because, during the election campaign, the Premier of Manitoba and the Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Selinger), pledged that they would return heart surgery to St. Boniface. It was not about patient care. It was not about Brian Post! and his credibility. It was about politics. We want to win St. Boniface. We will give them whatever it takes to do it, and the patient be damned. That is what they did. You know, it is funny. They get into power.

They promote Brian Post!, and, all of a sudden, ah, you know, it is a good idea to have, well, one program but at two sites. It runs totally in the face of everything that is happening everywhere. It runs totally in the face of the baby death inquiry. There is politics before patients.

3220 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 25, 2001 I am not saying we are lily white on this side of the House either, but that is the real dilemma that Health ministers have. I do not even know if the Member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) had a choice. I think he was told, and that is what you do. Now, it happens once: Does it happen twice? Is the Pan Am Clinic about best patient care, or is it about politics? You know, at the end of the day, one will be judged. It may take a while, but you will be judged because you are not making the decision on what is best for patient care. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it is this kind of turf fight within Winnipeg, who is going to have what prestigious program, who is going to have their picture taken with the minister, you know, cutting the ribbon on this particular program or piece of equipment, this is what undermines the efforts to bring us a unity within our system that can manage and deliver best patient care. Now, I look at the bill that is before us, and I understand that the minister, this was somewhat of a watered-down version of what was initially presented to the boards of the various hospitals. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, just pardon me for one aside, but one of the decisions that I took when I was still Minister of Health that I am very proud of because I think, at the end of the day, it will prove to be a very good one, it has given my colleagues opposite in the New Democrat Party an absolutely tremendous tool that I hope they use, was the decision or the initiative to have the Health Sciences Centre evolve into the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. I will say very candidly to members, I was very much involved with that. I had discussions with the board. We had quite a few talks about where this would go.

I had both the Winnipeg Hospital Authority board, the then Hospital Authority board, and with the Health Sciences Centre board, and it was very evident that for the health authority to have in the long term the ability to be able to make decisions and make the system work, if they were getting resistance, unreasonable resistance from those existing boards, they had to run the Health Sciences Centre. The Health Sciences board agreed. They saw that as their future.

They saw that as the right way to go, and they voted themselves out of existence and were taken over by the Winnipeg Hospital Authority, and, yes, some people did not like that because that gave the hospital authority a tremendous amount of clout. I hope today that they use that where it is in the best interests of patient care, because they now have in-house in their own system the largest provider of hospital care in the city of Winnipeg. That will be, is and will be, a tremendous tool for them in bringing about the changes they need because it is a tremendous bargaining chip. Now, again, I hope it is used. Mr.

Speaker in the Chair Mr. Speaker, since we were the party that signed the faith-based agreement-and it was done in good faith at the time. It did lead to some other problems. We worked that out. Let me say, it was never our intention in Winnipeg to see the same need for integration with respect to most of the personal care homes. They are large. They have efficiencies of numbers. They have faith-based components, cultural com ponents. Those are very important in the delivery of long-term care, and they were not ever really part of the debate.

It was the hospitals and acute care, because they are so essential to the system. When I look at this bill, this bill is the next step in the evolution of how the system runs, and it really is dealing about the city of Winnipeg. Some rural facilities that are still faith based, that have not evolved, are affected by it, but by and large, this is sort of the next step in the evolution of process. We hear that this minister had lots of negotiations and discussions and things watered down. * (15: 40) Of course, you know, my colleague, our critic has indicated I believe already some general support of this bill.

I am certainly not going to be voting against it, but I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, this bill should be voted against. I will tell you why. It is part of the evolution, but there is one provision in this bill that I think if we all here today stood for the patient and for the best delivery of health care in terms of a

June 25, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3221 public delivery mechanism, we should be concerned with clause 29.1 ( 5Xb ). That is that the minister cannot impose ultimately or the health authority cannot impose its decision unless it is demonstrated that it has made, and I quote, all "reasonable efforts to consider and accommodate the position of the health corporation on the matter." Well, we have had agreements in place that provide processes for disputes.

We also knew that someday somebody had to make a decision and that the health authority would because it is charged with best health care for its people. By putting this in this bill what we in essence will do as a Legislature is provide a vehicle for very unpopular decisions with those health corporations to be taken to court, where they will have to prove, if that health corporation wants to do it, they could force the health authority to prove whatever they did was reasonable to try to accommodate through the health corporation. But let us remember who is paying the bill.

The bill is being paid by the people of Manitoba through this Legislature, who give a pile of money to the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. Mr. Speaker, we will add with the passage of this bill one more potential hurdle that they will have to prove in a court of law potentially that they had been reasonable in dealing with that corporation to deliver a more efficient health service to the citizens of Winnipeg and Manitoba. So what are we doing? I understand exactly where the Government is coming from. I understand where the Minister of Health is coming from. We kind ofleft him with that.

But, you know, as we study and we deba te health care and we talk about

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	37-2-52
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	37th 2nd hansardpdf 52.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4efec4c3f2f43fd9c0746a4c40ecce28fa7b1617

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