Manitoba Hansard — 4 March 2004 (Sitting 15B, 38th Legislature, 2nd Session)

38-2-15b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Eighth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LV No. 15B – 1:30 p.m., Thursday, March 4, 2004

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

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

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

Boniface N.D.P. SMITH, Scott, Hon. Brandon West N.D.P. STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. TWEED, Mervin Turtle Mountain P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

609 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, March 4, 2004 The House met at 1:30 p.m. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PETITIONS Minimum Sitting Days for Legislative Assembly Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition. The background to this petition is as follows: The Manitoba Legislature sat for only 37 days in 2003. Mr. Speaker, Manitobans expect their Govern- ment to be accountable, and the number of sitting days has a direct impact on the issue of public accountability.

Manitobans expect their elected officials to be provided the opportunity to be able to hold the Gov- ernment accountable. The Legislative Assembly provides the best for- um for all MLAs to debate and ask questions of the Government, and it is critical that all MLAs be provided the time needed in order for them to cover constituent and party duties. Establishing a minimum number of sitting days could prevent the government of the day from limit- ing the rights of Opposition members from being able to ask questions.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Legislative Assembly of Mani- toba to consider recognizing the need to sit for a minimum of 80 days in any given calendar year. Signed by Hector Tremblay, Greg Holland and Ric Zastre. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Oscar Lathlin (Min ister charged with the administration of The Communities Economic Development Fund Act): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to table the Communities Economic Development Fund Quarterly Financial Statements for the quarter ending December 31, 2003. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 22–The Water Protection Act Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Steward- ship): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Mini- ster of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk), that Bill 22, The Water Protection Act;

Loi sur la protection des eaux, be now read a first time. Motion presented. Mr. Ashton: Clean water is something we take for granted in this province, Mr. Speaker, but we can no longer take the quality or quantity of water for grant- ed.

That is why we have introduced legislation that will make Manitoba a leader in Canada in terms of enshrining in legislation guidelines and standards for water in terms of establishing clear watershed plan- ning, in terms of establishing water quality man- agement zones and many other initiatives that will ensure we meet the challenge of not only preserving, but improving the quality of our water in this prov- ince. Motion agreed to. * (13:35) Bill 27–The Agricultural Societies Act Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minis ter of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers), that Bill 27, The Agricultural Societies Act, be now read for the first time. Motion presented. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, agriculture societies are community-oriented, statutory corporations that carry on their activities in rural areas and com- munities in rural Manitoba, primarily through the efforts of voluntary members.

610 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 4, 2004 This bill modernizes the way that agriculture societies are created and regulated. The existing societies will continue. By making societies subject to The Corporations Act, the bill provides them with more flexibility to organi ze their internal affairs according to the wishes of their members. Motion agreed to. Bill 28–The Agrologists Amendment Act Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minis ter of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Government Services (Mr.

Lemieux), that Bill 28, The Agrol- ogists Amendment Act, be read now for the first time. Motion presented. Ms. Wowchuk: The Agrologists Act requires people who practise agrology to be members of the Mani- toba Institute of Agrologists. Subsection 1.2 of the act sets out a list of exemptions to this requirement. This bill permits the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives to make regulations to add to the list of accepted persons who can carry out the activities prescribed by the regulations. Motion agreed to. Introduction of Guests Mr.

Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us from Stanley Knowles School 27 Grade 5 students under the direction of Mrs. Loree Rowan. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Brokenhead Casino Smoking Policy Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, second-hand smoke is a killer.

The Premier either supports protecting the health of all Manitobans, where he has the ability to do so, or he does not. In the case of the Brokenhead casino proposal, the Premier has the power, he has the authority, to say to them that you will not receive government's approval to establish a casino unless the licensing agreement includes the condition the facility is smoke-free. Will the Premier use the power he has available to him to do that? Hon.

Gary Doer (Premier): Again, I want to con- gratulate the member from Carman who initiated with some passion, and carried through with some integrity, a process to discuss the expansion of the ban on smoking in Manitoba. The first time there was a smoking-ban bill brought in in Manitoba, I was the author of that bill. It obviously only dealt with day care centres, health care centres, places where children were in place. It was a private members' bill. At that point, one could say it did not go far enough. The next bill is pursuant to the Speech from the Throne.

It is pursuant to the document that was signed by the person who took the leadership to have the private members' bill in this Chamber. I only assume that the member opposite did not read the report. * (13:40) Mr. Murray: It is the First Minister that is hiding behind the report , because he is using a so-called jurisdictional issue to avoid making a politically sensitive decision. There is no jurisdictional issue, and he knows it.

Will the Premier stop trying to skirt the issue and just commit to including the condition in the licens- ing agreement that he must issue, that the Broken- head casino will be a smoke-free facility? Will he do the right thing? Mr. Doer: I only assume that the member opposite did not understand the report that his member signed, or does not read the report, or does not implement a report that his party signed. We signed the report. We promised to implement the report in the Speech from the Throne. We promised verbally with the public to implement the report. We are implementing page 20 of the report on

section 9 of the legislation. I can only assume that the member opposite does not care about the signature on the report from his party

March 4, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 611 member or had not read the report before the sig- nature was issued. Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier will not listen to us then maybe he will listen to law professor Bryan Schwartz who told the Winnipeg Free Press that provinces do have the right to implement laws of general application in areas under federal jurisdiction or, just maybe, he will listen to the mayor whose legal advisor told CBC yesterday that the smoking by-law would be included in negotiations for an urban reserve. Mr.

Speaker, if the mayor can enforce his smok- ing by-law on an urban reserve by including it in an agreement, can the Premier explain why the Province will not do it? Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker, I will again refer to page 20 of the report, and I know members like to skirt along the surface like little water bugs changing their position from one day to another, but page 20 of the report signed by the person, by the way, who had the most passion and most integrity of anyone on this issue, not the member opposite, states the task force recommendation of a province-wide smoking ban would apply in all enclosed public and indoor places where provincial government has clear jurisdiction.

For example, while provincial jails such as Heading- ley are governed by provincial policy, federal institu- tions such as Stony Mountain are governed by fed- eral jurisdiction. Other areas of federal responsibility including military bases, First Nations reserves, airports, et cetera, would be excluded. Mr. Speaker, that is in the report. Members opposite signed it. They should have the integrity to be consistent in this Chamber. Brokenhead Casino Smoking Policy Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr.

Speaker, in Thompson the all-party committee heard from Lloyd Martin, the vice-president of the Burntwood– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, in Thompson the all- party committee heard from Lloyd Martin, the vice- president of the Burntwood RHA and an Aboriginal. He urged the committee to ensure that the Province makes the smoking ban province-wide and that it applies in all areas of the province including on reserves. He also indicated that a province-wide ban was within the Province's sphere of influence. Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the minister why he is setting a different standard for on-reserve. Does he not believe that those on-reserve deserve the same protection as all other Manitobans? Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Healthy Living): I think the report is clear. What we have done is we have passed a law that was specific on covering areas of our own jurisdiction. As we learned just recently, there was a decision in the federal case where the gun registry did not apply to First Nations. This was the case of jurisdictional dispute.

We wanted to make sure that the law was clear, the law covered what was under provincial jurisdiction and it looked after the health of Manitobans to the extent that the report recommended. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, the minister is clearly telling those in smaller communities in Manitoba that he does not care about their health. He is more inter- ested in his own politics. Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned in areas where the Province has jurisdiction. I would remind him the Province has very clear jurisdiction when it comes to licensing casinos.

Will he do the right thing today and stand up and ensure Manitobans that any on-reserve casino will not be licensed unless it agrees to a policy to have a smoke-free environment? * (13:45) Hon. Tim Sale (Minister charged with the admin- istration of The Gaming Control Act): Perhaps I could help the member to understand something. He has not spent a lot of time on First Nations com- munities. I am going to do this fairly slowly. There are a number of First Nations com- munities in Manitoba, well over 50.

Chiefs and councils have jurisdiction in those First Nations com- munities in regard to by-laws, in regard to a whole range of issues with which they have a fiduciary relationship with the federal government. When they pass a by-law, when they do anything in regard to Indian lands, they have to get the permission of the federal Minister of Indian Affairs.

612 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 4, 2004 Now that is an anachronism in my view, but that is the law. The law is that on the reserve, chiefs and councils are the government. We respect govern- ments: federal governments, First Nations govern- ments. It is a jurisdiction issue. I am sorry he has trouble with a big word like "jurisdiction". Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, with regard to juris- diction, this Government had clear jurisdiction over gaming when they shut down the Dakota Tipi gam- ing operation. They had no trouble with jurisdiction then. They should have no trouble with jurisdiction now.

The big word that he has trouble with is hypo- critical, and that is what this Government continues to be. I would ask him simply today to stand up and ensure all workers in Manitoba that they will be protected, that they will have the same rights regard- less of where they choose to be employed. Will he do the right thing today, stand up and put his jurisdictional approval on a casino and ensure that it operates in a smoke free environment or that it does not operate at all? Will he protect Manitobans of all kinds? Mr. Sale: First of all, Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to stand with the member from Carman, who had the integrity to put forward this proposal and signed off on behalf of his party, he thought. Secondly, the member seems to have confusion between gambling and smoking. We do in fact have the right to regulate gambling under the Criminal Code of Canada. That is very clear. We do not have the right to regulate behaviours of a variety of kinds in First Nations communities. That is the chiefs' and councils' responsibility. That is smoking, Mr. Speaker, and I have no trouble understanding hypocrisy when I see it.

Regional Health Authorities Nursing Education Funding Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Last December the Central Regional Health Authority proposed a training program for nurses in southern Manitoba but has been told by the Minister of Health that it is very expensive. Since this was an election promise, can the minister tell this House if he has directed the RHA to find other means of funding to train nurses in southern Manitoba? Hon.

Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): I have had some very fruitful disc ussions with Central and other regions with respect to expanding and enhanc- ing nurse training programs, particularly in rural and northern Manitoba; because, as many people have recognized, during the 1990s when those programs were slashed, when the LPN program was elimi- nated, when the diploma program was cancelled, Mr. Speaker, we went from training approximately 800 to 900 nurses a year down to a low of several hundred which resulted in an overwhelming nurse shortage that faced both the previous government and our Government.

That is why we have tripled the amount of nursing positions that we are training in Manitoba, and we have had very fruitful discussions with the Central region. Mrs. Taillieu: Mr. Speaker, a letter sent to munici- palities within the Central RHA has asked for assist- ance in the form of a letter to support the Minister of Health and states: Government may be looking to us for some assistance of a more tangible nature. We are advising that at some point in the near future we may be requesting something more than moral support.

Can the Minister of Health tell this House why he is offloading the cost of health care training to municipalities? Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues related to this. There have been a number of proposals that have come forward from rural regions to enhance, for example, the South Eastman region brought forward a proposal for the first time in history to have surgery repatriated from the city of Winnipeg back to rural Manitoba. I am pleased to say that we repatriated surgery to Steinbach and to Ste. Anne from Winnipeg.

In Burntwood, we have repatriated surgery from Winnipeg to Thompson, 300 to 400 surgeries, where people had to fly down to Winnipeg. There are several proposals on surgical repatriation that we are looking at. * (13:50) There are several proposals with respect to enhancing nurse training. We already operate two LPN training programs in rural Manitoba, in two rural communities which we have done over the last few years.

March 4, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 613 Mrs. Taillieu: He does not answer my question about where the money is coming from. Clearly, the escalating cost of health care has put this Gov- ernment in a begging position. This is a backdoor tax that forces property owners to pay additional taxes towards provincial programs. Can the minister tell this House if he has direct- ed the RHAs to get funding from municipal tax- payers for training and recruitment of health care professionals? Mr. Chomiak: There are a number of proposals in rural Manitoba. One of the proposals, it is very, very significant, Mr.

Speaker, is the fact that we need additional clinical spaces with respect to training. Because we are training so many nurses, we do not even have opportunity for clinical spaces in order to provide the experienced nu rses. One of the options being looked at in rural Manitoba, including the region in question, is having adequate physical space for physical training of nurses. We take on those tasks. I might add that it was the Province of Manitoba that has rebuilt the Brandon hospital at over $50 million. We rebuilt Boundary Trails in the vicinity of $40 million. We rebuilt Beausejour hospital, Mr. Speaker.

We are in the process of rebuilding Swan River hospital and we are also rebuilding Gimli hospital; all outside Winnipeg, all new. Physician Recruitment Funding Mrs. Leanne Ro wat (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, many communities are having a difficult time in dealing with the BSE crisis. Community leaders are very sensitive to the issues facing local taxpayers. The town of Rivers has been billed $13,300 by the ARHA for recruiting a docto r for their health care facility. Rivers currently does not have the mech- anisms in place to deal with monetary requests of this size for a health care service. Mr.

Speaker, is it now this Government's policy to charge communities for the recruitment, retention and training of physicians? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, for a number of years various municipal- ities, towns and local governments have provided things like housing and special incentives in order to keep physicians in rural Manitoba and to attract them to rural Manitoba. We have now put in place a regionalized policy where RHAM, the Rural Health Association of Manitoba, has a central recruiting function as cen tral recruiting agencies. It is not new, Mr.

Speaker, in terms of municipalities providing housing and providing other benefits to health officials to provide them and keep them in their community. Mr. Speaker, the municipalities contribute to health through a variety of functions, including larvi- ciding, West Nile virus, et cetera, and that is con- sistent around the province of Manitoba. Mrs. Rowat: Pitting community against community and cash donations have always been told as a no-no by the RHAs when economic development groups are trying to help the RHA recruit physicians. So that is inaccurate.

Riverdale hospital acute care has been closed since December 2003, with no indication of rein- statement. In a letter the mayor of Rivers sent to the Minister of Health on February 16, he shares his community's concerns and th e pressures they feel to fund this request and to avoid the continued reduction of services for the Riverdale hospital. I am going to table the letter from the mayor of Rivers. Mr. Speaker, is this recr uitment service contract policy a province-wide initiative or is it exclusive to the town of Rivers? Mr. Chomiak: Mr.

Speaker, I have had discussions with the Rivers community as have other members from the Government and other communities. The member is aware that we are looking at various strategies in order to keep and retain the increased number of doctors that we finally managed to return to rural Manitoba to provide some consistency with respect to the rural situation. I anticipate that we will continue to have some successes in that area. * (13:55) Mrs. Rowat: The mayor has been waiting for a call or some direction from this minister on this and has not. Mr.

Speaker, Mayor Oakey has asked for this Government's thoughts on the recruitment policy. He says we, as municipal politicians, will have to defend the use of municipal tax dollars to fund health care

614 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 4, 2004 and have to defend it to the ratepayers of Rivers. A special levy must be applied to this year's taxes and subsequent year taxes to fund what will be con- sidered a provincial responsibility. Mr. Speaker, why is the Minister of Health off- loading provincial responsibilities on the backs of the taxpayers of Rivers? Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, we are not doing that. Emergency Room Services Triage Guidelines Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, Dorothy Madden died in a hospital ER after waiting six hours to see a doctor.

She never saw a doctor until she went into cardiac arrest and her son had to scream for help. The time she waited to see a doctor did not even come close to meeting the accepted emergency triage guidelines for timely and safe care. Can the Minister of Health tell us why these triage guidelines were ignored? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the member might be aware that we put in place a task force to review ER situations and ER times. I might add that the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, the very people who the member refers to, sent me a letter complimenting us (

a) putting in place our task force, and (

b) indicating that we should put this on the national agenda since it is a problem right across the country. Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, the minister is certainly avoiding the question of why we have such large gaps here. Several miscarrying moms also waited longer than safely recommended by these guidelines. Today we hear of a man with appendicitis who also waited in an ER longer than he should have. All of these patients waited beyond what was safe and what was recommended. I would like to ask this Minister of Health again to attempt to answer this question: Why were these triage guidelines ignored?

This is about patient safety. Mr. Chomiak: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, who in fact have put in place these guidelines, state, quote: The time responses are ideals, objectives, not established care patterns. I might add, they are revising those care patterns. Doctor Chochinov, the head of emergency medi- cine at St. Boniface Hospital, said, and I quote: There are very few, if any, hospitals in Canada or the United States that were able to meet that standard. Despite that, Mr.

Speaker, I do not know if the member had the opportunity to read our local news- paper where it indicated that 25 more nurses are now going to be put into the ERs to help assist in this issue, in this situation, which is only one of the many responses we are taking to improve the situation in Winnipeg and in Manitoba. Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the minister had to wait until Dorothy Madden died and over 10 moms were miscarrying before he did any- thing and he only did it once there were headlines in the papers. Mr.

Speaker, when a six-year-old Ontario boy died in an ER after waiting too long, the Ontario Minister of Health mandated the use of those nation- ally accepted emergency triage guidelines. The Can- adian Association of Emergency Physicians also rec- ommended to the Romanow Commission that these triage guidelines be used in all Canadian ERs. I would like to ask the Minister of Health if he will commit today to mandating the consistent use of that scale in Manitoba to ensure that all patients in Manitoba are going to be treated in a safe and timely manner? Mr. Chomiak: Mr.

Speaker, I will go further and indicate in the letter from that very association that the member now quotes from, which she did not quote from in 1998, 1999 when there were problems in Winnipeg hospitals of which she was responsible. That association said, and I quote, about this Government: I would like to congratulate you on the prompt action taken by the Ministry of Health in appointing an emergency task force for Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. We are also supporting your endeavours in bringing this issue to the new National Health Council, as this grave problem requires a national strategy. * (14:00)

March 4, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 615 I might add, Mr. Speaker, not only have we taken that action, but we have put in place special measures and interim measures to deal with the situation. We have an ongoing task force, and we have all kinds of mechanisms for dealing with complaints and issues that were not in place over the 11 lean, cutback, thousand-less, get-rid-of-nurse regime that the member opposite was responsible for. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Compensation for Producers Mrs. Leanne Ro wat (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, today is day 290 of the BSE crisis.

Winnipeg Harvest Executive Director David Northcott recently visited some rural communities to thank farm families for the contributions they have made towards food banks. He learned that, because of the challenges like BSE, some farmers have been forced to use the food banks themselves. And as he said, I quote: There are families who are very much on the edge; when things reach these sorts of levels you get really worried. Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Agriculture now admit that this Government's BSE programs have been a complete failure and provide producers with a desperately needed cash advance? Hon.

Rosann Wowchuk (Minis ter of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): No, Mr. Speaker, I will not admit that the programs that we have put in place are a failure. In fact, the programs that we have put in place have put money into producers' hands. Over $80 million has been put in place into produ- cers' hands through the various programs that we have, and there are more funds that are available. There is no doubt there is a very serious chal- lenge facing farm families since this BSE crisis hit.

The most important thing that we can continue to work on is to get the border open to increase slaughter capacity in this province, get more feder- ally inspected facilities into this province, and in the meantime, my department and staff in the depart- ment are working very closely with producers. Mrs. Rowat: Mr. Speaker, 290 days and we are still talking about what we are going to do here. Mr. Speaker, it was recently reported that among rural Manitoba food banks there was a 55% increase in usage. As Ashern cattle auctioneer Buddy Bergner said of the situation, I do not think it was this bad in the 1930s. Mr.

Speaker, will the Minister of Agriculture, who likes to mislead Manitobans of her Govern- ment's professed support of family farms, explain why our families are being forced to use food banks? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, it is the member across the way who is completely going over the top when she talks about misleading. I would ask her to look at the programs that we have in place, and rather than go over the top on these issues, look at those pro- grams, encourage producers to take advantage of them. Be there to support producers. That is what we should all be doing.

We should be supporting them and our Govern- ment has been there. We have been putting money in place, over $80 million that is available, that has been put out. There is more money available there to support producers. Again, I say, Mr. Speaker, the most important thing we can do is continue to work towards opening the border, because that is what will create a movement of cattle in this province and across the country. We also have to look at how we can increase slaughter capac ity in this province so we will never be in this same situation that we are so completely dependent on. Mrs. Rowat: Mr.

Speaker, it is deeply disturbing. Talking to the producers, talking to the ag reps who are doing their best to help the producers, are very disturbed that the people who put high quality, low- cost food on the tables are being forced, because of circumstances beyond their control, to use food banks in order to help provide for their families. Will the Minister of Agriculture finally demon- strate that she has some understanding of the serious- ness of this situation and commit to the support of a cash advance policy today? Ms. Wowchuk: It is very interes ting, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Murray) said put in place a low-interest loan program or a cash- advance program. We have put the loan program in place. Cash is flowing to producers. Over $50 mil- lion has flowed out to producers through the loan program. More money is available. I would encour- age the members opposite to show some real con- sideration for the producers out there, encourage them to take that cash to help them through this

616 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 4, 2004 difficult time so that they have funds to buy food. Rather than being critical of the programs, it is time the Opposition got on board and recognized that Manitoba has done far more than the federal govern- ment has done and, in fact, maybe they should ask the federal government– Mr. Speaker: Order. Livestock Industry Beef Prices Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, Manitobans want answers, they want action and they want accountability from this Government.

In regard to BSE, let us go to the simple facts that cattle farmers are getting a fraction of the cost they once got for their cattle and consumers are paying just as much and even more in some areas. Why is this happening, and what is the Government actually doing to protect Manitobans? Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minis ter of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): I am glad the member opposite took interest in the BSE situation, not about interest in where he is sitting in the Legislature. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, this is an issue we continue to raise with the federal government.

When we were talking about the BSE programs, we asked other provinces to support Manitoba's position that there should be a floor price. We did not get the support from other provinces on that. We have raised the issue of these low prices with the federal gov- ernment, and right now the federal Standing Com- mittee on Agriculture is reviewing this situation. Certainly, the producers are not getting a break out of this because their price is too low. The con- sumer is not getting a break out of this. Somebody in the middle is making a lot of money, and we have asked the federal government to review this.

Manitoba Products Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Let me try the Premier (Mr. Doer) and ask the Premier: Can we get the assurance from this Government that all pro- vincial institutions, like our hospitals, will use Mani- toba beef? Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minis ter of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr. Speaker, I can tell you we have had discussions with institutions and we are trying to encourag e more use of Manitoba products, but many of those institutes require product that comes through a federally-inspected plant.

One of our challenges in this province is that there are not enough federally inspected plants in this province, and that is one of the issues we have been trying to address. There are certain rules and certain standards these institutions have to meet and many of them require that it is a product that comes through a federally inspected plant and has CFIA approval. Certainly, we are working and we have been work- ing since this situation arose to have more Manitoba product used by Manitobans, and the Manitoba con- sumer has been very supportive. Health Care Facilities Food Services Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, my question is then for the Minister of Health. The Government has failed on answers, it has failed on action. I would ask in regard to accountability. Regard- ing the supply of sandwiches to our health care facil- ities, all sorts of allegations have been made that point to government incompetence. I have even been told that there even may be a lawsuit. Will the mini- ster attempt to clear the air and request that the pro- vincial auditor investigate this whole matter? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member raised that question.

I want the member to know th at the provincial auditor did investigate the frozen food fiasco. The provincial auditor made a number of recommendations regard- ing the failed frozen food enterprise of members opposite, lack of planning, lack of accountability, and made a series of recommendations– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I want the member to know that we are not going to institute a recom- mendation of that member's party leader who wanted us to charge for slippers and for meals and for all kinds of extras in hospitals.

We are not implementing that policy that was recommended by that member's leader of the party, when he sat there and he sup- ported that measure. We are not going that way, and

March 4, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 617 we are not going private like members opposite sup- port either. * (14:10) Education System Internet Initiatives Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education, Citi- zenship and Youth. Given the importance of address- ing the digital divide, particularly in more isolated areas of northern Manitoba, what steps have been taken to deal with improving electronic equity and electronic access for students? Hon. Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Thank you for the ques- tion, Mr. Speaker.

We have improved overall con- nectivity to schools in the majority of communities. We have made tremendous progress improving the safety of children on the Internet through a number of initiatives and mechanisms, including educating students and parents on the risks involved in Internet use. January 22, 2003, the departments of Education and Youth, and Energy and Science and Technology, announced the introduction of CyberSchools, a Man- itoba Internet portal for all educators and students in Manitoba.

This is available as a safe and secure environment for Manitoba students to develop their skills in using the Internet in order to communicate easily and effectively with others. So the portal is available, at no charge, to all K to S4 students, teachers and administrators. From December 2003 to February 2004, there has been a 500% increase in usage in CyberSchools. We are conquering that digital divide, Mr. Speaker. Brokenhead Casino Smoking Policy Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier (Mr.

Doer) made a comment on the radio, and said that we had to go with science as opposed to anything else in regard to the smoking legislation. Mr. Speaker, my question, I guess, to any minister who chooses to answer it: Can he or any minister table any studies or reports of a scientific nature showing that employees of Aboriginal casinos are immune to the negative health consequences of second-hand smoke? Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Healthy Living): I think that what we have to do as a government, Mr. Speaker, is respect the jurisdiction of First Nations.

In fact, we have an excellent example of Opask- wayak Cree Nation, who took a step where they made their mall non-smoking. They made this before many municipalities passed non-smoking by-laws. One should not jump out and say they cannot be proactive. We want to work with other governments. We want to respect other governments, and we want to make sure that this law is implemented. We do not want it into a jurisdictional or constitutional battle. We want to protect the health of Manitobans as fast as possible, and we want to work with other levels of government. Thank you. Mr. Tweed: Mr.

Speaker, we do know that the Gov- ernment can, if they choose to do as part of their agreement and part of their negotiations for a casino licence, include terminology that would advise them that they have to abide by the no-smoking regu- lations. That is a fact. Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for Workers Compensation (Ms. Allan). Will the people employed in an Aboriginal casino, where smoking is permitted, be exempt from work- ers compensation should they contract an illness due to smoking, second-hand smoke? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Steward- ship): Mr.

Speaker, the member opposite raised questions yesterday, and I think it is important to note that this legislation that has been proposed in the House deals with areas that are clearly under provincial jurisdiction. One of the areas clearly where there are dif- ferences in Manitoba in terms of workplaces is in terms of labour legislation. We have clear cases of federal application. The point here I think is very clear. This is a major step. This can be very difficult for a lot of Manitobans. I mean, let us not under- estimate that a lot of people have been used to smoking in public places for a long time.

This is going to be a major adjustment. But what we have done is in areas where we clearly have provincial jurisdiction, we have acted.

618 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 4, 2004 That, by the way, Mr. Speaker, was the recom- mendation of the all-party task force. I am just won- dering which version the members opposite have, because it does not seem to be the one they signed when they ask these questions. Mr. Tweed: Again the minister fails to answer the question. We know that in Ontario it was proven that second-hand smoke is a cause of cancer. We had the woman that contracted it and was used by this Gov- ernment as part of the promotion of our no-smoking bill.

We know that Workers Compensation in Ontario is being charged through the compensation act for her health-related injuries. I am simply asking if we are going to have a government that is going to allow smoking in an Aboriginal casino where, through regulation, through the licensing of gaming, they can prevent that. Will they allow Workers Compensation or will they not allow Workers Compensation to pay any claims made against it from persons contracting illness through second-hand smoke? It is a simple question. Mr.

Rondeau: I think it is very important to note that what we have done is follow the recommenda- tion. I question why the member opposite does not question why we are not doing it in military bases, why we are not doing it in the airport, why we are not doing it in other areas of federal jurisdiction. What we are doing is we are following the report. We are following the report and passing the law where we are going to ban smoking where we have clear jurisdiction. We do not want to get it where we are in a constitutional battle.

What we want to do is protect that health of all Manitobans in areas where we have clear jurisdiction. I would hope that you can read the report. I would hope that you read the report that your mem- bers signed. This is what you agreed to. This is what we agreed to as all-party. This is good public health protection. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Compensation for Producers Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, in 2002, the provincial and federal governments agreed that they would initiate a $1.2-billion transition program that would allow farmers to move from the CFIP program to the new AIDA program.

The provincial government refuses, still refused to pay its 40 percent of that program. Last year the federal government announced a $460-million BSE program, which was 60-40 split. The provincial government terminated their portion of that program prematurely. They then went on the air and advertised and spent better than a hundred thousand dollars telling Manitobans that they spent $180 million. Will the Minister of Agriculture tell this House why only 13 percent of cattle producers benefited from any of the programs? Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minis ter of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr.

Speaker, many more than 13 percent of the producers have benefited from the program that we have put in place. I would encourage the member that rather than be critical of the programs to think about helping producers and encouraging them to participate. These programs have put over $80 million worth of cash into producers' hands. This is a significant amount of money that is flowing through rural Manitoba. There is significant hurt in rural Manitoba. The best thing that could happen is for us to get back to some normal trade.

Until such time, I would encourage the member to look at the programs that are in place and help people to apply for them rather than be critical of them because money is flowing to producers. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. Speaker's Ruling Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling for the House. During Oral Questions on Monday, March 1, 2004, the honourable Member for Inkster (Mr.

Lamoureux) raised an alleged matter of privilege regarding activities that had taken place during the February 20, 2004, meeting of the Standing Com- mittee on Crown Corporations, as well as the issue of notification for the February 27, 2004, meeting of the same committee. He concluded his remarks by moving THAT the Speaker look into this matter and report back to the Legislative Assembly.

March 4, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 619 The honourable Government House Leader (Mr. Mackintosh), the honourable Opposition House Leader (Mr. Derkach) and the honourable Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerra rd) also offered advice to the Chair on this matter. I then took this matter under advisement in order to consult the procedural authorities. There are two conditions that must be satisfied in order for the matter raised to be ruled in order as a prima facie case of privilege.

First, was the issue raised at the earliest op portunity, and second, has sufficient evidence been provided to demonstrate that the privileges of the House have been breached, in order to warrant putting the matter to the House. Regarding the first condition of timeliness, the honourable Member for Inkster asserted that he did raise the matter at the earliest opportunity, and I will accept the word of the honourable member.

Regarding the second condition, I must advise the House, that according to the procedural author- ities and rulings of Manitoba Speakers, matters of privilege that are raised in the House regarding events in committees must be raised in the House by way of a committee report.

Beauchesne Citation 107 states "breaches of privilege in committee may be dealt with only by the House itself on report from the committee." Marleau and Montpetit state on page 128 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice that "Speakers have consistently ruled that, except in the most extreme situations, they will only hear ques- tions of privilege arising from committee proceed- ings upon presentation of a report from the com- mittee which deals directly with the matter and not as a question of privilege raised by an individual Member." Similarly, Speaker Rocan ruled in 1989, in 1993 and in 1994 that the opinion of the Speaker cannot be sought in the House about matters arising in com- mittee and that it is not co mpetent for the Speaker to exercise procedural control over committees.

In these three cases, he ruled that the proper course of action to be taken is for the issue to be raised in the appropriate committee at the earliest opportunity. On this basis, I must therefore rule that the matter raised does not fulfil the conditions of a prima facie case of privilege. However this does not pre- clude the matter from being raised in the appropriate committee. * (14:20) MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Social Work Week Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (St. James): I am proud to rise in the House today to inform members that this first week of March is National Social Work Week.

As a social worker myself, it gives me great pride to speak about this. Mr. Speaker, this month, social workers through- out the country will celebrate the 14th National Social Work Week in recognition of the contribu- tions social workers make to society. This year the theme for the week is "Social Work for Social Justice." This theme reflects the valuable work done by social workers who are often the ones dealing most directly with people who are most disadvan- taged or experiencing the most difficulty. Social workers are engaged in their work in many capacities.

They work in schools, in hospitals and in personal care homes. They are also a critical part of our child welfare system. They are often the primary bridge between ins titutions of government and individual members of society. Social workers are everywhere, including in politics, doing very difficult work. In our caucus alone, Greg Selinger, Kerri Irvin-Ross and I are all social workers and can appreciate first-hand the rewards associated– Mr. Speaker: Order.

I hate to interrupt the hon- ourable member but I just want to remind all hon- ourable members, when addressing another member, it is by ministers by portfolios or members by their constituencies. I ask the co-operation of all hon- ourable members. Ms. Korzeniowski: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I should have referenced by constituencies. The Min- ister of Finance (Mr. Seling er), the Member for Fort Garry (Ms. Irvin-Ross) and I are all social workers and can appreciate first-hand rewards associated with a social-work career. Through their labours, social workers help to advance humanitarian and egalitarian ideals.

They advocate support and believe in the worth and dignity of every human being. The value of their work for the indi viduals they work with and for society is really immeasurable.

620 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 4, 2004 In Manitoba, National Social Work Week is organized by the Manitoba Institute of Social Work- ers and Manitoba Association of Social Workers. They represent 700 social workers and students throughout the province and are engaged in a variety of educational activities, including workshops this week aimed at helping social workers deal with the stress of their jobs. I hope that the members of the House will join me in conveying our respect– Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave? [Agreed] Ms.

Korzeniowski: –and appreciation for the critical work undertaken by social workers throughout this province, not only during this week of national rec- ognition but throughout the year. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, very often these opportunities are used to con- gratulate success stories. I would hope that the Premier (Mr. Doer) would be able to hear that this is one of those stories that is not a success story. During the height of the BSE crisis, the Premier of this province said: Now the cattlemen of the province have a partner.

Now they have a partner if the BSE crisis is now virtually gone. We can advertise how we are solving the problems of rural Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, that partner helped put one of my young constituents further in debt. He took out the full amount of money that he was eligible to borrow against his cattle operation. He sold his calves two weeks ago. He did not get enough money to carry the loan. This same young constituent was buying feed. He happened to be in the drought area. That is what this Government simply cannot get through its head.

If you are in a drought area, it is a lot different dealing with the BSE situation because you are also buying feed for a vastly depreciated asset, one that costs you on a daily basis. But the Premier says: We have got a partner. Well, partner, I have people out there that have a problem. Mr. Speaker, he sold the calves, cannot pay the loan and he does not have the ability, as a result of selling those calves, to further continue to operate his farm because he does not have the feed. This Gov- ernment thinks that a feed transportation subsidy is feed support in the time of a drought. It is not.

It is simply an assistance in transporting already over- priced, high priced and exorbitantly priced feed where the ranchers are trying to obtain feed for their cattle. Mr. Speaker, when we ri se on this side and say the Government has failed time and time again to support producers who need assistance in the middle of this crisis, this demonstrates they have failed. NSI FilmExchange Mr. Drew Caldwell (Brandon East): Mr.

Speaker, in winter, Winnipeg plays host to Canada's only 100% Canadian film festival featuring a lineup of the best feature and short Canadian films of the year from the country's top filmmakers and an amateur filmmaking competition. The National Screen Institute FilmExchange is a celebration of Canadian film and Canadian film- making. This year, the FilmExchange features more than 40 Canadian feature-length and short films.

Events during festival week include SnowScreen, an outdoor screen made entirely of snow; the industry centre, featuring professional development sessions and master classes in writing, directing and pro- ducing film, television and new media works. Manitoba's locally produced film and television industry produces projects year round and, currently, one-third of all projects shot in Manitoba represent Indigenous works. In the past five years, Manitoba's film industry has grown from a $17-million to an $80-million-a-year industry. * (14:30) Our Government is proud to support this industry.

We are pleased to support emerging film- makers by introducing a new award providing $10,000 to Manitoba's emerging filmmakers to assist these filmmakers with their projects. This recognizes those filmmakers who are in the early stages of their careers and need the resources to produce and complete a project. The award encourages Manitoba filmmaking, supports the careers of emerging filmmakers and raises the profile of made-in-Manitoba films. The winner will be announced each year at the

March 4, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 621 FilmExchange Canadian film festival and the goal is to screen the complete film-award project at the following year's NSI FilmExchange Festival. I am proud to note that Nathan Town of my home community in Brandon is competing in the national exposure competition with his film, Surprise Visit, which will be screened on Saturday afternoon, and I wish Nathan the best of luck in the compe- tition. Mr. Speaker, this Government remains firmly committed to the growth and development of Mani- toba's thriving film industry. Natural Gas Outages (Stonewall) Mr.

Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about challenges that Stonewall resi- dents experienced earlier this winter. I am speaking about the two natural gas outages within ten days of each other late in January and early February. Home- owners, businesses and the staff and residents of the local hospital were scrambling to find ways to stay warm with the gas that was disrupted during a stretch of bitter, cold weather. In spite of difficulties presented by the gas stop- pages, Stonewall and area residents rose to the occasion. I would like to take a moment to thank them for their efforts.

Wh ether they went door to door to notify residents of the problem, to relight pilot lights; whether they donated space heaters, food and warm clothing to help those in need, community members consistently pulled together. I was impressed to see the rapid and well- organized responses by Centra Gas, Manitoba Hydro, the local fire department, the RCMP, emer- gency medical services, Emergency Measures, town administrators, among others. They handled the situation with the utmost level of professionalism as they ensured the safety and well-being of affected citizens.

Thanks go out to other communities and organizations that picked up the phone and gener- ously asked if they could help. The media pitched in, too, by regularly updating the affected residents on ongoing developments. All their support was greatly appreciated. I am proud the community of Stonewall pulled together so quickly and ably. I am proud to share this story with my fellow colleagues here at the Legis- lature. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. National Show Your Heart Day Ms. Kerri Irvin-Ross (Fort Garry): Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to rise before the House today to speak on my recent invitation as the guest of honour for the National Show Your Heart Day. This special day is part of Safeway's Because We Care Campaign. The Because We Care Campaign began in 1998 by Canada Safeway Stores. Each Safeway store selects a cause or organization to support with the funds that are raised by the staff. The program works in partnership with the selected organization and employees of Safeway, who strive by numerous activities to raise funds.

Throughout the year, the staff organize numer- ous activities such as selling raffle tickets, organizing bake sales and carnivals. Every year it has been a tremendous success. Since 1998, Safeway has raised $7.5 million for different charities across Canada. This program has helped raise money for num- erous programs and organizations such as women's shelters, senior's centres, disease research, animal services and nature sites. The funds raised help to foster support for people in need in our communi- ties.

In my constituency of Fort Garry, the McGillvray Safeway store held their "Because We Care Campaign" on February 14 for a 12-year-old girl, Katherina. Katherina is a vibrant, caring and strong 12- year-old who attends General Byng School. The community came out to support this very important event. Peers, parents, grandparents and Safeway staff participated in activities throughout the day to raise funds to purchase equipment for Katherina to imp- rove her quality of life. Activities included selling coupon books, decorating cookies and eating lots of cake.

The success of this event can be best represented by Katherina's beaming smile that she wore during the day. The event brought together a community in support of a very special child and family. I am grateful to have been invited to participate in this campaign. This event demonstrated the amount of community spirit in Fort Garry. Finally, I would like to thank the employees of Safeway and the many community volunteers who worked hard to bring hope and happiness to those in our community in need. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

622 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 4, 2004 ORDERS OF THE DAY (Continued) GOVERNMENT BUSINESS Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please call third readings, the second reading and then adjourned debates in the order they appear on the Order Paper? CONCURRENCE AND THIRD READINGS Bill 7–The Criminal Property Forfeiture Act Hon. Gord Mackintosh (M inister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Selinger), that Bill 7, The Criminal Property Forfeiture Act, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed. Motion presented. Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. De rkach), that debate on Bill 7 be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 8–The Employment and Income Assistance Amendment Act (One-Tier Assistance for Rural and Northern Manitoba) Hon. Gord Mackintosh (M inister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Mini- ster of Finance (Mr.

Selinger), that Bill 8, The Em- ployment and Income Assistance Amendment Act (One-Tier Assistance for Ru ral and Northern Mani- toba), reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed. Motion presented. Mrs. Leanne Ro wat (Minnedosa): I move, seconded by the Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Hawranik), that debate on Bill 8 be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 13–The Public Schools Amendment Act (Appropriate Educational Programming) Hon.

Gord Mackintosh (M inister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Mini- ster of Finance (Mr. Selinger), that Bill 13, The Public Schools Amendment Act (Appropriate Edu- cational Programming), reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed. Motion presented. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): I move, seconded by the member from Emerson, that debate on this bill be adjourned. Motion agreed to. SECOND READINGS Bill 21–The Non-Smokers Health Protection Act (Various Acts Amended) Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Healthy Living): Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), that Bill 21, The Non- Smokers Health Protection Act (Various Acts Amended);

Loi sur la protection de la santé des non- fumeurs (modification de diverses dispositions lég- islatives), now be read a second time and referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Rondeau: In December 2002, an all-party task force was struck to examine the issues of how to deal with environmental tobacco smoke in public and workplaces. I, along with six of my esteemed colleagues in this House, participated in as a member of this taskforce.

I would like to thank all members of the task force for doing a great job as far as going out, consulting with the public, listening to what the issues are and compiling a comprehensive report by which to draft legislation. The report was very clear, it was very specific and it heard from thousands of Manitobans on the appropriate course of action that this Government should take. Between the spring and fall of 2003, we held 13 public hearings in 12 different communities across

March 4, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 623 Manitoba. We also received submissions through the Internet and by mail. There was great participation. The task force heard from a wide variety of groups including local business owners, municipal officials, health care professionals, healthy com- munity committees, teachers, students and private citizens–just to name a few. We also met with the chair of the Advisory Coun cil on Workplace Safety and Health.

Of the presentations and submissions that were made to the task force, approximately 70 percent were supportive of a province-wide ban in public and health workplaces.

In their presentations and sub- missions, many people stressed that the goal of such legislation would not be to prevent members of the public and workforce from smoking, but to protect the general public and workers from second- hand smoke. * (14:40) Based on the information obtained through the public consultation process, the task force recom- mended that the provincial government enact legis- lation calling for a complete ban of smoking in all enclosed public places and indoor workplaces, where the provincial government has clear jurisdiction. This legislation was to come into effect on October 1, 2004.

The Non-Smokers Health Protection Act will give effect to those recommendations for the all- party task force. It will amend The Non-Smokers Health Protection Act to implement a province-wide ban of smoking in enclosed public places and indoor workplaces where we have jurisdiction. Smoking will be banned in a vehicle used for work while it is carrying two or more employees. Smoking will be banned in indoor workplaces. What we are trying to do is we are trying to work with everyone to implement this in a timely manner. I would like to go through some of the recom- mendations that the report does.

I will read them into the record. The recommendations are the following: That the provincial government enact legislation calling for a complete ban of smoking in enclosed public and indoor workplaces where the provincial government has clear jurisdiction. No. 2: That the legislation come into effect on October 1, 2004, and that a public education cam- paign precede the implementation date. No. 3: That the provincial government instruct the Department of Health to consult with the Advisory Council on Workplace Safety and Health in order to develop the legislation which would deal with the

definitions and enforcement procedures for use in all enclosed public and indoor workplaces. No. 4: That the provincial government continue to provide appropriate resources to support edu- cation, prevention and cessation initiatives, especi- ally those targeted at youth as part of a com- prehensive approach to tobacco control. No. 5: That the provincial government work closely with the hospitality industry to develop stra- tegies for addressing the anticipated negative impacts resulting from a province-wide smoking ban.

The sixth: That the ceremonial use of tobacco be exempted from the province-wide ban and that the Aboriginal community be consulted on an appro- priate definition of ceremonial use. As I question, sometimes, whether the members opposite actually read th e recommendations, I hope that they do have a time to read the recommendations that their party sign. I think they are very compre- hensive and they are very specific. The legislation addresses those. The bill also amended The Municipal Assess- ment Act and The Workplace Health and Safety Act.

The primary goal of this legislation is to protect the general public and workers from environmental tobacco smoke. As the trigger case of Heather Crowe illustrates, second-hand smoke can be deadly. What we want to do, and the goal of this legislation is to protect the health of Manitobans. It is a huge pro- active step. If you look at the things that cause good health, the major determinants of good health; one of the most important is the fact of whether we can get people to stop smoking. So far we have done an excellent job, where we have gone from 35 percent

624 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 4, 2004 to now 25 percent. We are working on that. It is decreasing. What was really happy about this, was Probe Research looked at those who smoked and did a wonderful study when our announcement came out. They found out that 42 percent of the people under the age of 35 that are currently smoking will consider stopping smoking when the ban comes into place. If that goes, we will be leading the country as far as the change of smokers to non-smokers. I am very pleased to hear that. As far as the public health perspective, this is a very proactive statement.

I think it is a wonderful way to initiate the Ministry of Healthy Living, because what it is doing is it is showing people that we can take proactive steps to good health, not just treat the acute care or keep on building up the acute care system. The ban will not apply to outdoor eating or drinking areas such as patios. It will enable parameters to be specified by regulation under the act respecting how much outdoor areas may be enclosed before they will be considered to be indoor public places.

In other words, what we are going to do is we are going to define a patio, so that we do have a clear distinction of what a patio is or is not doing. What we hope to have is enough air so that it is a safe eating place and safe area so that there is good airflow. We will provide a more level playing field, providing a consistent definition of what is enclosed and what is outdoor.

Smoking will be banned in group living facilities, including facilities such as personal care homes, addictions and treatment facil- ities, palliative care units and hospices, residential care facilities, children's group homes, residential shelters and halfway houses. Such facilities, except where they are exclusively for children, will be allowed to have, but not required to have, a desig- nated smoking room, and will continue to be free to decide by internal policy not to have a designated smoking room.

Tobacconist shops will be able to allow the sampling of products such as specialized blended tobacco in their shops, and this provision will mirror what is currently allowed in Winnipeg. Smoking prohibitions will not apply in relationship to tradi- tional Aboriginal spiritual or cultural practices or ceremonies, and we will work with community elders to make sure that we have a good definition that is acceptable. Owners and employers will be responsible to enforce the ban in their own closed public places and indoor workplaces.

They will be responsible to en- sure that the required no-smoking sign is posted in accordance with the regulations, but, as we found in Winnipeg and the Brandon by-law, there has not been a huge issue on enforcement. There have not been a lot of charges laid. There has been a huge compliance with the act. As I was told on the weekend in one rural com- munity, they know it is a good measure for public health, and they are expecting it to actually go into place, and a number of people are applauding this decision.

The act will enable the appointment of in- spectors to enforce the ban, and the police will also be able to enforce the ban. We have a number of groups that will do this. It is not anticipated it will be a huge compliance issue. In fact, with only a handful of cases since the ban has been implemented to 70 percent of the population, there have not been major enforcement issues. The act will call for minimum and maximum fines for non-compliance.

Owners and employers who fail to enforce the ban will be liable to a fine not less than $500, not more than $3,000, for the first offence; a fine of not less than $750, not more than $5,000 for a second offence; a fine of not less than $1,000, not more than $15,000 for a third and subsequent offence. Individuals who smoke in contravention of the legislation will be liable to a fine of not less than $100, not more than $500 for the first offence; a fine of not less than $200, not more than $750 for a second offence; a fine of not less than $300; not more than $1,000 for a third and subsequent offence.

An important concept of this bill, though, is the act will continue to allow municipalities and organi- zations and businesses to adopt more stringent rules through by-laws or policy. Thus, the Brandon smok- ing by-law can continue to prohibit smoking on patios should they determine to do so. It will also enable people to establish whether they want a non-smoking building, or if they wish

March 4, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 625 non-smoking policies. So, you have the WRHA and other RHAs that are banning smoking on property. That might continue, and this legislation allows it to continue. I am pleased to be part of the development of this historic bill which will implement the first province-wide smoking ban in Canada. It will protect Manitobans from the harmful effect of second-hand smoke. It will decrease the numbers of people who are suffering from cancer and a number of ailments and chronic disease. I would like to publicly thank the honourable Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan).

He focussed us on this issue. He brought about a private member's bill. He was concerned about the good health of Mani- tobans. I read a great statement which said that a states- man will look to the future of the next generation,

whereas politicians are co ncerned about the next headline. I would like to congratulate the Member for Carman for his efforts in making a positive contribution to the long-term generational good health of Manitobans. He is a true statesman and should be proud of his accomplishment.

This will make a huge difference to the health of Manitobans. * (14:50) What is also interesting is when I met with Heather Crowe, the waitress who contracted cancer from working in an environment where she was a non-smoker, and her family is non-smokers, but she ended up getting lung cancer from second-hand smoke, and she had the award from the Ontario Workers Compensation, she said that this is going to be a road map, and it is an important road map, because we do not want to allow where people con- tinue to get chronic disease because of where they work.

If it was another substance that was causing death, and when we are talking about death, we are talking 48 000 people a year in Canada. That is atrocious. So what we have to do is we have to ensure that people are not subjected to chemicals that cause disease. If it was another substance other than tobacco, would it be allowed in the workplace, that would cause death? I hope that the Opposition looks at this as a proactive public health issue. I hope they look at it as something that we can work together in co-operation in the long term for all of Manitoba. I think it is a very positive first step.

The other thing that has not been mentioned in this bill, and the Opposition has brought up repeat- edly, is: why are you doing it in certain areas? Well, what we have done is we have made a very good decision which was mentioned in the task force report multiple times; we would ban smoking on areas of clear provincial jurisdiction. Members oppo- site are worried about the he alth of our citizens, and so are we. However, we did not want this legislation tied up in constitutional issues. What we wanted to do, as the all-party task force pointed out, is that we would do it in clear provincial jurisdictions.

We did not pass this legislation to cover areas like federal jails, like Stony Mountain. It does not cover armed forces bases. It does not cover areas where we do not have clear provincial jurisdiction, and I think that was wise, because we do not want this tied up. The members just have to look at the headlines in the last couple of weeks where the public health officer in Kenora passed a non-smoking ban and it was thrown out. Why was it thrown out? Because he did not have jurisdiction to pass that ban.

We have a case in the gun registry where the federal government has a national gun registry, and it was thrown out on First Nations, because they did not have clear jurisdiction. Now the members oppo- site may wish to assist lawyers by having consti- tutional wrangling about this issue. What I am concerned ab out, and what our Gov- ernment is concerned about, is the good health of Manitobans. What we want to do is proactively pass this legislation to make sure that the areas under clear provincial jurisdiction are covered, so that we have better public health policy and that is what this did.

In fact, we have a great quote from the Grand Chief of the AMC, Dennis White Bird. It says: It gives me confidence that there is a Canadian consti- tution that respects our rights, as well as a govern- ment in Manitoba that respects the rights of First Nations people. The jurisdictional issue is important, because we want to make sure that the law goes through; that we do extend the ban as quickly as possible, so that we

626 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 4, 2004 can be proactive as far as the good health of Mani- tobans, and we do not want it tied up in jurisdictional issues. Sometimes you wonder why the members oppo- site just question whether it is Aboriginal casinos, and they are not questioning whether it is military bases. They are not questioning whether it is in jails. Their whole focus is on the Aboriginal issue. You question, sometimes, whether they had that same issue on the good health, like the Healthy Baby program where we extended benefits. No, they were arguing the opposite.

I think what they should do is get their story straight. They should be consistent when their party signs off. I think it is very important that they become statesmen, where they look at the large picture of doing a proactive bill for good health of Manitobans. I think the Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan) showed good statesmanship in taking a con- sistent approach, saying we should ban smoking on areas of clear provincial jurisdiction. He was con- sistent on that. He signed off on the report for the members opposite, and we followed the recom- mendations.

I think if the members opposite actually took the time to read the report–and I encourage them to read the report, because it is a very good report, they would recognize that the law mirrors the report. Because it was an all-party effort, and all parties signed off on it, that is what we did in legislation. I think since November, when I became Minister of Healthy Living and I was given this file, a number of people from the members opposite could have come and talked to me.

They knew I had the file, but the instructions were, from all parties, to construct legislation that mirrored the report and that is what happened. As far as other issues in the legislation, I hope that we get this passed by October 1. Currently, some of the efforts that we are doing is we are working with the industry. We have extended some hours of VLTs so that the industry can get ready because of the negative impact that may occur on some indus- tries. The good

part is that we are listening to indus- try and we are working with industry as was outlined in the report. The other thing that we have done in the report, which is really exciting, is we are starting to focus more and more of our campaign on stopping smok- ing for youth. We have a campaign that involves kids in junior high which is reviewing ads on negative non-smoking and that is moving forward, and that is very exciting. We have the non-smoking community looking very good.

Now the important part that members opposite should really note is it was exciting. [interjection] It is interesting to see the Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) is screaming about how he does not believe in the legislation, but the interesting

part is that we had, on the opening, wonderful support from the medical community, from the public health com- munity, from the community in general. We had all sorts of people there. I am pleased to bring a bill, the first bill from the Healthy Living focus, to bring good health and it is a determinant of good health. It is interesting that members opposite squawk about what we can do and they do not understand the whole jurisdictional issue, but if they would read the bill, if they read the report, they will see that they mirror and they do mirror well.

I think what would happen is that in good faith what we have to do is not look at your political headlines. What we have to do is look at the good health for all Manitobans and that is what this bill does. I encourage the Member for Steinbach to read the bill, because if he does he will realize that his party signed off on it and he is a member of a party and he should probably reflect the same attitudes and same values of his members. If the party signed off, I, in good faith looked at that, saying if your party signed off on it, your party agrees to it.

If that is not the case, I guess, I stand corrected that when your party signed off on the all-party report and agreed to it, that is what I then crafted the legislation by. Now, I encourage you to read it. I encourage you to look at it and I also encourage you to realize that we wanted to make sure that we pass it with as few issues as possible. One of those major issues is the right for self-government, the understanding that we can only legislate where we have constitutional responsibility.

Although a lot of Manitobans go to Kenora because they have cottages there, that does not give us the right to pass a law in Kenora. We have to only pass a law where we have clear provincial jurisdiction. That is what we are doing. We do care about the health of all Manitobans, but we do also understand the legal realities and that is why we passed it accordingly. I am proud of the

March 4, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 627 bill. I am proud of the Member for Carman who has worked very, very hard on the issue and is truly an honourable member, and I am very proud of the fact that we got a task force that went around the prov- ince, got good information on this important issue and passed it on. I am looking very much forward to creating the road map for all of Canada and leading Canada as far as healthy living strategy and keeping people healthy rather than treating sickness at the back end. Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): I move, sec- onded by the Member for Russell (Mr.

Derkach), that debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 5–The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act (Claimant Advisers) Mr. Speaker: Now we will resume debate on second reading on Bill 5, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act (Claimant Advisers), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed). An Honourable Member: Stand. Mr. Speaker: Stand? Is there agreement for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Turtle Mountain? [Agreed] * (15:00) Bill 6–The Cross-Border Policing Act Mr.

Speaker: Bill 6, The Cross-Border Policing Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Hawranik). Is there agreement for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet? [Agreed] Bill 9–The Manitoba Immigration Council Act Mr. Speaker: Bill 9, The Manitoba Immigration Council Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler). Is there agreement for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Spring- field? [Agreed] Bill 10–The Gaming Control Amendment Act Mr.

Speaker: Bill 10, The Gaming Control Amend- ment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed). Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Turtle Mountain? [Agreed] Bill 11–The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act (Protection of Crown Assets) Mr. Speaker: Bill 11, The Manitoba Public Insur- ance Corporation Amendment Act (Protection of Crown Assets), standing in the name of the hon- ourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: Order.

The honourable Government House Leader, on a point of order. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I believe the Member for The Maples (Mr. Aglugub) was standing on Bill 9. Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to revert back to Bill 9? [Agreed] Bill 9–The Manitoba Immigration Council Act Mr. Speaker: Bill 9, The Manitoba Immigration Council Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler). Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Springfield? [Agreed] Mr.

Cris Aglugub (The Maples): I want to wel- come this opportunity to speak in support of Bill 9, The Manitoba Immigration Council Act. I want to address the subject matter because it is an issue of utmost concern to myself, to numerous people in my

628 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 4, 2004 constituency and to the whole population of Mani- toba. Mr. Speaker, the issue of immigration in Canada is not a new one. Policy on immigration is as old as the country itself. However, what is new is the con- tent of the policy and the ways in which the laws and programs apply to new immigrants. This is the first bill of its kind which was specifically adopted at council to address the issue of immigration to Manitoba.

As I said, I am in support of this proposed bill, a bill which demonstrates the Government's commitment to their responsibility to the future of this province and the future of Canada. For I know that a strong future in Manitoba and Canada can be found in immigration. The Manitoba government has been proactive and innovative in its immigration programs. The Canada-Manitoba Immigration Agreement originally signed in 1996, and renegotiated in 2003, includes the annex on Immigrant Settlement Services, the pro- vincial nominees and the exchange of information.

Under the terms of the annex on Settlement Services, the Province is responsible for the admin- istration and delivery of Settlement Services. The Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program is the largest in Canada, accounting for approximately 70 percent of provincial nominee arrivals in Canada. In October 2003, Canada and Manitoba also signed a memorandum of understanding for a pilot project that will permit international post-secondary students studying in the province to work off- campus. Mr.

Speaker, there are two categories of immi- grants under the Manitoba Provincial Nominee Pro- gram: one is skilled workers and the other is business immigrants. The provincial nominees are a class of economic immigrants under the Canada Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Under the Manitoba Provincial Nominee Progra m for skilled workers, Manitoba recruits, screens and nominates prospec- tive immigrants with the skill to fill specific Mani- toba labour market requirements. Also offered by the fe deral government is a sponsorship program.

Under this program, persons who are close relatives, such as spouse, dependant children, parents, grandparents, orphan brothers and sisters of someone already in Canada can be spon- sored by that family member to come to Canada. However, the need of immigrants does not end with their final arrival to Manitoba. There are many barriers and issues they will have to face once they arrive. Some may need to learn a new language. They also must overcome economic barriers, such as finding employment, education and a new place of residence.

They must also learn their rights and responsibilities in their new country of residence. Under the agreement signed in 1998, British Columbia and Manitoba assumed direct responsibil- ity for the design, administration and delivery of settlement services to newcomers who settle in those provinces. Québec has had responsibility for im- migrant settlement since 1991 under the Canada- Québec accord. In all three cases, the agreements provide for federal funding. These services are to be reasonably comparable to services provided across the country.

In Manitoba, the Settlement and Labour Market Services Branch of Manitoba Labour and Immigra- tion formed newcomer services. It assists newcomers with their settlement in Manitoba. Its ultimate goal for immigrants is participatory citizenship and long- term residency in the province. They also develop, co-ordinate, support, de liver and fund settlement- related programs and services. Manitoba also provides an immigrant integration program. The purpose of this program is to facilitate the economic and social integration of immigrants in Manitoba.

The Manitoba Immigrant Integration Pro- gram provides funding and staff support under two components: immigrant settlement services and adult English as a second language services. Its program includes a delivery assistance component to enhance activities that support settlement and adult ESL delivery and development. I am proud, Mr. Speaker, of the government achievements in regard to immigration. With these innovative strategies, Manitoba has doubled the annual provincial immigration levels since 1998. However, I am sure there is still much that needs to be done regarding immigrants to Manitoba.

I think that Bill 9, which establishes an Immi- gration Council, will be of great benefit to new immigrants. As we are all well aware, this bill will establish the Manitoba Immigration Council, which

March 4, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 629 will provide information and advice to government about immigration to the province. I would add, much needed advice in regard to attracting new immigrants to the province, settlement services, initi- atives to develop and promote the retention and attraction of immigrants. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation will provide much needed direction for the Government.

Currently, there is a gap in the policy, in particular, a lack of understanding and information in regard to immigration and the programs which may be needed for new immigrants and ways of encouraging more immigrants to the province. This is a positive step forward and I support passing of Bill 9. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Any other speakers? Seeing none, the bill will remain standing as we previously agreed to. Bill 9 will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Sp ringfield (Mr. Schuler) when it is called again. Bill 10–The Gaming Control Amendment Act Mr.

Speaker: Now we will move on the Bill 10, The Gaming Control Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed). Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Turtle Mountain? [Agreed] Any speakers on Bill 10? Bill 11–The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act (Protection of Crown Assets) Mr. Speaker: Bill 11, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Am endment Act (Protection of Crown Assets), standing in the name of the hon- ourable Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Hawranik). Stand?

An Honourable Member: Stand. Mr. Speaker: Stand. Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet? [Agreed] * (15:10) Bill 12–The Highways and Transportation Amendment and Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Trucking Productivity Improvement Fund) Mr. Speaker: Bill 12, The Highways and Trans- portation Amendment and Highway Traffic Amend- ment Act (Trucking Productivity Improvement Fund), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck). An Honourable Member: Stand. Mr. Speaker: Stand?

Is there agreement for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina? [Agreed] Bill 14–The Gas Tax Accountability Act (Financial Administration Act Amended) Mr. Speaker: Bill 14, The Gas Tax Accountability Act (Financial Administration Act Amended), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou). An Honourable Member: Stand. Mr. Speaker: Stand?

Is there agreement by the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the Member for Portage la Prairie? [Agreed] Bill 15–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Police Powers Respecting Unsafe Drivers and Miscellaneous Amendments) Mr. Speaker : Bill 15, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Police Powers Respecting Unsafe Drivers and Miscellaneous Amendments), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Hawranik). An Honourable Member: Stand. Mr. Speaker: Stand? Bill 15? The honourable member will speak. Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr.

Speaker, I take great pleasure in debating Bill 15, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Police Powers Respecting Unsafe Drivers and Miscel- laneous Amendments) on behalf of the constituents

630 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 4, 2004 of Lac du Bonnet and, of course, on behalf of my caucus. I would like to first begin by thanking all the caucus members for all of their contributions this week in terms of debate on Bills 16 and 17. I note that I really had a great deal of co-operation from my caucus members in debating those two bills. I listened with great interest in terms of what my caucus members had to say in those two bills. I thank them for their contributions.

There may be some amendments that are coming in report stage, third reading, and, of course, during committee, but I would like to thank them for all their contributions and their thoughtful debate for those two bills. Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair Bill 15 is a bill that speaks about police powers, and I think that the title of the bill certainly is reflective of its contents. Over the years we have noticed an erosion of police powers across the province. We have seen a judicial assault on those powers in many of the cases that have been decided in Manitoba.

We have also seen a Charter assault on police powers as well. There really must be a balance between civil liberties and police power in any province and in any country. I think that the balance needs to be there. Bill 15 enhances those powers. It does a number of important things. Firstly, it provides for vehicle impoundment for up to 48 hours in the event that it can be proved that vehicles were racing on a public street. I think that is important, because we did not have that authority before.

Those who are caught doing that, and it is proved that they are doin g that, certainly vehicle impoundment would be a very appropriate remedy. Secondly, the bill looks at the length of licence suspension for theft of motor vehicle parts and possession of stolen motor vehicle parts. It seemed odd that the length of licence suspension was different for the th eft of motor vehicle parts than it was for possession. What this bill does now is to make the remedy, the length of suspension, the same. The length of suspension is based entirely on the value of the parts.

I invite all those members who have not read the bill to familiarize themselves with that particular provision. The third thing the bill does is it allows police at a roadside stop to ask the driver if he or she has been drinking or has taken drugs without the necessity of providing the driver with the opportunity to consult a lawyer first. In some ways, it will come as a surprise to many of our members and members across the way that, in fact, lawyers did not have the right to ask a driver after they st opped them at a roadside stop whether or not they were drinking or whether they had taken drugs.

We thought it was the case, but in the spring of 2003 the Court of Appeal ruled that police had no authority to ask an individual whether they had been drinking or taking drugs, which is really quite odd, we thought. What this amendment does is give legislative authority to the police to do that. Without the bill, an officer can only check a driver's licence, a record of insurance and vehicle registration, unless of course he has reasonable and probable grounds that an offence has occurred, such as do they have liquor on their breath, do they have slurred speech, and so on.

What this bill does is to clarify legislatively the power and the right of police to ask an individual at a roadside stop whether in fact they have consumed alcohol or drugs. I think it is only fitting that the Legislature plugs that loophole that was there since the spring of 2003. I think by far the most important provision of Bill 15 is the provision with respect to a field sobriety test. The Province cannot make criminal law, only Parliament can do that. Criminal law is not within the jurisdiction of the Province.

In other words, impaired driving is a criminal offence and the Province cannot, in fact, legislate with respect to criminal law. The jurisdiction of the Province lies with respect to suspension of drivers' licences and impounding vehicles. When convicted of a criminal offence such as impaired driving the federal govern- ment determines the fine and then records the crim- inal record. The Province suspends the driver's licence and impounds the vehicle. That is the juris- diction of the Province. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the bill approves, I believe it is the most important part of this bill, it actually approves a field sobriety test in legislation. The field sobriety test is intended to test for, and in my view it is important that we test for drugs, particularly marijuana or even impairment by prescription drugs. This is one of the tools that an officer can use at a roadside stop. The officer can require a field sobriety test at the roadside from dr ivers and refusal to take

March 4, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 631 that test and conviction of it results in the vehicle being impounded for 60 days and a three-month licence suspension, which by the way is the same as refusing a breathalyzer at a roadside test. Failing the test, the field sobriety test, and the conviction of same results in the impoundment of the vehicle for 60 days and three months' licence suspension, which is identical to what a driver would receive if they were found guilty of impaired driving.

Failure of a field sobriety test is grounds as well to ask for a breathalyzer test if the officer feels it is warranted. If the individual fails then it results in a criminal conviction and a fine and/or jail.

Failure of a field sobriety test, which of course now becomes legislatively approved, may be grounds, along with other impairment evidence such as glassy eyes, slurring speech, lack of focus and so on, it may be grounds to charge and convict someone of impaired driving or under the influence of drugs, or the police may have grounds to demand at that point, if they are under the influence of drugs, a saliva, blood or urine sample to convict someone of impaired driving by reason of being under the influence of drugs. * (15:20) I think it is important to have a drug test in the sense that Parliament may decriminalize marijuana before the end of the month and I believe this will lead to an increase in use of marijuana in the province, especially by driving.

I think there is increased likelihood that people may drive while under the influence of marijuana. This field sobriety test does set the standard whereby police would then have grounds to test for drugs, if they do fail, and it can be done at this point by a saliva, blood or urine sample for a drug impairment test. In principle, in broad general terms, we are in support of Bill 15 because the bill provides more investigative tools and powers to police in the battle against impaired drivers in Manitoba and on Manitoba roads.

Those who abide by the law and those who do not drive impaired, I feel, have nothing to fear from Bill 15. The highlight of the bill, in my opinion, is approving the field sobriety test in legislation. This test, while widely in use in the United States–and those of us who have watched American television channels will be familiar with it. It is a test that is frequently administered on the roadside. The offi cer subjectively forms an opinion as to the sobriety or the degree of impairment from the results of the test. The test is a three-prong test.

First, it is a balance test, standing on one foot for a period of time. Secondly, the individual walks a straight line and turns around and determines whether or not there is that balance. Third, th ere is an eye-tracking test which checks whether the eyes move in a smooth motion rather than a jerky one while following an object that is moved across the field of vision by the officer. The value in the field sobriety test, in my opinion, will be as a legislatively-approved test that the police can administer to test for impairment by drugs such as marijuana and cocaine, or even prescription medicines.

In my view, if your ability to drive is impaired, you are impaired. It does not matter whether you are impaired by alcohol or drugs. The impairment is the same, and if you are impaired, you should not be driving. Under the current law, that is before Bill 15, the field sobriety test was being used as a test for impairment, but it was not regarded as conclusive evidence of impairment. It was a factor that was to be considered as evidence of impairment.

With the passage of Bill 15, failure of the field sobriety test and conviction of that failure carries the same penalties by the Province as that of being convicted for impaired driving except, of course, it does not carry with it a criminal record as a result. Refusal to perform the test at roadside and conviction of that refusal carries the same penalties as that for being convicted of refusing to take a breathalyzer, again, without imposing a criminal record on the person that did refuse to take it.

Failure or refusal result s in a 24-hour immediate licence suspension, and conviction of a refusal results in that three-month licence suspension and a 60-day impoundment of the vehicle. Greater impoundment periods are provided for in the bill for subsequent convictions. Bill 15 does not create criminal law. Only Parlia- ment can do that. Bill 15 simply creates licence sus- pensions and impoundments which are within the

632 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 4, 2004 jurisdiction of this Legislature. Conviction of refusal to take that field sobriety test, or conviction of failing the field sobriety test does not carry with it, as a result, any criminal record. Stats Canada reported in November of 2003 that the rate of drivers in Winnipeg charged with impaired driving dropped 8.7 percent in 2002 from the year previous in 2001, while the rate of charges in the province as a whole dropped 7.7 percent during the same period of time. However, there is no room for complacency. Do not take solace.

I ask the minister not to take solace in those numbers, nor any comfort in those statistics. Even though the rate of Manitoba and Winnipeg drivers charged with impaired driving has dropped, police and anti-drunk driving groups are not impressed. The Winnipeg Police Service and the RCMP both say that the statistics do not tell the whole story. Winnipeg police traffic inspector Stan Tataryn was quoted in the Free Press on November 8 of last year as saying, and I quote: If we had more resources out there, maybe the rate would have gone up here. I do not like going on statistics based on arrests.

It is nice to see this, but we do not want to get lulled into a false sense of complacency. There is still a lot to do. In the same

article in the Free Press, Winnipeg RCMP constable Chris Blandford said he is also sceptical of the latest statistics which show a small drop in drivers across the province being charged with impaired driving. He was quoted as saying, the statistics are actual events where people have been caught, but I do not think it reflects just how many impaired drivers are out there. Maybe enforcement procedures have changed and manpower issues have impacted on it. I think there is more that we have to include, so we have to look at the whole picture. I think, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, a more accurate study of how many impaired drivers are out there was done in Alberta two years ago when several hundred vehicles were pulled over. In that study, it was found that one in every 25 drivers had been drinking to the point that they were impaired. I think that is a proper study, not necessarily how many people, in fact, were charged. Ron Sudbury, the president of the Winnipeg

chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, shares the same concerns as police. He said, I would like to say impaired driving is going down, but I have concerns with just using police statistics of people charged. I do not think it is a fair assessment. It was revealed by Statistics Canada in the same report that Saskatchewan recorded the highest impaired driving rate in the country at 618 people charged for every 100 000 people age 16 and over. The high rate may simply be a positive statement for the state of enforcement in Saskatchewan.

Maybe they have more police officers looking for impaired drivers or maybe more police officers spend more of their time looking for impaired drivers than in Manitoba. In any event, I believe that the value of this bill is in increasing the likelihood that more impaired drivers will be caught, which, of course, will mean safer streets and roadways in our province, which of course means less property damage, less personal injury, less traffic deaths due to impaired drivers.

I believe that the most value of this bill will be providing our police with the additional approved tool, being the field sobriety test, which will be effective in testing those w ho are impaired by drugs, either illegal drugs or prescription drugs. We all know that Parliament will be decriminalizing the simple possession of marijuana, and, as a result of that decriminalization, we can expect that there will likely be increased usage as well as increased demand for marijuana. As a result, we will likely see an increase in drivers who are impaired as a result of smoking marijuana.

Bill 15 provides the tool for testing for impairments, one which is legislatively approved and one which will stand up in court, so those who are convicted of impairment by drugs are penalized with licence suspensions. Just in the last few months, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have read several head lines in our newspapers: one, the Winnipeg Free Press, such as: Marijuana raids rising, on February 12, 2004; and Citizens tipping off police on marijuana grow ops, on Feb- ruary 13, 2004; The Winnipeg Sun stating: Growing problem, rise in pot cultivation tip of the iceberg, say cops, on February 15, 2004.

March 4, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 633 From January 1, 2004, to February 12, 2004, less than one and a half months, the Winnipeg Police seized almost $12 million in marijuana from a dozen or so grow operations in Winnipeg. So far most of the dozen grow operations found this year were in residential areas. No neighbourhoods are immune from marijuana growers and many are connected to the Hells Angels. Constable Shelly Glover, who is the Winnipeg Police spokesperson, indicated on February 12 that they are in every area of the city, and most are connected to drug gangs like the Hells Angels.

She further stated that the police could uproot even more grow houses if they had the manpower to respond to all the tips they get from upset Winnipeggers who turn them in. I know this Government and this Justice Minister (Mr. Mackintosh) are sensitive about the Hells Angels, because, in fact, the Hells Angels came to Winnipeg under this Government, on this Justice Minister's watch in the year 2000, when they formally took over the Los Brovos motorcycle club.

It is well documented that the Hells Angels moved into Manitoba in the year 2000, and this Government and the Justice Minister both sat back and let it happen. * (15:30) While we support in general broad terms the principle of this bill, to give police more authority and power to charge those who are impaired by drugs, I would implore this minister to take seriously those grow operations that are in fact popping out all across our province and give the police authority and the resources to charge those who are impaired by drugs.

I want him to take seriously those grow operations and the criminal organizations in this province. Do the honourable thing, and do what Shelly Glover suggests. Add more police resources so they can close down more grow operations, because, as she said it, if police had more manpower to respond to all the tips from Winnipeggers who want to turn them in, they could do serious damage to the gangs and the criminal organizations, including the Hells Angels. What is this Government and this minister waiting for? Are they afraid to take on the criminal organizations? I submit they are.

All the evidence points to a fear by the Doer government and this Justice Minister (Mr. Mackintosh) to take on the Hells Angels and the criminal organizations in this province. I give a number of examples in my comments to this bill. They start with the feeble responses of the Government and this Justice Minister to date. I note that a little over a year an d a half ago the minister introduced The Civil Remedies Against Organized Crime Act. He stood on a pedestal.

He stood on a pedestal in front of the media, in front of Manitobans, and he told us that this will take on the criminal organizations in this province, that they have no place in this province. If he was serious, the bill would have been different than what it was. When I asked in Estimates just last year about the effect of that act, The Civil Remedies Against Organized Crime Act, I was shocked at the response by the fact that there have only been 12 charges, not convictions, but only 12 charges with respect only to one provision of the act, and that is for wearing the wrong clothing in bars.

Is this what we have come to expect from our Justice Minister? He has raised the level of expectation of Manitobans with respect to his ability to get rid of the Hells Angels and other criminal organizations in this province. He has raised that level of expectation and he has failed to deliver. That bill, The Civil Remedies Against Organized Crime Act, was touted by the Justice Minister to be able to shut down a retail establishment that was just down the street from the Justice Minister's own constituency office, River City Choppers. He touted this bill as being able to shut that business down. It never did.

It did not even come to close. Another bill that we have seen the minister introduce in the last few months is The Criminal Property Forfeiture Act. He has introduced this bill as a result of his failures in The Civil Remedies Against Organized Crime Act. He acknowledges, I think, himself that that bill was a failure. He introduced The Criminal Property Forfeiture Act to try to remedy that failure. I feel that The Criminal Property Forfeiture Act is a desperate attempt by this minister to put any kind of dent into criminal organizations.

As I predicted then and I will stand by my words, I believe that bill will fail and will fail miserably. The reason it will fail is I do not believe it

634 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 4, 2004 will meet a constitutional test. I have stated that publicly and I stand by those statements. W h a t r e a l l y t o o k m e b y s u r p r i s e w e r e t h e comments by a very unlikely ally in that statement that I made with respect to constitutionality of that bill. I found a very unlik ely ally in the former Attorney General and one of the colleagues of the Minister of Justice, Mr. Roland Penner, who is now regarded as a constitutional expert at the Faculty of Law at the University of Manitoba, really a very unlikely ally in my comments to the bill.

He is a self- professed constitutional law expert at the U of M and the paper quoted him. I was really quite surprised that he took my position on the bill and he agreed with me. I would ask that the Justice Minister, before he introduces any more bills, perhaps he should consult with Roland Penner at the U of M. I think it may not be a bad idea before he introduces bills to raise the level of expectation by Manitobans in the ability of the Justice Minister to run the criminal organizations and the Hells Angels out of this province. With that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that concludes my comments.

I hope that the members across the way will, in fact, try to debate this bill as well. I noticed that over the last couple of bills that we have not really had any participation, which is really surprising. I am not sure why, but obviously they do not support the Justice Minister's bills. With that I would like to leave my comments on the record. Thank you. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I actually rise just to put a few words on the record in regard to Bill 15. This is, in principle, a piece of legislation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we could, in fact, support going to the committee stage.

I think, through time, we have seen change in attitude, and I made reference to that change of attitude when I was addressing a different bill the other day inside the Chamber. Again, it just kind of reinforces. You know, as MLAs, we try to gauge what it is that our constituents want to see happen in the province, and one of the consistent questions that I always pose in the form of surveys into the constituency. We get a fairly decent rate of return. In the last one we did in 2003, I had somewhere in the neighbourhood of just over 350 surveys actually returned.

A couple of the questions I asked were regarding drinking and driving, just to try to get an assessment of how people were feeling. It is always interesting when you compare some of the stats from earlier questions that I would have posed back in the mid-nineties, even early nineties, on this very important issue. What you will find is that people, again, are generally getting that much more less tolerant with drinking and driving. You know, the government of the day, I remem- ber Mr. McCrae at the time came up with legislation to try to appeal to what the public, in essence, was demanding.

Now we see this Government, just a different political party, again, trying to appeal to what the public is demanding. With the feedback that I am receiving is, in principle, that we should be supporting this sort of piece of legislation, and that is why I say, in principle. It is a good piece of legis- lation that we should see go into the committee and get some sort of feedback on it. I know one of the questions that I asked on the survey, for example, is for the second-time offender that is caught drinking and driving.

You will find that the tolerance, you know, you get caught once and there seems to be still some sympathy, not much, but there is some sympathy. But when you start getting to the second charge, and in many cases there is even a third charge, you find that the tolerance level of people just starts to fade, and fade very, very quickly. I think that anything that reinforces the danger of drinking and driving is positive. So this legislation, like their other pieces of legislation that attempt to deal with that, in principle, is a good thing, because it just reinforces what society really wants to see happen.

This bill itself gives the police officer the authority to field or test for sobriety for any driver which the officer feels is driving under the influence. * (15:40) You know, I think there is this mentality that is out there that many drivers have is that, look, if we get pulled over–[interjection] No comment. Let Mr. Campbell do his own governing. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that train of thought might have passed. As I was saying, it will allow the

March 4, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 635 driver's licence to be suspended, and what quite often happens is, many people think that, look, if you are caught drinking and driving, do not work with the peace officer. If he wants you to walk the line, you just say, no, I am not going to walk the line. They do not want to participate in the breathalyser test and so forth. So, in many ways, we need to make changes to the legislation. In other ways, we have to reinforce what the law really is.

This is why when we look at the suspension for 24 hours, where a peace officer and all of us inside this Chamber have a tremendous amount of respect for the type of work that peace officers throughout the province do on our behalf. That is why I do not have a problem in general of allowing the dis- cretionary authority of our police officers, or peace officers, to be able to do the things that it is going to take in order to make sure that our roads are that much safer.

The member from Steinbach who talked about a ride that he had taken in a police vehicle, and I understand that he was doing that in a voluntary capacity. When you get in that sort of a situation, as I have had the opportunity to sit in the cruiser car in a volunteer capacity, you do get a better sense of the type of responsibilities that they have. When we see this type of legislation, on the surface, it appears to give yet another tool that a police officer can use.

That is why I say in principle the legislation that we are looking at does have the merit, at the very least, to go through the second reading and hear what others might actually have to say on it. For myself, knowing a few constables or police officers, will make sure that legislation such as this is at least made available, so that if they do have some feedback and maybe are not able to participate directly, or even indirectly, in giving their feedback, I can afford them the opportunity through me to give me what their thoughts are.

But my general sense is that this legislation could be a positive tool for peace officers. Having said that, I know that there is always going to be concern in terms of the rights of the individual. I always want to ensure that those rights are protected. So I think you need to put into place at times checks that allow for an individual's rights to ensure that the individual rights are, in fact, being protected. There are different ways in which one can do that.

I can recall that at one of the meetings that I had, an individual that had suggested maybe what you do is, a police officer would be obligated to provide, or leave some sort of a card, so that the individual that maybe had to perform a test of this nature is aware of what they can do if they are not happy with what had taken place. So I think that there is some responsibility on our part as legislators to ensure that those rights are in fact also being protected, while at the same time ensure that we are providing tools like this for our peace officers.

There is another aspect of the bill that I want to comment on, and those comments on the sponsorship I will wait for Bill 9, which will be great fun. Hopefully, I will get leave to be able to speak awhile for that one. The other part of this bill is in regard to street racing, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think people really gauge to the degree in which they should the seriousness of street racing. It happens in the weirdest places at times, whether it is out in rural Manitoba in some of those remote areas, to suburban areas where you would be surprised to see it happening.

I can recall one constituent who visited me over at McDonald's and talked about Ritchie Street when I was knocking on some doors out west of Mandalay Drive, and that same street came up, Ritchie Street. At some point, it is so bad that they just cannot have their windows open, and, yet, on a Friday night or a Saturday night, you will find that our peace officers are heavily taxed in terms of their avail- ability. Quite often, all of a sudden, you hear the screeching of the tires, and they look out the window and they know what is happening. They do not even need to look out of the window.

If they attempt to call the police station, they know that it is going to be a while before an officer is going to be able to make it out, which makes it extremely difficult to be able to deal with that safety issue. I know of a number of residents that are, in fact, very frustrated in that area as a direct result of the police officers' inability to be able to really get at that particular problem.

636 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 4, 2004 As I say, that area of the city is an area in which I would not have thought it would have been the most easy, facilitating place to have street racing, but it exists. I know it exists because I have been told of it on numerous occasions from constituents in that area. I do know that it happens in other areas also, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether it is the suburban street to our major artery or regional streets in the city of Winnipeg, along Portage Avenue, too.

As I say, some of the racing that is done out on our highways, you know, this is where I look at the legislation and it, again, allows yet another tool for our peace officer to be able to try to address that issue.

Again, this is one of the reasons why, in prin- ciple, it is a piece of legislation that we do not have a problem in terms of going to committee and, ulti- mately, pending on what comes out of committee, if there are amendments, if there is a need for amend- ments to address maybe one or two of the concerns that I make reference to, ultimately, see it passed, because I am sure people throughout the province would appreciate the types of tools that this has to offer for our many diffe rent peace officers throughout the province. It is interesting that the bill also deals with the length of licence suspensions, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, for motor vehicles and off-ro ad vehicle parts in the possession of stolen parts th e same, so that, in fact, licence suspensions have proven to be fairly effective in the past, so bringing in or widening the scope of it can be a positive thing. I know I had opportunity to raise with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh) the issue of the ATV vehicles, you know, quads and snowmobiles. There are these off-road ve hicles that are excep- tionally powerful nowadays. In fact, you can buy some of these off-road ve hicles.

You are talking $10,000, half the price of new vehicles, very, very pricey and exceptionally dangerous. Every year, we hear of fatalities. We do not necessarily hear of the num ber of accidents that are caused, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are just tre- mendous problems in that area that we need to look at and what role that theft of or even driving of these vehicles.

So it does not even deal with just theft, but driving, also, and the impact that this legislation and, in particular, some of the clauses dealing with the licence suspensions, have to do with those off-road vehicles. * (15:50) Again, I am thinking everything from the snowmobiles to the ATVs to the Sea-Doos. I would hope that we will be able to get some further clari- fication from the Minister of Justice, whether it is in committee, or it is in third reading on this aspect, so that we have a better understanding in terms of just how all-inclusive this legislation is. Having said that, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the only other thing that I want to comment on, and, again, it deals with the off-road vehi cles, because quite often when we think of issues such as drinking and driving, people think of it in terms of the cars and the trucks, the vehicles that are on the road. I think certain legislation covers some of the things that I am about to say, but in other areas maybe we can be enhancing. We should not underestimate the amount of drinking and driving that occurs with off-road vehicles.

I believe that, if we did some research in this area, what you will find is that there are likely more off-road vehicles being us ed after drinking in a percentage sense than with vehicles. Yet those off- road vehicles, and I am r eally picking on the three, the quads or the three-whee lers to the

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-2-15b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 2nd hansardpdf 15b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	619b02f73dd453a5421702012eb2cd28e38617ac

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