Manitoba Hansard — 5 July 2000 (Sitting 56, 37th Legislature, 1st Session)

37-1-56

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

.··'·-.:..�� ·'._. .. ,.. First Session - Thirty-Seventh Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. L No. 56- 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, July 5, 2000

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

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

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

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

3491 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, July 5, 2000 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources Second Report Ms. Linda Asper (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources): I beg to present, Mr. Speaker, the Second Report of the Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources. Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources presents the following as its Second Report.

Your committee met on Tuesday, July 4, 2000- An Honourable Member: Dispense. Your Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources presents the following as its Second Report.

Your committee met on Tuesday, July 4, 2000, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider the Annual Report of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation for the year ended February 29, 2000, the Annual Report of the Workers Compensation Board for the year ended December 31, 1999, the Annual Report of the Appeal Commission for the year ended December 31, 1999, and the 1998 and 1999 Five-Year Operating Plans for the Workers Compensation Board. Mr.

Jack Zacharias, Chief Executive Officer and President, provided such information as was requested with respect to the annual report and business of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. Your committee has considered the An nual Report of the Workers Compensation Board for the year ended December 31, 1999, the Annual Report of the Appeal Commission for the year ended December 31, 1999, and the 1998 and 1999 Five-Year Operating Plans for the Workers Compensation Board and has adopted the same as presented. Ms. Asper: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Rossmere (Mr.

Schellenberg), that the report of the Committee be received. 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 loge to my left where we have with us Mr. Brian Pallister, the former Member for Portage Ia Prairie. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. * (13: 35) ORAL QUESTION PERIOD First Nations Casinos Public Consultations Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (Interim Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

We have several quotes over the years in Hansard regarding the new Minister of Gaming's comments about gaming in the past when they were in opposition. I want to specifically refer to one quote on June 17 , 19 93, and he stated: "I would say given the significance of the concerns, we should have decisions made involving the people of the province. That is the position of our party, by the way, and it has been very consistent."

3492 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 5, 2000 We welcome the very strong convictions of the new Minister of Gaming, especially when he was in opposition, and his clear position on the importance of public consultation and refer endums before casinos are built. My question to the Premier is: Is this still the consistent position of his party? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, as I recall in the election campaign, we placed the recommendations of the Bostrom committee which we adapted, adopted prior to the campaign- An Honourable Member: Adapted. Mr.

Doer: Well, members opposite are foreign to the idea of promising something in the election campaign and keeping their word after the campaign. I am proud of the fact that the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) was able to point out that the members opposite did not promise to sell the telephone system in 1995 in the campaign and did not consult the people of Manitoba after. We made our commitment during the election campaign. It was public. It was in both newspapers.

It was before the people in a couple of television discussions on the issue of gambling, and it is part of the mandate we received from the public during the election campaign on September 21, 1999. Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, and the Premier's slip of the tongue, certainly in our minds and in the minds of Manitobans, does indicate that they did adapt, and they also manipulated the process. The First Minister, the Premier of this province, certainly did not answer the question that I asked.

In his government's efforts to fast track five new casinos in the province of Manitoba, we have seen that the criteria for the request for proposals has been ignored. Some of the partners that were selected as proponents for these proje cts were not in compliance with gaming laws. Community support does not seem to matter to this government. The former Gaming Minister resigned because of allegations of conflict of interest, something that has not happened since Howard Pawley was the Premier of this province.

And now the Premier has appointed a new Minister of Gaming who has clearly outlined his views against the expansion of gaming without public consultation. Will the Premier now do the right thing and hold public consultations, hold referendums on First Nations casinos, given that 65 percent of Manitobans believe that this government has bungled this issue? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, there has already been a plebiscite in Headingley. There is one that is now proposed in Thompson.

There is more consultation going on with the public today with the proposals to implement the commitments we made in the election campaign than ever happened with members opposite. It is unfortunate that members opposite who knew about a cost overrun of some $70 million did not consult the public and let the public know during the election campaign in 1999. First Nations Casinos Community Plebiscites/Referendums Mr. Jack Reimer (Southdale): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for Gaming.

When the new Minister of Gaming was discussing the expansion of gaming here in Manitoba on July 8, 1999, almost a year ago exactly to the date: "I think that it is a legitimate decision that needs to be made by the communities and should be their choice." Does the new Minister of Gaming stand by those comments, and will he let communities decide if they want a casino in their community through a referendum? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister charged with the administration of The Gaming Control Act): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to the question.

Before I do, I would like to commend the former Minister of Gaming who I think did a terrific job in a very difficult situation, who put the word "honourable" in honourable member. I want to answer the member's question by saying that what we said when we were in opposition is consistent with what we are doing in government. That government expanded Regent and McPhillips without any consultation

Ju1y 5, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3493 with the community, waited until the last couple of years before even considering the question of the expansion of VLTs. What we did is we ran on the election on this issue. We received a mandate from the people of Manitoba, and no casino will go through under this process without the support of the host community. That is part of the RFP; that is part of this government's commitment to involving communities in a very important decision. * (13: 40) First Nations Casinos Public Consultations Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr.

Speaker, as each day goes by, this government continues to dig itself a deeper hole with regard to the expansion of gaming. Yesterday we saw the removal of the Minister responsible for Gaming and the file given over to another minister who has in the past indicated his opposition to the expansion of gaming in this province. Mr. Speaker, the new Minister of Gaming said in the House in 1995 : We owe the people of Manitoba to have a very clear discussion on what is happening in terms of gambling. Does the Minister still stand by his beliefs, and will he

schedule public consultations for this very clear discussion in which he believes all Manitoba should be involved? Hon. Stev-e A"Shtnn (Minister charged with the administration of The Gaming Control Act): Mr. Speaker, I am amazed. I mean for 11 years the "C" in PC did not stand for consult, believe you me. We made our plans clear in terms of First Nations gambling in the election. We made it very clear at that time. What we have indicated is something that the previous government never did, and that is that, under this process, host communities will have to approve the proposal to go ahead.

That is something the previous government did not do. We are working in partnership both with the First Nations and the host communities. They will have a say. First Nations Casinos Public Consultations Mr. Harold Gillesh ammer (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, on June 17 , 19 93, the new Minister responsible for Gaming complained that no public hearings about an increase in gambling in Manitoba were held and that numerous groups, organizations and individuals in his own community raised concerns over the level of gambling in Thompson. Will he now conduct those public hearings? Hon.

Steve Ashton (Minister charged with the administration of The Gaming Control Act): Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that the people in my community and in other communities or prospective host communities will have far more opportunity to have a say than occurred under the 11 years that the previous government was in office because part of the process under the RFP is that host communities, as well as the proponent communities, have to agree.

I say to the Member opposite we are not only going to practise what we preached, we are going to make sure that host communities will have a say on whether the gambling goes ahead, something that did not happen with McPhillips and Regent. First Nations Casinos Social Costs Mr. Harry Enns (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, this is truly a strange, strange situation developing in the House. I address my question to the Minister newly appointed for gaming in the province of Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, on October 29, 1996, this minister said: Not a day goes by where I have not had the opportunity to talk to people of my own constituency and other communities across the province where people have outlined the very specific personal costs of gambling. Not a day goes by in this minister's life since 19 96. My simple question to the Minister is: Now that his government has increased the prospects of gambling at unprecedented levels, how many days have gone by that his constituents have not

3494 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 5, 2000 expressed these same concerns that they expressed in 1996? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister charged with the administration of The Gaming Control Act): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the Member opposite is one member that has a Hansard that is probably longer than mine as well. I would note that I do not think that member or any member opposite in the entire 11 years ever even questioned the dramatic expansion that took place in gaming, not the maximum of 15 percent under this proposal-IS percent, they said not a word.

I say one of the things we have done, which the previous government did not do, we have built into the RFP, we have built into this particular proposal, making sure that, up front, we deal with the fact that there will be, with any gambling, not ju st First Nations gambling but including the Province's own facilities, those who will have problems with gambling addiction. We built that up front, something the previous government never did in the 11 years they were in office. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Lakeside, with a supplementary question. * (13: 45) Mr. Enos: Supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker, to the same minister, who I am sure will be thanking the First Minister (Mr. Doer) every day henceforth for having given him the file. But my question is: His expression about the personal costs involved in gambling, people who get addicted to gambling, what specific studies will he undertake, what specific moves, now that he has the opportunity, the responsibility, to substantiate those concerns that he had on a daily basis? Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, that is already in place as part of this process. It goes back to the Bostrom report, 2.5 percent designated.

I want to say because I also have the unique experience of talking to many of my constituents on a regular basis, many First Nations people who live in dire poverty and unemployment. I want to say how interesting it is that members opposite did not have problems with government-run casinos, but, all of a sudden, when there is an opportunity to give First Nations people of this province an opportunity for economic development, now they are concerned about it.

I say they are not only trying to have it both ways, they are trying to have it three or four different ways, and it does not wash with the people of Manitoba. Sustainable Development Strategy Manitoba Environmental Council Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Conservation. I am asking about the Sustainable Development Strategy which the Minister tabled last week.

A centrepiece of the Minister's strategy is to terminate the Manitoba Environmental Council, a council which has been a bright light in this province and made a major contribution over the years to the environmental well-being of our citizens. Can the Minister explain why he will extinguish the council and show a real disregard for those who are concerned with the environment in Manitoba? Hon. Oscar Lathlin (Minister of Conservation): thank the Member for the question. I want to assure him that we are not in any way diminishing the usefulness of advice given to government by various advisory groups.

What we have done in putting the Manitoba Environmental Council together with the round table is we have actually amalgamated the responsibilities from both organizations so that we can have one body advising the Minister on environmental matters. Mr. Gerrard: My supplementary to the Minister: Will he not admit that terminating the Manitoba Environmental Council and putting all environmental matters under the Round Table on Sustainable Development indicates that the Government considers the environment solely from the point of view of economic devel opment? Mr.

Lathlin: Again, I would like to advise the Member that, as a matter of fact, we have established a new division. As he probably

July 5, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3495 knows, the former departments of natural resources and environment were amalgamated, integrated into one department called Conservation. We are in the process of developing the integration, making sure that environmental concerns are addressed, economic development is addressed in a balanced way. So, therefore, we have established a division- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Lathlin: Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, we have established a division called the Environmental Stewardship Division under which licensing wiii be looked after, policy, and also a new area of responsibility called aboriginal relations. Mr.

Gerrard: My supplementary: Le ministre n'admet-il pas que Ia vraie raison pour laquelle il est contre le Conseil, c'est que celui-ci est contre Ia politique du gouvernement? [Translation} Does the Minister not admit that the real reason he is against the Council is that it opposes the Government's policy? [English] Will the Minister not admit that the real reason he is abolishing the Council is because it has been very critical of his government? Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. The main reason we are doing it is indeed to concentrate on the environmental aspects of the Department.

The Manitoba round table is being refocussed, enhanced, so that we could shift the focus to implementing the recommendations of the sustainable development, the cost to report it. We have accepted the cost to report, and we are now in the process of implementing that report which has been completed for over a year. We took it off the shelf, dusted it of f, and we are going to be implementing it. * (1 3:50) First Nations Casinos Social Costs Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): My question is to the new Minister responsible for Gaming.

When he was in opposition he recommended that research be conducted into the impact of gambling on children in rural and northern areas. Does he stand by that statement, and will he indicate if he will conduct research into the impact the five new casinos will have on rural and northern children? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister charged with the administration of The Gaming Control Act): Yes. In fact, the Honourable Member raises a very good question because such a study was done by the Addictions Foundation.

One of the parts of this process we put in place up front, which was something that the previous government did not do in terms of its plans for gaming in this province is to put in a component which will specifically deal with that, the impact this will have on the social side. We have a balanced approach that recognizes the economic development advantages for First Nations communities and host communities, recognizes the roles of com munities, the host communities having a say over this and deals with the addiction side as well. A balanced approach, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Cummings: Mr.

Speaker, to his credit this minister says that he is interested in doing some of that research, I believe, if I ju st interpreted his answer. Will he defer the establishment of these casinos until he has the results of some research? Mr. Ashton : I wonder if the Member opposite, when he was part of the previous government, ever raised any of these questions when it came to Regent or what happened in terms of VL Ts. I want to indicate to the Member that that information is available, has been done.

The research is available, and that is why part of what we have proceeded with as a government is to put in place a balanced approach which recognizes not only economic development advantages of these types of facilities but also the potential social cost. There is a specific provision in the revenues to make sure we fund

3496 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 5, 2000 that as well, something that did not take place with the previous government. Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I would be interested to know, and my question is to the Minister of Family Services: Will he be prepared to undertake to challenge his colleague on his statements? Hon.

Tim Sale (Minister of Family Services and Housing): You will probably know that we will hopefully be going into Estimates soon, and the question of the amount of support that we are providing through our department to help people who have addiction problems can be fully addressed and discussed at that time. First Nations Casinos Social Costs Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for Gaming.

When he was in opposition he stated: We are learning again just how serious some of the potential problems from the drama tic increase in gambling that has taken place in Manitoba can be. I would ask this minister to tell this House what steps he will be taking to prevent some of these serious problems in light of the dramatic increase in gambling that he and his party are embarking on? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister charged with the administration of The Gaming Control Act): I would point out that one of the first steps we took was making clear when we ran in the last election what our platform was on this.

I think that is important to note. I would like to point out as well for the Member opposite that part of the process- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to remind all honourable members of Beauchesne's Citation 16 8: "When rising to preserve order or to give a ruling the Speaker must always be heard in silence." I would ask the co-operation of all honourable members. It is getting very difficult to hear the answers, so I would ask the co operation from all honourable members. Mr. Ashton: In fact, Mr.

Speaker, I find it rather strange that during the election, actually all three parties indicated support for native casinos. I have an

article here from Monday, August 30. It seems that, in fact, Jim Downey, I seem to recall him saying that the previous government was committed to it. So I say to the Member opposite what we did is we promised we would do this in the election, we promised a balanced approach. That is exactly what we are going to deliver to the people of Manitoba. * (1 3:55) Mr. Loewen: What I am asking the Minister is if he has in place any plans, or if there is any information passed on to him from the previous minister of any plans to deal with the social problems that will result from this massive expansion of gambling? Mr.

Ashton: Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is not a massive expansion of gambling. If all five proponents are accepted, an increase of, at maximum, 15 percent, which pales in comparison to what happened with McPhillips and Regent and the introduction of VL Ts into hotels throughout rural Manitoba first and then in urban areas. And I want to say to the Member opposite, if he would read the RFP, if he would read our announcement, the announcement made by my predecessor, 2.5 percent of the revenues has been identified for a First Nations Addiction Foundation, something the previous government never put in place.

First Nations Casinos Social Costs Mr. Frank Pitura (Morris): Mr. Speaker, in opposition the new Minister of Gaming noted his firm belief that there was a direct link between the increased level of gambling and crime in this province. Now that the First Minister (Mr. Doer) has made this minister the direct link to increasing the level of gambling in Manitoba, does the Minister still stand by his belief that there is a direct link between increased gambling and crime?

July 5, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3497 Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister charged with the administration of The Gaming Control Act): I want to say to the Member, there is also I believe a link between the chronic rate of unem ployment, poverty and injustice facing First Nations people and many of the social problems. I say to the Member opposite, if there is one thing that was clear from the previous government's approach on gambling, gambling was okay for them. They were not prepared to share in terms of the opportunities for First Nations. This government is taking a balanced approach.

The balance is the economic development opportunities for First Nations deals with the social concerns, deals with the concerns of host communities, something the previous government never did. Mr. Pitura: Mr. Speaker, I then ask this minister if he will be taking steps to ensure that establishing five new casinos in Manitoba will not lead to increased crime? Mr. Ashton: I want to say to the members opposite, because it is interesting. I know oppositions like to think they can have it both ways, but when they were in government, they at one time supported this. It was part of the Bostrom report.

In the election they supported this. Now, after the election, what they have done, Mr. Speaker, I think, and I say this on the record, I want to ask the question why the members opposite have all of a sudden switched in their view of this, in terms of this. Because I can tell you, I argued in opposition and I will argue on behalf of our government now that the real issue here is economic development opportunities for First Nations people, balancing the social cost in terms of the First Nations Addiction Foundation initiative.

I say to members opposite, if they are now against what they said they were in favour of in the election, they are the ones that I think have to do some explaining to the people of the province. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask the co operation of all honourable members. It is very, very difficult to hear the questions and the answers. First Nations Casinos Intervention Programs Mr.

Jim Penner (Steinbach): We continue to read quotes from the new Minister responsible for Gaming when he said on October 29, '96: "There is a server intervention program in place in every bar in Manitoba where you can say to somebody who perhaps has one too many to drink that you should not consider purchasing more alcohol, but," the Minister said, "you cannot do that with gambling under the current situation. I think that is something we should look at." Mr. Speaker, will the Minister responsible for Gaming now be introducing such an intervention program, and if so, when? * (1 4:00) Hon.

Steve Ashton (Minister charged with the administration of The Gaming Control Act): In fact, that is already in place. That is the one area where some of the kinds of issues that we raised were acted upon. I want to say to members opposite and particularly this member, because he raises a very good point in terms of this, what we are dealing with in terms of gambling, I think, in this province is the same balance we had to find in terms of alcohol. I mean, prohibition did not work. We need a balance in terms of the social end of it; we need a balance in terms of the economic development opportunities.

I say to members opposite what we brought in as part of this process are opportunities for First Nations, a role for host communities, attention to some of the social concerns, a balanced approach. Prohibition does not work; a balanced approach does work. First Nations Casinos Community Plebiscites/Referendums Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): On October 29, 19 96, the new Minister responsible for Gaming stated that the Government must allow not only for the public hearings but for votes by municipalities on issues of VL Ts and gambling.

We believe that the people best able to decide in terms of gambling are often local communities.

3498 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF .tvfANITOBA July 5, 2000 The question is: Does this minister still stand by his words? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister charged with the administration of The Gaming Control Act): Mr. Speaker, I think I am going to have to put out a little orange book of quotations afterwards. I have the orange binder, so I could probably do it.

I can say that one of the things I am very pleased about is, unlike the previous government, what we have done with the proposals we put in place is we have specifically put in role the fact that host communities will be able to have a key say over the location of First Nations communities, something once again it took, I think, until the last couple of years of their mandates before they would even allow it on VLTs. By the way, they never did ask the host community of Winnipeg about Regent and McPhillips. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order.

Once again I would ask the co-operation of all honourable members, please. It is really hard to hear questions and hear the answers. Mr. Jack Penner: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think we have just heard the tale of the two Steves. Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ju st like to remind all honourable members, when addressing another member, to address them by the constituencies or by their titles. Mr. Jack Penner: Thank you very much, and I apologize to the Honourable Minister and to you, Mr. Speaker. Maybe we should have called him the honourable Mr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

I want to ask the Minister: Will the Minister commit today to allowing municipalities and the local communities, who are having casinos forced upon them by this government, to hold votes in the form of referendums-[interjection] Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask the members, please, for your co-operation. Mr. Jack Penner: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I suppose I could ask the Minister of Family Services (Mr.

Sale) what his church's position is on gambling, but I am not going to do that. would like to ask: Will the Minister commit today to allowing the municipalities and local communities, who are ha ving casinos forced upon them by this government, to hold votes in the form of referendums on whether or not a proposed casino should be proceeded with in their community and abiding by those results? Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker. I think the Member is stuck in a time warp. We are not talking about McPhillips or Regent. We are talking about a process here whereby all host communities will have to approve the casino.

In fact, I do not know if the Member has read the document. If he will read the document, he will find that we have two on-reserve casinos that are proposed, three sites that are proposed to become reserve and, if the Member would care to read the report, he will find out that no community will have a casino in this province without approval from the committee. It is part of the process that is in place. I say to members opposite to suggest it is being shoved down anybody's throat I think underestimates the intelligence of the people in the five potential host communities.

They will have the right to make that decision. Mr. Jack Penner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister how short a memory he has. When we took over government in 19 88, he should remember the mess that they had created at the Convention Centre, which we cleaned up. I want to ask the Minister today whether he will commit to all the communities that have been identified to receive casinos, will you commit to having a vote in those communities and abiding by that vote? Mr.

Asht on: Not being the Minister responsible for Lotteries, I will not get into leaving messes, because I think if you look at what happened in terms of Lotteries overruns, that is the definition of a mess.

July 5, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3499 I want to say to the Member opposite I think he should have greater respect for the councils of the First Nations host communities and in the municipal areas where there are proposals involved, because what we have said is that those communities, through their elected councils, will have the opportunity to have that decision. In fact, at least one community has had a plebiscite; one other community has indicated it is having a plebiscite. But we respect the role of local government and locally elected councils, and they will have a say.

Those councils and those communities will have a say. First Nations Casinos Revenue-Sharing Formula Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): In opposition, the new Minister of Gaming called on the former government to return money generated by gaming to communities in the form of infrastructure programming. Mr. Speaker, will the Minister be returning revenue generated by the five new First Nations casinos to Manitoba communities in the form of infrastructure programming or in any other form whatsoever? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister charged with the administration of The Gaming Control Act): Well, Mr.

Speaker, for part of Question Period they were against it. Now they are concerned about where the proceeds will go. I want to tell the Member opposite that one of the key aspects of this proposal is the fact that the benefits from these casinos will go to the proponents and to a fund that will ensure that those benefits are shared by all First Nations communities.

I want to say, given the terrible deficit that exists in First Nations communities in terms of infrastructure, one of the positive benefits of these initiatives will be that First Nations communities in this province will not only have an economic development but have funds to deal with the crisis in housing and infrastructure in First Nations communities in this province. First Nations Casinos Social Costs Mr. David Faurschou (Portage Ia Prairie): Well, Mr.

Speaker, I sure hope the people of Manitoba are observing the smirk of arrogance on the members on the Government side of the House, when clearly in regard to gaming in this province over 60 percent of Manitobans are against it. In opposition, the new Minister of Gaming claimed that his own community of Thompson was losing $2.4 million annually. Has the Minister called for any studies, or will he call for any studies on the impact that these five proposed casinos will have on the communities in this province? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister charged with the administration of The Gaming Control Act): Mr.

Speaker, once again I think the Member does not understand the processes in place here, because one of the things that will happen as a result of this is 70 percent of the proceeds will go to the proponents in that community. I can say that there will be far more benefit in the regions of whatever casinos do go ahead, out of the five proposals that are currently being considered. Far more of those benefits will remain in the region than anything that has happened previously.

So we, in fact, did learn from the mistakes of the previous government and are making sure that the benefits remain with local communities. * (14 :10 ) Revenue-Sharing Formula Mr. David Faurschou (Portage Ia Prairie): Well, obviously, Mr. Speaker, the new Minister of Gaming has already shown his biases in regard to his particular constituency. I would like to ask the Minister then: What of the communities that are not beneficiaries of the casinos? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister charged with the administration of The Gaming Control Act): Mr.

Speaker, I want to indicate to the Member, in terms of his suggestion of bias in favour of this, I had no role in the selection of any of the sites that are involved and neither did the previous minister. I intend on treating alJ proponents in a fair way, and I would say in a more consistent way than members opposite,

3500 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 5, 2000 who at the start of Question Period were against it and then start switching around arguing the other way afterwards. We are going to try and work with this process. I say to members opposite they would do far better to look back on some of their previous comments on this type of process, because I think we should all be working with First Nations to try and develop economic development opportunities in a balanced way, something we are committed to doing. Gaming Agreement Compliance Mr. David Faurschou (Portage Ia Prairie): Well, Mr.

Speaker, will the Minister then make a commitment here today to actually adhere to his request-for-proposal parameters that all persons be in compliance prior to their consideration? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister charged with the administration of The Gaming Control Act): Once again, I think members opposite have not read the RFP. In fact, we have a selection of five proposals, and the previous minister I think indicated quite clearly on the record that a compliance will be a key aspect of any of these proposals. We have five potential sites.

I want to say to members opposite that we are going to work through this process, and I would suggest to members opposite that, rather than I think sabotaging what could be a very important partnership between First Nations and the provincial government, currently I would suggest that they work with us to make sure we give more opportunities in this province for First Nations people in a balanced way, something we are committed to doing. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. Speaker's Ruling Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling for the House.

During Oral Questions on June 21, 2000, I took under advisement a point of order raised by the Honourable Government House Leader (Mr. Mackintosh) regarding a question addressed by the Honourable Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) to the Honourable First Minister (Mr. Doer). The Honourable Government House Leader asserted that the question was out of order because it was hypothetical and because it was based on a hypothesis and sought an opinion. The Honourable Official Opposition House Leader (Mr. Laurendeau) and the Honoura ble Member for River Heights also spoke to the point of order.

I took the matter under advisement in order to review the context of the question. I thank the honourable members for their advice on this issue. Page 2938 of Hansard indicates that the question of the Honourable Member for River Heights was stated as being: "In the upcoming provincial election, some say three and a half years from now, it would appear that the Premier's legislation would allow an advertisement by an organization, other than a political party, which said: To improve health care, vote Liberal, but restrict the spending on that ad to $5,000.

But if the advertisement ju st said: Health care has been terrible under the NDP; vote to improve health care without naming a political party, then that would be acceptable, because in fact it was not directed necessarily at one political party or another." A number of the procedural authorities advise that hypothetical questions are out of order. Beauchesne's Citation 41 0(12 ) states that "questions should not be hypothetical." Marleau and Montpetit on page 427 in House of Commons Procedure and Practice advise that a question should not be hypothetical.

Erskine May, on page 303 of the 22nd edition, states that "questions are also inadmissible which seek the solution of hypothetical propositions." Regarding Manitoba practice, Speaker Rocan ruled on November 14, 19 88; October 12 , 19 89; July 22, 19 91; and June 22, 19 92, that specific questions addressed in Question Period were hypothetical and directed that the questions be rephrased. In the case of the question asked by the Honourable Member for River Heights, I am of

July 5, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 35 01 the opinion that the question was hypothetical and was therefore out of order. I do note that the Honourable First Minister had offered a reply to the question. In the future, if a member poses a question that is found to be hypothetical, the Speaker will ask the Honourable Member to rephrase the question. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Canada Day Activities Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Throughout the constituency of Springfield, members of our community celebrated Canada Day over the weekend.

I was honoured to participate in festivities in both rural municipalities that make up Springfield, the R.M.s of East St. Paul and Springfield. On Saturday, hundreds of people from Oakbank, Anoia, Hazelridge, Dugald and the surrounding area gathered to celebrate the 13 3rd birthday of our great nation in Dugald. The fireworks were enjoyed by all, even by the mighty swarms of mosquitoes. The day before yesterday I was able to help celebrate the Canada Day weekend in Birds Hill and East St. Paul. For the seventh year, the United Nations has ranked Canada the best place on the planet to live.

An example of why Canada is such a great nation was part of the celebrations the day before in East St. Paul. Relay 2000 passed through, marking the anticipated opening of the Trans Canada Trail. The community of East St. Paul was honoured to be part of such a remarkable national achievement spanning over 16 000 kilometres from sea to sea to sea. To everyone who participated in making the Canada Day celebrations possible, our sincerest thanks. To all the residents of Springfield and all Manitobans, happy Canada Day, and may we continue to be blessed as the greatest nation on the planet. Thank you. Mr.

Stan Struthers (Dauphin-Roblin): On Saturday, July 1, my wife, Michelle, and I had the pleasure of attending Canada Day 2000 celebrations in the town of Roblin. I want to say that it is important that we celebrate our birth as a nation. The folks in Roblin took that challenge very seriously and organized a very fun and family-oriented Canada Day celebration.

It is also important on days like this that we recognize the contributions over the years of the pioneers of our districts, towns and communities throughout Canada and to pay respect to the pioneers who settled in those areas, along with the citizens of these communities, including Roblin, who work so hard to make rural Manitoba towns a great place to live. I want to say that it was a great day on Saturday. It began with a pancake breakfast in the arena, a tug-of-war later in the afternoon. A magician was there to entertain the people in the audience, mostly the children.

There was a pie auction where some local politicians, mostly, ended up with facefuls of pie as a fundraiser, and a lot of local talent, a showcase of musical ability from people in the Roblin community and Roblin district. They capped the evening off with fireworks. I want to pay special attention to all the volunteers who worked so hard to make this day in Roblin very much a success. In particular, I want to pay respect to Jana Watt who was the main organizer and brought everything together. I want to say thank you very much to the people in the Roblin area for inviting me out to take

part in this, and I want to wish all the folks in Roblin a very happy Canada Day. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. National Historic Site Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): On Saturday, was honoured to attend the ceremony naming Neubergthal, a village, a national historic site. There are only a handful of other national historic sites and monuments in the province. Some of them are: Churchill National Historic Site, the Lower Fort Garry site, the Riel House National Historic Site, the St. Andrews Rectory Historic Site and The Forks National Historic Site.

So it was of some distinction to have such an honour bestowed on the village of Neubergthal. The area is certainly deserving of such a recognition, and the old Mennonite village is a remarkable heritage site. It is very pleasing to see this portion of Manitoba's history being preserved. The west reserve was settled in 18 75, and the village of Neubergthal was founded that

3502 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 5, 2000 year. Holes were dug in the ground, sods were put up, a roof was put over the sods, and people moved into that, and later, the next year, developed a street and built houses and barns connected. Some of those houses and barns still exist today. * (14:20) The ceremony itself was held Saturday morning in Neubergthal. Platform members included municipal officials, representatives from Parks Canada, the Mennonite Historical Society and others. Mr. William Neville conducted the ceremony on behalf of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.

A commemorative plaque was unveiled by area residents and was placed on the site. This is truly an event. We thank Parks Canada and the national Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada for this recognition. North Winnipeg Credit Union Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Boris Hwozdulych, Normen Konowalchuk, Walter Muzyczka, and Ms. Marta Sahara on their election to the Board of Directors for the year 2000 in the North Winnipeg Credit Union.

The North Winnipeg branch continues to successfully operate with a significant increase in membership and a 3.8% increase in assets over the previous year. For the sixth consecutive year, the Credit Union has been able to repay the membership for its patronage. Members of credit unions benefit from lower service charges, attractive interest rates and personalized service. The North Winnipeg Credit Union has the distinction of being the best capitalized credit union in the province. The North Winnipeg branch is an active member of the Canadian Council of Ukrainian Credit Unions.

Last spring the branch hosted two management interns from the Ukraine in an attempt to help the country develop sustainable business ventures. The branch also contributes to the local community, distributing $8,500 to worthy projects. I would like to congratulate students Kristya Matwichyna, Taras Babiak, Renata Choptianyj, and Tami Kowal on recetvmg post-secondary scholarships from the credit union. The North Winnipeg Credit Union underwent a move to a beautiful, new, and larger facility on Leila and Salter in December of last year. It is promising to see my credit union expanding and attracting new members.

May the year 2000 be their most successful year ever. Manitoba Health Research Council Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say a few words about the importance of research in Manitoba. I would like to begin by congratulating the Government on the announcement yesterday of an investment of $5 million over five years in health research through the Manitoba Health Research Council. I think it is a significant step forward.

I think it is important that the investment is made through the Manitoba Health Research Council and the fact that five years represents a longer term commitment which will ensure a level of stability in the investment and alleviate some of the year-to-year problems which have existed recently. That being said, I think it is important to point out that Manitoba's provincial govern ment's investment in research remains much less per capita than most other provinces.

A compariso11 of the Manitoba Health Research Council with, for example, the FRSQ in Quebec shows that on a per capita basis we are far below what Quebec is investing. The result is that our health research efforts are not what they could be, given indeed where we were many years ago.

I think it is also important to point out that the $1 million each year is in fact still not sufficient to match all the very high-quality applications which are approved this year by the Manitoba Health Research Council, now the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, for which federal matching dollars are available to the provinces if Manitoba had chosen to invest more. So there is considerable room yet for improvement. I suggest that the Government do an analysis on the overall impacts, because I

July 5, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3503 think they are understated. The Government really needs to look at areas beyond health care which can have an impact as well. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please call debate on second readings for Bill 46 and the Interim Supply process. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 46- The Interim Appropriation Act, 2000 Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.

Selinger), Bill 46, The Interim Appropriation Act, 2000 (Loi de 2000 portant affectation anticipee de credits), standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler), who has 26 minutes left, and also standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Morris (Mr. Pitura), who has 15 minutes left. Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Yesterday I left off reading an incredibly far-sighted and well written

article out of the Winnipeg Sun by Tom Brodbeck, very wise, actually foretelling many of the things that we saw occur in the last 24 hours. In fact I pointed out to the other side, the opposite side, really Tom Brodbeck is to be blamed for this. He should have written the

article sooner and given the Government a heads up of what was going to happen. The

article goes on to say: "The flip side is perhaps Swan Lake First Nation-the band in question-could have convinced Headingley residents otherwise had they not been subject to a gag order." The question has to be: Why would the Government have put a gag order on? There is more, says the article, a lot more. "The process was further confused when Doer issued a new edict," something that this government is starting to become well known for.

The new edict said an add-on, the edict is sort of like "an add-on if you will to the RFP-that no band would get a licence if they didn't have support of the surrounding community. Nowhere in the RFP does it say a band needs community support to get a licence. "The RFP is also clear that no organization except the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation can 'conduct and manage' a casino. Some bands interpreted that to mean you couldn't enlist an outside management company to 'conduct and manage' a proposed native casino." So they, in tum. listed the MLC as their managers.

"Others chose outside management com panies, which appears to violate the terms of the RFP. "The RFP also said proponents and their participants had to be in compliance with existing gaming activities to even be considered for a licence. "But two successful projects had participants who were not in compliance." This writer goes on to say-and for the Members opposite who tend not to read it, I will read it for them. "The NDP is flying by the seat of its pants on this one. "And for Doer, this political migraine isn't going to go away anytime soon." Mr. Speaker, what a visionary.

This individual, on July 2, already foresaw what was going to happen in the last 24 hours, and that is most unfortunate. In fact, on July 3-for the Government, which I know does not like to hear any bad news -a poll comes out: "NDP loses in poll on native casinos. Survey finds 65 per cent of Manitobans disapprove." * (1 4:30) I am reading from the article: "Two-thirds of Manitobans oppose the NDP's aboriginal casino plan, a Probe/Free Press poll has found, but the province's lotteries minister is betting the public will come around once those establishments are up and running." How wrong could he have been?

"The poll found 65 per cent of

3504 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 5, 2000 respondents across the province," not just centred in certain areas, imperative word here, across the province, "strongly or moderately disapproved of the NDP government's plan to establish five native-run casinos." Mr. Speaker, the

article goes on, and if members opposite want to read more, we can make a copy for them and they can see it. I want to just address a few points on the bill before us. Again, on July 1 there was an

article put forward by Tom Brodbeck. It says, "Tax gripes lead poll. Manitobans cite high taxes as the No. 1 reason why they may be in for a gloomy future." That, Mr. Speaker, is already the epitaph of this government, not even in office for a year, that people cite taxes as the No. 1 one reason why they have some despair about the future, and what does this government do about it? Nothing. They keep throwing their hands in the air. They keep throwing money in the air, and, in tum, people look at them and they say: We are lacking confidence in the future of this province.

I continue: "High taxes was the top pick of respondents in a government-commissioned poll when asked what reasons Manitobans had for being worse off in the future." If you did not catch that word, Mr. Speaker, this is not a poll done by some vested-interest group. This is a poll that was conducted by the Government, by the very individuals who have denied Manitobans the tax cuts that they so rightly deserve. All across the country, I have pointed out on numerous times in this House, we have various jurisdictions who have put forward tax cuts even in provinces, Mr.

Speaker, that are of like political mind of the Government opposite, and they just do not see it. It is basically this isolationist kind of view, and that is a very dangerous viewpoint when you go into politics.

In fact, surfing on the Web, we came across one of Albania's news releases, and these are their own words: "After nearly 50 years of isolationist, utterly hard-line communism, it has combined to reduce many Albanians to desperation and subsistence living." That is what happens when you get into isolationist kind of politics, and the fear certainly on this side of the House, and the fear of Manitobans, citing the Government's own poll, is that if you believe that you can live in isolation in the modem world that we are in today, what you will do is exactly what has been found in Albania, is that you will drive people to desperation and subsistence living.

Mr. Speaker, unlike other countries, people can leave. If we do not start giving some relief, I have said to this House before, you will see the professionals in the medical community-and not just is a wage increase enough, but they also want to see more money when they take their paycheque home. To deny people their income because, for some reason, you felt by decoupling from the federal government a year earlier and actually raising taxes was a solution, that is narrow-sighted. I think issue after issue has clearly pointed out that people do not support the Government in its approach to high taxes and spending.

Mr. Speaker, 82 percent of respondents said lower taxes would help Manitoba keep more of its residents and attract more new businesses, and almost 60 percent said there was no reason why Manitoba could not cut taxes the way Ontario and Alberta have and, for that matter, Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan, the socialist cousin to this present government, they have seen the light. I have pointed it out. They have seen the light and have realized that it is time to give people the relief. We have gone through those difficult times. Now it is time for the payback. I think the Government should be looking at these issues.

We have before us a money bill. They should be reconsidering what they are doing with the finances of this province. They should get on-board. We want to see a modem and competitive province that not just keeps its own but also attracts more people. We would like to see people, certainly the head offices of corporations, coming to this province. We would like to see the professional people coming to this province. With our tax regime and the approach of this Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) and this government, I do not believe that will be the case. Alas, one must say to the Government,

July 5, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3505 once again, shame. We certainly hope that they will come to their senses and reverse the kinds of policies that they have put in place. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Is there a willingness of the House to leave the matter stand in the name of Honourable Member for Morris (Mr. Pitura), who has 15 minutes remaining? There is leave? An Honourable Member: Yes. Mr. Speaker: Leave has been granted. Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (Interim Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to be able to put a few remarks on the record today on this discussion on Interim Supply. We are extremely disappointed in this government and this government's agenda, and we honestly on this side of the House believe that this government, in its first session, with its first budget, has failed to provide for Manitobans a vision for the future. In today's rapidly changing economy, maintaining the status quo simply is not good enough. Maintaining the status quo really means that we are moving backwards as a province.

When we see every other province right across the country with a visionary approach to looking at tax reductions and ensuring that their provinces remain competitive, I am ashamed and appalled that we are part of a province that really is moving backwards as a result of this government's budget and the policies that they have put in place right here in Manitoba. There is no comprehensive plan that we can see on this side of the House that gives Manitobans any assurance that the challenges that we will face into the future will be met.

This government has failed miserably in its very first budget introduced in this Legislature. They give no assurance to Manitobans that the future of any economic success in our province will be achieved. Instead the 2000 Budget, Mr. Speaker, has set a course for Manitoba to slide backwards. Instead of courageously setting out on a new path for the 21st century, the NDP have decided to return to their ill-fated ways of the 19 80s. We saw time and time again throughout the 19 80s a New Democratic Government, that was the old NDP, that felt that they could tax and spend their way to prosperity.

We found and we knew that that did not work, but it seems that the same, old people are running the show for the new New Democrats that have been elected to lead us into the 21 st century. We know that the old ways, the ways that the Pawley-Doer government managed this province certainly tripled Manitoba's debt. It looks like we are on that same path to self destruction here in Manitoba as a result of the direction that has been set by this government. I guess expecting that this government would be leaders was just too much to ask.

They failed to follow the examples set in every other jurisdiction in Canada by failing to offer meaningful tax relief to Manitobans and actually clawing back federal tax relief that Manitobans should have enjoyed this year. It was a sad day on July 1, the day that we celebrated Canada Day right across this country, to see that we were taking steps backwards right here in Manitoba. Manitobans lost. They were losers in the tax relief process. That is something that I think we should all be ashamed of as Manitobans.

We spent many years in government trying to change the attitudes within the province of Manitoba, trying to look forward to the future, trying to say that we were not a have-not province. We were not a province that needed to hold a tin cup out and expect the federal government to bail us out. We were a province that took pride in our ability to achieve, our ability to move forward, our ability to expand the economy, to draw business here, and to set the tone with balanced budgets that would lead to better economic prosperity. I have to think, Mr.

Speaker, in regret that we have taken a significant step backwards with the policies that have been implemented by this new government. * (1 4:40) The NDP and this Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) often argue that they were not elected to cut taxes, but there was a clear expectation by Manitobans that this government should do whatever it takes to keep our economy strong

3506 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 5, 2000 and competitive. Middle-class taxpayers today are now the highest taxed in the country as a result of this government's budget. It is unfortunate that this province has a premier and a Finance minister that live in a vacuum and that do not realize, as every other province did, that we need to provide real tax relief here to the citizens of Manitoba in order to remain competitive. I have to remind the First Minister (Mr. Doer) and the Minister of Finance that Manitoba was the last province to bring down a budget.

Manitoba had the opportunity to watch every other province across the country. One by one they reduced personal income taxes in a real and a meaningful way. Not only did they pass through the federal tax cuts to their citizens, but many provinces, regardless of political stripe, Mr. Speaker, right across the country brought in their own tax reductions, because they know that the way to remain competitive is to ensure that there is a positive tax regime, a competitive tax regime in their provinces.

When the Finance Minister finally came down with this province's budget, Manitobans found themselves stranded on an island of high taxes and a sea of tax cuts. That is unacceptable to us as an opposition and to us as a government, who tried very hard over the past decade to ensure that we were competitive. I have already said it is not really an ideological issue, because we know that governments, regardless of political stripe, in every other province, New Democratic British Columbia, New Democratic Saskatchewan and right across the country provided their citizens with meaningful tax relief.

In Ontario, for example, someone living in Kenora just two hours east of Winnipeg will pay 66% less in personal income taxes. A taxpayer earning $50,000 a year in NDP Saskatchewan will pay $1 ,250 less per year in personal income taxes when the full reductions take effect in 2003. Reducing the tax burden for Manitobans, Mr. Speaker, is not unrealistic or unreasonable. The 2000 NDP budget estimates in its medium term plan that Manitoba will generate about $1 billion in revenue over the next five years.

There is a significant opportunity if the NDP manages the Province's finances wisely to provide a fair balance between spending on priority programs and meaningful tax reductions. Why does this NDP government fail to understand that stimulating economic growth is in everyone's best interest? By generating more economic growth in Manitoba, we increase the revenues available to fund our social programs like health care for the benefit of all Manitobans. Mr. Speaker, you would think that this government would at least consider that kind of an argument, but they do not seem to.

They do not, as well, seem to understand or even recognize or realize the dismal health care record that they have shown to date. They based their election campaign primarily on health care promises, promises which they have not fulfilled. We know that their promises that have not been fulfilled on the health care side are numerous, and in spite of their absolute commitment and promise during the election campaign that they would end hallway medicine within six months, they have not fulfilled that promise.

We only have to look back to not even before the election campaign but back to the end of November when the now Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) promised-this was on November 23-that come April of the year 2000, there will be no patients in the hallways. That was a quote from the Minister of Health, and yet today he seems to have had some miraculous change in the definition of what hallway medicine is. There are still patients in the haiiways today, Mr. Speaker, in all of our hospitals. Even our doctors are quoted. Dr.

Wong I believe in the Globe and Mail just this past weekend says that anyone that says that hallway medicine has ended in Manitoba is not telling the truth. We see time and time again that not only is this new government not telling the truth about the promises that it has broken, but they are trying to find a way of redefining what they actually said during the election campaign. Mr.

Speaker, they have not added the hundred permanent new beds that they promised despite the fact that, when they reannounced it after the election campaign, there would be a hundred permanent new beds and they were questioned on it, I think there were some 30 new

July 5, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3507 beds that might have been opened, and that was only after hospitals were directed to open them and find nooks and crannies wherever throughout their hospital, even if they did not have the staff to ensure that the patients who were in those hospital beds were receiving the service that they deserved. They were desperate, and this Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) was desperate to try to ensure that he lived up to that promise. Well, we know that that promise, too, has been broken, and those beds are not open today. Mr.

Speaker, they have not hired the full time nurses that they promised they would hire. In fact, we hear the Nurses' Union today indicating that the number of nurses that we are short of in the province has gone up some 400 or more since this government took office. That is not an election promise that has been fulfilled; it is another election promise on the health care side that has been broken. Mr. Speaker, they have not converted the part-time nursing positions that they promised to convert to full-time positions. They have not stopped the flow of patients to Grafton for tests.

As a matter of fact, we saw the Member for Concordia, the Leader of the Opposition, during the election campaign standing on the highway with his picture on the front page of the papers saying that Grafton would be closed for business. Well, we have seen that they have broken that promise, and there are still patients travelling to Grafton for the services that are not provided here. Mr. Speaker, they have not cut the wait list for surgeries and diagnostic tests as they promised. Indeed, they are in the middle of negotiations for contracts right as we speak.

We do not know what the outcomes of those negotiations will be, but they could lead to even longer wait lists for cancer treatment and for X rays. This is something that they promised. They have made announcements since the election campaign, and that promise has not been fulfilled. We have yet, Mr. Speaker, to receive a physician resource plan that they promised. They do not have a plan to recruit and retain rural doctors and nurses as they promised, another promise that has been broken and has not been fulfilled.

They have not established a rural residency program for medical students that they promised; nor have they put in place the MRI in Brandon as they promised, so we have a very sorry track record by this new government. They made grandiose promises during the election campaign, promises that led Manitobans to believe that, if the NDP Government was elected, all of a sudden there would be this miraculous turnaround. There would be a quick fix within the health care system. They would say health care for Manitobans. We are seeing that none of that has come to fruition. * (1 4:50) Mr.

Speaker, there were several plans that had been put in place before this government took over. I would hope that they would continue to act upon the plans that were started. I would hope that they would quit trying to fool Manitobans into believing that there are some quick-fix answers in our health care system, because we are seeing the same issues right across the country. We always maintained that there was no easy quick-fix solution, that there needed to be some long-term planning in the health care system, something that we have not seen this government take action on to date.

It does not appear that the situation is getting any better in the province. As a matter of fact, we are seeing for the first time ever in the history of Manitoba medical beds closing in facilities that have never closed before during the summer, because of a shortage of nursing staff. We see the Grace Hospital as closing medical beds, which has never happened before. We see Riverview Centre closing medical beds; that has never happened before in the history of the province.

The promises that they have made and the unfulfilled promises that they have not delivered on will be promises that will come back to haunt them as we move through this government's mandate. I believe that we will be able to still, after their term in office, as we move into the next election, hold them accountable for promises that they did not keep, that they made in such a cavalier way during the election campaign.

3508 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 5, 2000 Mr. Speaker, there are a few other areas that I would like to touch on briefly today. The First Minister (Mr. Doer), I have to say, has a number of tenuous situations on his plate right now. Clearly, from what we have seen in his handling of those issues, he has not managed very well. We, of course, have the casino fiasco. Two thirds of Manitobans just very recently sent a very strong message that they are not happy with this government's plan to establish five new casinos in the province ofManitoba.

The First Minister, who is supposed to show leadership for a government that he manages and controls, has created an untenable process that is cloaked in secrecy, and there are accusations of political interference from failed proponents in this whole process. I think it is a situation that this Premier (Mr. Doer) could have avoided if he and his Cabinet had not rushed into this process very early on in their mandate without thinking through what the implications would be or what the process should be. Mr. Speaker, it was not one of their five major election platforms that they committed to.

Those five major platform or agenda items during the election campaign should have been their first priority, but, no, what was their first priority? It was rushing headlong without thinking through the plan or the process around five native casinos that they have indicated that they committed to during the election campaign and were elected on. We have seen a minister of the Crown under this Premier's leadership fail in a very significant way and have to resign, and we are not really sure, Mr. Speaker, whether he resigned or he was forced to hand in his resignation or whether he was fired by this Premier.

It is an issue that has not been handled very well by this Premier and this new government. Mr. Speaker, there tends to be some sense on the side of the Government that the Opposition side of the House is somehow responsible for the issues that faced the former minister of gaming, the Member for La Verendrye (Mr. Lemieux). Well, it was not Opposition that appointed the Member for La Verendrye as the Minister responsible for Gaming in the Province of Manitoba. It was the Premier (Mr.

Doer) of Manitoba, under his leadership and his direction and his decision alone, who appointed the Member for La Verendrye as the Minister responsible for Gaming. So if there is any issue or any blame to be laid at anyone's feet, it would be at the Premier's feet, the person who appointed the Minister. Now, Mr. Speaker, if there were accusations of conflict of interest or accusations of breaking the law, the Premier should have played a leadership role.

He should have got the legal advice that he could have obtained very easily to try to ensure that what was happening was absolutely and completely above board, but what did this Premier do? He did not take a leadership role; he did absolutely nothing. He let his minister stand up day after day after day and be hung out to dry. He did not show any leadership, or he did not show any support for his minister. Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair There could have been a very simple resolution to this whole issue. The Premier (Mr.

Doer) could have ended this issue very quickly by referring this matter to legal counsel that was available to this government at no cost. He could have cleared the air once and for all. He could have stood up in this House and tabled the legal opinion that said that this minister was not breaching or breaking the law, but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, did he do that? No, he did not take on that leadership responsibility, and, again, he hung his minister out to dry. I find that absolutely unconscionable. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we on this side of the House gave the Government a solution, a very easy way out.

They could have sought that legal opinion, assured themselves that they were not breaking the law or there was not any perception of conflict, and it would have been very easily resolved, but instead we see today, just some nine to ten short months after this government was elected, that they are embroiled now in a controversy and a scandal where one of their ministers has had to resign. That did not have to happen, and today we are still asking ourselves because the Premier said in Question Period yesterday, that he finally, at long last got a legal

July 5, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3509 opinion-if he did get that legal opinion and there was no conflict or the Minister was not breaking the law, I am sure he would have stood up in this House and tabled that opinion.

The Minister would still be the Minister responsible for Gaming today, but he has left a shadow and a cloud over the process, and it only leads me to believe that this government is hiding, and this Premier has not taken a leadership role that he should be taking to protect the ministers within his government. * (1 5:00) So we have to again look back to what has happened over the last number of weeks to the former minister of Gaming, and we have to ask ourselves where was his leader, where was the Leader in this province of Manitoba when he let his minister be humiliated in the way that he has been humiliated over the last few weeks?

And, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want you to know that we do not have any problem with the former minister responsible for Gaming or his wife or his family and the work that they do on behalf of Manitobans. What we take issue with is the lack of leadership and the lack of accountability shown by this Premier. He certainly was around long enough in the House and was the Premier in-waiting for many, many years.

This is rather an abysmal record in these few short months that this party has been in government, and I think the controversy could have been avoided very, very simply with just a few small suggestions or a bit of action taken by this Premier. I am somewhat dismayed at the lack of loyalty that would be shown as someone who is supposed to be in charge of managing the affairs of this province. We also have to look at another issue that has surfaced in the last few months, and that is the issue of the staff that admitted that they broke the law in terms of their treatment of the Freedom of Information legislation.

We are astonished that the Premier would not be demanding some action or taking some disciplinary measures for some of his staff that clearly broke the law. We see the most senior bureaucrat within the Government of Manitoba directing departments not to comply with the Freedom of Information legislation, and they delayed providing the information on two different occasions until they broke the law, and it was over 60 days before that information was provided. Why did that happen?

That was because the Government was busy trying to gather information on the previous ministers under the former administration to make comparisons. Mr. Speaker in the Chair Well, that is not the spirit of the law, that is not the intent of the law, and I have some concern because I think, again, the Premier has hung the senior bureaucrat within the Government of Manitoba out to dry. I do not think that that senior bureaucrat would have given direction to the Government and said this is the course of action we should take.

I would believe that it would have had to be the Premier or the Premier's staff that directed the senior bureaucrat within this Province of Manitoba to take that action, and I have extreme concern again about the flippant attitude of this Premier and his regard for the laws of the Province of Manitoba. We have seen on two occasions that he has not lived up to the law of the land here in Manitoba, and that is only in 10 short months in this administration. Mr. Speaker, I think we have some very serious concerns about the accountability and the credibility of this new government.

Let us just move on to the whole artwork fiasco that we saw when this government first came into office and how arrogant and how bungling this government was in the case of the missing artwork, and the Minister of Culture (Ms. McGifford) decided that she would leak information to the media blaming the previous government for ransacking and stealing the much-valued art, the treasured art collection of the Province of Manitoba.

However, like many of the other issues that this government has raised and the bluster and the spin that was put out by this government to try to cover up their shortcomings, it was not true. It actually turns out that almost all of the artwork except for some small pieces of pottery that even the Minister admitted through the Estimates process were probably broken years ago in the Legislature-as a matter of fact she indicated through that process that there was a piece of art that had been accidentally broken in her office by a visitor.

351 0 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 5, 2000 I mean, Mr. Speaker, did the Minister of Culture apologize to the House? Did she apologize for her errors? Did she state publicly or on the record that her arrogance got in the way of doing the right thing? No, she did not. We asked her many times through the Estimates process. All she had to do was stand up and do the honourable thing and say, I apologize, we found all of the artwork, and no one is to blame, but, no, she did not do that. Even the Minister of Government Services (Mr.

Ashton) was a little more humble and recognized that the accusations that were made were wrong and that the artwork had been recovered and was quite humble in his statements, but not the Minister of Culture, and that arrogance seems to be an attitude that prevails right across the board on the side of this government. Manitobans will remember those kinds of things, and they will ultimately be the judges of the performance of this government. Mr. Speaker, I am always sort of reminded of one of my former colleagues in this House.

We know that the Government is riding high, and that very often happens when a new government is elected in a province. I know that they are working very hard and attempting in some instances to make the right decisions, but I have been reminded by a colleague of mine, and that is the former Member for Arthur-Virden Jim Downey who has many notable quotes but the one that I would like to quote today is that your first day of government is one day closer to your defeat. Sage advice for the members, I think, in this House, since none of us, no matter who we are, have the divine right to govern in perpetuity.

So I think that the ability for a government to last several terms is a government that takes the issues and the responsibility very seriously, does not portray that attitude of arrogance, and we got elected to do what we said we were going to do and, you know, sort of forget about any second sober thought or consultation with those that elected us. That kind of arrogance in just such a short period of time will be remembered by Manitobans.

We have seen already a very dismal budget for the citizens of Manitoba, Manitobans that are now the highest taxed across the country as a result of this government's decisions and this government's direction. We see a government that has not been able to deliver on the health care promises that it was elected on. Moreover we have seen a government and a premier and his Cabinet that have already been affected by scandal, a scandal that could have been resolved had the Premier provided the guidance expected of him as the First Minister and the leader of the Province of Manitoba. Finally, Mr.

Speaker, they have set in motion an unworkable process for establishing native casinos. They may even be facing lawsuits from some of those failed proponents that do not feel that the process was fair. That is mainly because this government rushed into it without giving full consideration to the Aboriginal communities that would be applying for casinos and to the rest of Manitobans who might be the recipients of those casinos in their communities. I am, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, quite surprised that such a long-time politician such as the Premier (Mr. Doer) finds himself in the situation that he is in today.

I think we all expected a little better of him. I expected him to ensure that his staff upholds the law. I also expected him to remain loyal to the members of his Cabinet. I am surprised that he has rushed into a process and created such a mess for his government in just a few short months of being in office. Finally, I would expect or I can say that I did expect that he would attempt to fulfill his health care promises. It is clear from what we have seen to date that they promised much more than they could deliver. There are no easy, quick fixes, and these issues will remain.

We know that when the end of their mandate comes they will still be in a situation where they have not been able to deliver. Only 10 months into their mandate, I only wonder what the future offers for government and, more importantly, for Manitobans who have already been exposed to a record in the last 1 0 months of being plagued by scandal and by controversy. I want to assure all Manitobans and you, Mr. Speaker, that we will continue to hold this government accountable for the commitments that it made to Manitobans and for accountability, something that we have not seen

July 5, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 351 1 much of in the first 10 months. We will hold them accountable for the promises that they made. We will hold them accountable for decisions that they make that are not in the best interests of Manitobans and do not move Manitobans forward into the 21 st century with some sense of hope and optimism. Thank you. * (1 5:1 0) Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I believe if you check the record, it is still standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Morris (Mr. Pitura). I believe we ask you to call that back. Mr.

Speaker: Bill 46 is standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Morris. Is it the will of the House to deny leave to leave it standing? [Agreed ] Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 46, The Interim Appropriation Act, 2000. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered. Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Ms. Friesen), that Mr.

Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole, to consider and report of Bill 46, The Interim Appropriation Act, 2000; Loi de 2000 portant affectation anticipee de credits, for the third reading. Motion agreed to. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Bill 46- The Interim Appropriation Act, 2000 Mr. Chairperson (Conrad Santos): The Committee of the Whole will come to order, please, to consider Bill 46, The Interim Appropriation Act, 2000. Does the Honourable Minister of Finance have an opening statement? Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr.

Chairperson, I am prepared to move forward on the process. Mr. Chairperson: Does Honourable Member the critic have an opening statement? We shall then proceed to consider the bill clause by clause. The title and

preamble are postponed until all other clauses have been considered. Clause 1-pass; Clause 2-pass; Clause 3- pass; Clause 4-pass; Clause 5-pass; Clause 6- pass; Clause 7-pass; Clause 8-pass; Clause 9- pass;

preamble-pass; title-pass. Bill be reported. Committee rise. Call in the Speaker. IN SESSION Committee Report Mr. Conrad Santos (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered Bill 46, The Interim Appropriation Act, 2000, and has directed me to report the same without amendment. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for The Maples (Mr. Aglugub), that the report of the Committee of the Whole be received. Motion agreed to. REPORT STAGE Bill 46- The Interim Appropriation Act, 2000 Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health (Mr.

Chomiak), that Bill 46, The Interim Appropriation Act, 2000; Loi de 2000 portant affectation anticipee de credits, reported from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred in. Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the Honourable Minister of Finance, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Health, that Bill 46, The Interim Appropriation Act, 2000 (Loi de 2000 portant affectation anticipee de credits),

3512 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 5, 2000 reported from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred in. Is there leave? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Leave has been granted. Motion agreed to. * (1 5:20) THIRD READINGS Bill 46-- The Interim Appropriation Act, 2000 Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), that Bill 46, The Interim Appropriation Act, 2000; Loi de 2000 portant affectation anticipee de credits, be now read a third time and passed. Mr.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Honourable Minister of Health. seconded by the Honourable Minister of Finance, that Bill 46, The Interim Appropriation Act, 2000 (Loi de 2000 portant affectation anticipee de credits), be now read a third time and passed. Is there leave? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Leave has been granted. Motion agreed to. Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I believe we would like to call on the Lieutenant-Governor. Mr. Speaker: The Lieutenant-Governor has been called. ROYAL ASSENT Bill 46-- The Interim Appropriation Act, 2000 Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms (Mr.

Blake Dunn): His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. His Honour Peter Liba, Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Manitoba, having entered the House and being seated on the throne. Mr. Speaker addressed His Honour in the following words: Mr. Speaker: We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and faithful subjects, the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba in session assembled, approach Your Honour with sentiments of unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty's person and government and beg for Your Honour the acceptance of this bill.

Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Bill 46, The Interim Appropriation Act, 2000; Loi de 2000 portant affectation anticipee de credits. His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this bill in Her Majesty's name. His Honour was then pleased to retire. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), that Mr. Speaker does now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Mr.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Honourable Government House Leader, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Finance, that Mr. Speaker do now !eave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her- Mr. Mackintosh: Before putting the question, Mr. Speaker, I wish to obtain the unanimous consent of the House to vary the sequence for Estimates consideration set out in sessional paper 13 8 to consider in Room 255 Family Services and Housing for today only. Mr.

Speaker: Is there leave to move Family Services to Room 255 for today only? [Agreed] It has been moved by the Honourable Government House Leader, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger),

July 5, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 35 13 that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Mr. Deputy Speaker, please take the Chair. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS * (1 5:30) Mr. Chairperson (Harry Schellenberg): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon, this

section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. When the Committee last sat, there had been agreement to have a global discussion on the entire department. Is that still the will of the committee? [Agreed} We are on line 5. 1. Administration and Finance (

b) Executive Support (

I) Salaries and Employee Benefits $323,700. Shall the line pass? Mr. Jim Penner (Steinbach): My question is: On page 19 , one of the Activity Identification items states that the division "Liaisons with consumer oriented groups, representatives of the business sector and government officials." Can the Minister advise what types of groups these are, and have there been any additional groups added since his taking office? *( 15 :40) Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Chair, I thank the critic for Consumer and Corporate Affairs for the question.

With regard to the question, it really depends on the issue of the day. If there is an issue like, for example, life leases, I have been informed by my staff that if an issue like life leases is in front of us as a department, we may want to consult with different organizations that have an interest in life lease.

Life lease, I must say that in my opinion, my humble opinion as a new minister, this was truly a very good piece of legislation put forward by the now opposition because it is consumer protection in its truest sense, and certainly was one that we as a new government looked upon favourably and, of course, were more than pleased to move ahead on it. But it really depends on the issue of the day. Life lease is an example, but there may be other issues, whether they be gas prices, for example.

If it is the price of gasoline, we as a department or certainly Research and Planning may want to certainly speak to consumer groups with regard to that issue, whether it be CAA or the business sector, the gasoline companies, specifically. But, certainly, that line, at least that is my

interpretation of it, and I have been advised that that is exactly what that is referring to. Whatever the issue of the day is, they certainly try to get some good input, and they try to consult and have consultation with those different groups. Mr. Jim Penner: Also in that same section, I note that it states that the division investigates marketplace problems. Can the Minister indicate what type of marketplace problems this refers to and perhaps the most common types of problems that are tackled in this division? Mr. Lemieux: Thank you for the question.

When it talks about investigating marketplace problems and assesses alternative responses to them, I know one of the things that we talked about was life lease, for example, and problems that may be related to those. Even in the province of Ontario, when they talked about residential tenancy legislation and dealing with tenants and landlords and looking at home warranty programs or telemarketing legislation or issues like that, that is really what that line is referring to, that certainly on occasion there are marketplace problems.

3514 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 5, 2000 The marketplace problems that I have been advised of are problems like home warranty programs and issues like that or telemarketing, for example, that has become more popular now. On the other hand, there are some unscrupulous companies that are really trying to take advantage of seniors or other people when they are doing their marketing. Those are the issues that are being identified, but also the marketplace problems that are being referred to in that line. Mr. Jim Penner: Thank you for that answer. Mr.

Chair, the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks when we last met that he had met last winter with oil companies to express several concerns. Can the Minister tell us what those concerns are that he raised with the companies? Mr. Lemieux: Yes. Some of the concerns that I had certainly at the time were I think the concerns that the general public have, that when you see gasoline prices go up, they seem to be lock step with the price of crude. All of a sudden when the price of crude drops, you do not see the prices at the pump dropping as rapidly as they should.

I think it is a perception out there that somehow the gasoline companies are doing this certainly to try to take advantage of the market and try to get as much money as they can. Those are the kinds of questions I raised with those particular companies. They were certainly consumer-oriented questions from my part, but I had wanted to get a better feeling of the industry, not knowing the industry, trying to meet with a number of companies. For example, there was Domo, there was Petro-Canada, there was Shell, there was Esso, Imperial Oil.

Having met them and having listened to their explanation as to why they feel they need a certain margin and so on with regard to gasoline and/or cost of crude, I tried to pose some questions to them that I had been hearing certainly not only in my own constituency and home community, but questions that you often see: Every time there is a hike in gasoline prices, why is it the case that the drop does not appear to be as rapid? It was really a pleasure to meet those people and the executives that they sent, because I thought they were being very forthright.

I had explained at the time to these not only gentlemen but all staff, men and women that had been there to present, give presentations to myself and staff, that they certainly realized the quandary they were in, because every time you drive down whether it is Portage A venue or whether it is Main Street in Steinbach or Main Street and Dawson Trail in Lorette, you see the signs at these service stations. Every time the price goes up people see them going to work or going home, and it creates a lot of anxiety for people.

People do not have an understanding of why all of a sudden gasoline prices might jump by 5 cents a litre or drop, for that matter, by 5 cents a litre. There seems to be no explanation. I informed the companies that I was a little bit tired of being their public relations person. Why should the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, whether it be Minister Render or Minister Radcliffe before me and many other ministers, why should we, as government, have to justify price increases and not have a good handle on it?

They were not coming across successfully to me in justifying why those prices with regard to crude, for example, had to go up. I know that I mentioned to the critic for Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Member for Steinbach (Mr. Jim Penner), that I believe in giving their government credit when credit is due with regard to life leases and other issues. But also I like to make sure we take credit as well when it comes to issues that I feel we should be taking credit for, and that is with regard to gas prices.

I can further expand on that with regard to what we have tried to do, but I certainly just want to leave it there for now. * (15:50) But I would say that that is the kind of question that I raised with the industry, questions that I have certainly been hearing on the street and questions that consumers have been raising with regard to gas price increases and just the industry as a whole. Thank you. Mr. Jim Penner: I think all MLAs, Mr. Chairman, are concerned, because we have all got residents on fixed income and we have all got people who have to drive. The price is rather unfortunate.

I would like to briefly comment on

July 5, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 351 5 some of the findings from the gas task force in Ontario. I remember being in the grocery business when the price of beef, for example, would rise suddenly. It would rise everywhere on the same day. Everything in the pipeline, even though you do not sell it for two weeks after butchering, everything in the pipeline, the price went up. Then when the price went down, it took weeks or months. Finally sometimes it never came down, because the customers had gotten used to $2 a pound instead of $1 .70 a pound, so the price stayed.

I think this is probably what I am trying to show concern for, and that is maybe the lack of a competition bureau. The Province of Manitoba itself does not have a competition bureau, does it? Mr. Lemieux: I am sorry, may I ask the critic to repeat the question? Mr. Jim Penner: Mr. Chairman, does the Province of Manitoba, within your department or another department, have a competition bureau? Mr.

Lemieux: With regard to a consumer bureau, there is a Consumers branch, but not what I would call a watchdog on the industry, for example, on the gasoline industry, certainly that industry, to make sure that gas pricing is appropriate or even the margin that is being taken is appropriate. That is why, I know that what we did was, when meeting with the gas companies, you know, this point should be made. I know the Member for Steinbach, from my perspective when I was in sales and visiting his stores, I do not mind if I reminisce a little bit, and hopefully you do not.

One thing I learned quickly is that companies are not in the social assistance business. Companies are there, they hire people, are well respected for doing so, have the right to make a profit, and work extremely hard to do that. Often the margins that they get are very small. I do not think people understand that. I know that when I started looking in this industry, the gasoline industry, and asking questions related to it because of prices going up at the pump, I soon found out that their margins are very small as well.

Now, this is something that, when I referred back to sales, I realized that the product I was selling at the time to Penner Food Stores, there was such a small margin involved, it was quantity as well as quality that you were trying to sell. That is really where people made their money. That is the rationale that the gasoline companies, the petroleum industry, used with me, that the more litres that they can pass through, that is where they make their money. It is not on the amount they are making per litre.

I know that this particular pricing or this particular industry, I certainly do not want to come across, and I hope I am not, Mr. Chair, of slamming this industry or going after them. It is just that when I questioned them, I wanted to get some rationale, trying to understand how can I pass it on to the average person on the street in my home community as to an increase? How do you do that, and that is really difficult. So what we did is I asked them to try to produce some documents for the consumer to show and justify why the prices are what they are.

They talked about a document that was going to come out called the Gas Facts. The petroleum companies were going to be sending out gas documents, for example, on gas, and they were going to fax it out to all the industry, letting people know the rationale behind the price increases. Now, having spoken to the industry, I cannot say that I am really satisfied with a lot of their answers, because, quite plainly put, I think a lot of it was gobbledygook, and they were just rehashing often the same message over and over and over. It did not matter which company you saw.

Now, I know that Ontario certainly was looking at the gas pricing, and I know that we certainly were concerned with it enough, as well, to contact Minister Manley in Ottawa and to mention it to him. We certainly tried to lay out what we thought should be done. I know that Ontario, as the Member for Steinbach (Mr. Jim Penner) mentioned, they had just released the report and have a number of recommendations in there. They talk about the Competition Bureau investigations, how they should be shifted and changed, talking about the price burden, for

351 6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 5, 2000 example, the burden of proof for the Competition Bureau. Now, that particular industry is very difficult, and what are the options for the province of Manitoba? Well, they vary. I guess the province of Manitoba-it is not my preference, but you could open up or attempt to open up 10 service stations, I guess, if you wanted to try to affect the market and see what you could do. You could regulate it in the strictest sense of the word, as was done by the National Energy Program. Alberta, I think, spoke out on that, and I think even Petro-Canada.

The reason why Petro-Canada exists was because of that initially, but they realized that having a seat at the table did not necessarily give the consumer the window on the industry that they thought. So, I mean, those options are not my options, but I was trying to certainly get some justification of why the prices vary like that. So I certainly want to thank the Member for Steinbach (Mr.

Jim Penner) for the questions, because the questions related to the petroleum industry are very important, because, as he mentioned, there are people in all walks of life, whether they are on a fixed income or people in the agribusiness, whether they be farmers or otherwise, who depend on fuels whether they be diesel or otherwise. So I believe it is really important that questions like this be raised and questions like this be raised to the petroleum industry.

I want to just conclude my answer there, because certainly there is more to say, and I am sure the Member for Steinbach has more questions related possibly to this issue or others. So I certainly want to give him as much time to do that. Thank you. Mr. Jim Penner: Still on the gasoline issue, as was mentioned, the Ontario Gas Prices Review Task Force, which was struck in November '99 by Minister Runciman and his committee, filed a report in which most of the public consultations were done during February and March of the year 2000. The communities were surveyed, businesspeople, professional associations.

Many representatives made formal submissions. There were 80 formal submissions. So the Ontario Gas Prices Review Task Force report, Fairness at the Pump, submitted by Runciman on June 30 this year contains 14 recommendations to help ensure that the consumer gets a fair break at the pump. Are you familiar with these 14 recommend ations, Mr. Chairman? Is the Minister familiar with those recommendations? * (1 6:00) Mr. Lemieux: I thank the Member for Stein bach for the question. I have not had a chance to study them.

I have looked over a few of them, but I certainly have not had the opportunity in the last couple of days to study them. I have looked over a few of them, but I certainly have not had the opportunity in the last couple of days to study them. They were released, as was mentioned, the end of last week, and I never had an opportunity to study them thus far. I know that making reference to give the competition bureau sufficient resources and other things like that, I know that this issue has been studied for years and years.

Initially back in December and certainly into the fall, I contacted Minister Manley in Ottawa on the phone and by letter asking that some national body should look at this. It is a national issue; it is from coast to coast.

It should be something that should be looked at in sincerity, and there should be some body that should be funded because it is a national issue, should be funded out of Ottawa that should look at all provinces and all of the issues, because each province has different types of issues related to the industry, whether they be the northern part of the country, whether they be northern Manitoba, for example, compared to the south and the price differentiation or the differentiation between the prices. Those types of issues were very important.

So what we did was, in having conversation with Minister Manley, I expressed to him that I really felt that it was imperative that we have a national body do this. Now Minister Manley

July 5, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 351 7 stated that they were not sure how they were going to do this, but they thought that the recommendation was important and that we should be in touch. Fine. No sooner than we had had our meeting and discussions that Minister Manley, not shortly after I sent the letter recommending the body that we thought should be involved and having input from all the provinces on this body, that we should keep in dialogue, there should be dialogue, but he said that the federal government was sincerely looking at the issue.

Now I was not satisfied with that, obviously, because I felt somehow we may be left out of the picture and not have a say or the consumers in Manitoba may not have a say, and then we discovered that there was an announcement that the, I believe, Conference Board of Canada would be looking at this issue. Then they stated that there would be a number of sites where there would be public meetings and there would be a number of locations that they would be looking at, whether it was the Yukon and so on, gasoline pricing, the price of crude and then the price at the pump.

So my concern was, well, that is nice to look at gasoline, but we have a lot of truckers in Manitoba. We are the hub and the centre, geographically speaking certainly, of North America and of Canada. We have a lot of truckers that are certainly interested in fuel, in diesel fuel, and we have a lot of farmers in agriculture that somehow would be left out. I think there was going to be a meeting in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Quebec City and some place in the Maritimes. They were leaving out, they considered Calgary or Edmonton, I can be corrected on that, as being somehow representative of the prairie provinces.

So once again I returned and sent a letter to Minister Manley saying we really feel that Manitoba should be represented as a community, and so I am certainly waiting to hear something positive on that. We certainly have been informed that diesel would be looked at, would be part of the criteria that the Conference Board would be considering, but I know that this issue is certainly dear to the hearts of many Manitobans and many people in the prairies for that matter, so I felt that, as I mentioned to the Member opposite, credit should be given where credit is due.

With regard to life leases, the previous administration, was very good consumer-oriented legislation that they put forward, and I believe it will survive the test of time, but on the other hand, I think that credit should be given where it is due with regard to gasoline pricing. We have had a lot of initiatives. Minister Manley certainly did not start up a new committee with representation from all the provinces on it, but I think the federal government realized-and I do not mind taking credit for this, but we really pushed them to have a national body look at a national issue.

I can really feel proud of my department for being really vigilant on this and wanting to really pressure the federal government to make sure they address this on a national level. So the long and the short of it is I have not had a lot of opportunity to look through the 14 recommendations of the task force. What the Ontario government will find is that some of them are going to be repetitive.

As I said, I have not taken the opportunity to really look closely at all the recommendations, but I am sure the recommendations, the gas prices the task force in Ontario received, I think the Conference Board will find that a lot of the statements that are going to be coming forth with regard to gas pricing or diesel pricing will be a lot of what the input that the task force in Ontario received, because this issue just does not go away. It is an issue that is very important in Saskatchewan and extremely important in Manitoba as well.

I know that certainly one of the task force recommendations noted that the federal government should increase expenditure on Ontario highways. In Manitoba we are looking at the tax taken for Manitoba. I believe it was approximately $1 40 million. Out of $140 million, the federal government never put one cent back into highways. I would say the majority, almost the true majority, of all funds we raise in taxes, that 10 .5 cents that we raise in Manitoba, I would say certainly 99.9% or thereabouts of the dollars go back into highways.

A point we try to make with the federal government is that you are taking a great deal of an amount of money out of the province. Not only are you taking your percent at the pump, but you also have GST on top of it, and you are

351 8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 5, 2000 not putting one cent back into highways in Manitoba. In my discussions with a consumer group like CAA, one of the first things they had to say is how dissatisfied they were with the federal government. They were pleased. They felt Manitoba could do more with regard to highways, but they were really not happy at all with what the federal government was doing. They wanted us to put pressure on the federal government to put that tax money that they take out of the province every year back into highways.

With that particular recommendation that the federal government should increase expenditures on Ontario highways, well, I am not sure what the fund is. If it is around $1 40 million in Manitoba, I am not sure how many millions they will be taking out of Ontario. Certainly I am sure it would be at least double. I guess on a per capita basis, taking a look at Ontario's population as opposed to Manitoba's, it would be proportionate. So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude my comments with regard to the question from the Member for Steinbach.

I think the Conference Board is going to find a lot of the recommendations that are going to be coming across the table when they start getting input from the population is that many of the concerns, I am sure, are going to be similar to what were raised with the task force in Ontario. Also, the recommendations, having just briefly looked at some of them, certainly make a lot of sense. Thank you. Mr. Jim Penner: Mr.

Chairman, I would like to know if the Minister has put forward in his communications with the federal government some form of encouragement to have companies segment their earnings, what is called in the Competition Act divorcement legislation. Divorcement legislation would mean that one company could not be both a refiner and a retailer of gasoline so that the Competition Act could be more easily applied, although it does not have any teeth. But the Competition Bureau could be involved in exposing gauging.

I guess the reason for my question is that I know one oil company that I have been watching in the stock market has in about eight months or ten months now gone from a price of $1 8 a share to $29 a share. Now, if that oil company, the share values go up so quickly, and I am very happy that I have a few shares there, I have to think that the increased price at the pumps is not simply a cost of doing business. It is not simply a wellhead cost. The wellhead cost is a very small percentage of the price of a litre of fuel at the pumps.

There is the drilling component, there is shipping to processing, there is the actual processing of crude, then there is the shipping to the place of marketing, and then there is the cost of selling. * (1 6:1 0) But it seems to me that the people at the pump, as far as I can find out, and like you I have talked to people with many different brands of fuel, they are pretty well locked in to so many cents a litre. When the price changes, they do not seem to be the ones that are guilty.

But if the shares, stock value, of an oil company almost doubles in less than a year in proportion with the increase of prices, people buy shares based on the profitability of that company. I still think that a conglomerate, a Canadian task force of provinces, needs to go back to the drawing board and address this thing. As I said before, most people are on fixed income; most people feel threatened by the increase in cost of transportation.

I happen to live in Steinbach, but every morning when you come into Winnipeg there are literally thousands of vehicles on the road from eastern Manitoba, from southern Manitoba, and from the southwest, northeast. Many of these, of course, are tradesmen, and they eke out their living by being plasterers or something. They are pretty much locked into their ability to earn money. So what I am hearing from my friends in this business is that they feel that it has not been well addressed. Now I am not accusing this government of not addressing or trying to address it.

Rather, I think I am trying more to explore how we can as the legislators in Manitoba, the MLAs in Manitoba, put forward a position that would expose the area where this profit taking is happening. As I say, if in fact we would divorce, what is called divorcement legislation nationally, under

July 5, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 351 9 the Competition Act, the refiner and the retailer, then, of course, we would have a situation where the retailer would have to earn a little more money because he is now not part of the profit base from the refiner. But the refiner would become transparent. We would know who is making the money, and collusion would be more difficult. We know that the co-op system allows for some reduced costs in their taxation system, so the Co-op fuel people often can offer fuel for a lower price, but they are again both refiners and retailers.

In your correspondence of the Province -and if you want to, you can table that-with the federal government, have you addressed the separation of refiners and retailers? Mr. Lemieux: Well, I thank the Member from Steinbach (Mr. Jim Penner) for not only the question, but certainly the suggestion. I know that that has been a bit of a problem. I know there is legislation in some of the states in the United States, divorcing a refiner from the retailer and making sure that that exists for consumer protection.

I can say that that certainly is not a specific item that I posed to Minister Manley in my correspondence, but it is one that I think bears investigation or looking at. As was mentioned by the Member from Steinbach, when you start talking to the smaller retailer, you soon realize that, when the gas price shoots up by six cents and yet the small retailer is not making the profit margin, it seems as if the supplier, whoever is supplying that retailer-no pun intended-really has that small retailer over a barrel because they are dependent on that supplier.

They have a contract with that supplier, and it might be a two-year, three-year, five-year one. There are all kinds of conditions attached to that, and this is something that I learned about the industry, speaking to people for example, like Co-op. You soon find out, and just as a point that I should mention to the Member from Steinbach, having a conversation with Co-op, for example, it is interesting that Co-op really, because they have a refinery in Saskatchewan, thinks that is a big advantage for them to give the consumer a break.

Not only in the rebate at the end of the year, but they think that that is truly an advantage somehow by being able to refine as well as being able to get the product to market, and get it to their retailers that they own. Not only are they the refining end but the retailing end, and they put forward the point that that is an advantage. I know that it may be. It might be an advantage to them, but, as the Member from Steinbach rightly put it, is it an advantage to the consumer?

It might be an advantage to the Co-op because even though most of them are certainly public companies-they have the books that are available at the end of the year, and you can certainly see what they have made with regard to profit and so on; they are public-one even from that does not get a clear picture of the true profit they are making. I think this says a lot also about the critic of this department from Steinbach making note of the amount of people not only who travel into Winnipeg but the people who have a limited ability to increase their income.

When you talked about drywallers, when you talk about people in different trades, they have a limited amount of ability to increase the amount of money that they take into their own pocket and how much they are able to spend. I think that does say a lot about the Member opposite, and I certainly appreciate his questions, because I know he is not only concerned about his own constituents, but he also made mention about those people who have a limited ability to increase their spending. Yet gasoline is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Certainly this item is very, very important.

I know that it is anticipated certainly that the Conference Board study will look at divorce ment legislation, as it is in some states. I think that is an absolute. It is a very good point from the Member, that that is an issue that has to be looked at because when you are taking a look at gasoline, it was just mind-boggling. I am sure the Member, had he been in my shoes, would have found it the same. It is unbelievable.

The companies come to you with very glossy presentations and all kinds of documents and all kinds of bells and whistles, and it is very difficult to read through all of that when you are trying to get down to justification of why the price is as it is at the pump.

3520 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 5, 2000 I just want to maybe leave my points there. I know that certainly the federal government's use of its current consultation process on the amendments to the Competition Act to consider the inclusion of divorcement legislation nationally, as was mentioned, which would prohibit companies from being both a refiner and a retailer of gasoline is something that I understand is part of that criteria or something that they would be definitely looking at when their Conference Board is conducting their study.

Just prior to concluding my comment with regard to the Member's question, I want to introduce Ian Anderson. Ian who is sitting beside me now is someone that is in Research and Planning and certainly does keep a close eye with regard to the Department's responsibility with regard to gas pricing and so on. Ian certainly has been working with a number of previous governments before me and has been working in this department, so certainly he is what I call the gasoline guru-[interjection] The gasman.

On occasion, I am sure many Manitobans have received gas when they drive up and down the street and see the gas jumping up. by 6 cents a litre. Mr. Anderson is the gas guru and so I am pleased to see him. If there are any more specific questions that I am not familiar with or I do not have the answer for, I am more than pleased to present the Member for Steinbach with those answers a

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	37-1-56
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	37th 1st hansardpdf 56.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6a452a58c37bfd57cedce23fa2b4ca9d9b819533

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